tgoodwinsr

We felt distinctly unlucky on Bd 13 -- not because of 1NT vs. 2D, but because we bid 3NT. We didn't bid any suit except diamonds. If opener's ace had been in spades, not clubs, 3NT would have been cold -- and presumably everyone would have bid just the same way. This isn't a complaint about the scoring, just an observation that blind chance plays a part in this type of contest. (In bridge, too.)

I don't expect to survive round 2, but it was so much fun to bid rounds 1 and 2 that I'd like to bid the hands in round 3 even though it won't count. Can this be arranged?

Our auction, after the raise to 3C, was 3D by overcaller, 3H by advancer, and 5C by overcaller. I think we have agreed that 4S by overcaller (over 3H) would have been a good bid, and enough to get us to 6C.

I want to correct my report of the hand in question: South actually had 1hcp (the jack of clubs), not none.

There was a hand in the Cayne team match this evening, where North opened 1NT, strong, at both tables. South was balanced, 3-4-3-3, with no high-card point. The bidding went around to West, who doubled. That ended it at one table, and 1NTx went down 800. A rescue operation was attempted at the other table. North-South had a 4-4 heart fit but didn't find it, playing instead 2Cx in a 3-3 club "fit." This was down 1100, so minus 800 in 1NTx was worth +7IMPs. No doubt the rescue operation was inept, but 2Hx wasn't going to be much of an improvement, if it was going to be an improvement at all. Sometimes it is best just to take your medicine in 1NTx, and hope that at the other table they start rescuing each other with a balanced hand opposite a balanced hand.

It makes you wish you were playing Raptor or something -- almost anything -- except a natural 1NT overcall, red vs. white. But partner knows he is red vs. white, too, and that means he should have the nuts, not some random 15-16 count, for his bid. Still, I expect he is going for 800 or so in 1NTx unless he has a five-card suit he can run to. The trouble with initiating a runout operation from my side of the table is that we are likely to end up in some crummy 4-3 fit at the two-level, and even if a 4-4 fit exists and we find it, I'd bet on 1100 or so in two of whatever that suit is, doubled. Look, they are likely to have the same problem at the other table, so what's the rush to make a bad situation worse?

Danish comedian -- Victor Borge

The hesitation suggests that "doing something" might well be more profitable than "doing nothing." The only plausible alternative to "doing nothing" for a player who was prepared to defend two spades undoubled is to defend four spades doubled, so that is the alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI. QED

Howard may have been -- probably was -- well advised not to make any statements about this matter. You shouldn't draw any inference, whether favorable or adverse, from his silence.

I don't know, either, whether the Vanderbilt and Spingold were ever restricted to Americans. One of them, the Spingold, is officially the "Masters" team championship, which means you must have 100+ ACBL masterpoints to be eligible to play. (There was a time when 100 masterpoints meant something.) Maybe that kept some foreign players out.

hrothgar: "I seem to recall commenting in the original thread that this would degenerate into a pissing match between Wolff and Piltch." Rexford: "It sounded to me like Wolff was asked to respond, partially because Wolff was dragged into the discussion. . . ." Rexford is right: Wolff was asked to respond, and did so. His response purported to correct factual inaccuracies in someone else's post(s), and it doesn't appear that he was pissing on Piltch or anybody else. [it should be possible to determine who is right on the facts, if this matters.] Further, hrothgar, there hasn't been anything at all in these threads from Piltch, so it is a little hard on him to say that he is engaged in a pissing contest. Yes, Piltch has had supporters here, including BudH and TimD. But Bud's contributions seem intended to explain the factual circumstances of the Spingold deal, and Delaney's seem to be mainly an effort -- misguided, many would thing -- to provide a technical explanation for Piltch's bidding. Even if you think Bud and Tim are Piltch sycophants -- and I am pretty sure that Bud, at least, is not (I don't know TimD) -- it seems inaccurate to characterize their contributions as part of a Wolff-Piltch pissing contest. I suspect that you, hrothgar, have strong feelings about (or against) both Piltch and Wolff, and you are letting those feelings obscure any analysis of what did or did not happen in New Orleans.

My team was 9th/16th in the 1981 Spingold, winning a 1-out-of-3 three-way in Rd 1 and then two regular matches in Rds. 2 & 3. I don't remember how many teams entered the event, but it was obviously more than 64 (and fewer than 128). Can you guess what this was worth to our team in terms of masterpoints? Answer: 12.50. I believe the winners that year got 125.00, but I could be mistaken about that.

There have been some pretty silly threads in BBO Forums, but it is hard to see how this one can be topped.

If it possible without UI, that ends the matter unless there is proof of UI. If it is not possible without UI, then . . . res ipsa. That means you don't need proof of UI (under this alternative), because the assumption ("not possible without UI") provides the proof. If you decide that UI is proven because the bid is impossible without it, you still haven't shown how the UI was obtained. And if you can't show that, you can't impose discipline (punishment), only score adjustment (like a civil remedy). The principles aren't complicated, but it may not be easy to show that the bid wasn't possible in the absence of UI.

Are you people acquainted with the concept of "res ipsa loquitur"? In tort law, it refers to the assumption that an injury was caused by someone's negligence, because the accident was of the kind that wouldn't have happened without somebody being negligent. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove exactly how the defendant was negligent, only that someone must have been negligent and that the defendant was that someone (or somebody legally responsible for that someone's negligence). In the Spingold incident, the "plaintiffs" are arguing that the 6D bidder must have had UI, because (in their view) nobody would have bid 6D without having UI -- res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. They are further suggesting that UI can be presumed even in the absence of proof of just how the UI came about. Maybe that is right, and maybe it is enough to support a "civil judgment" -- that is, a score adjustment. That would depend on just how strong the inference is, that the bid is impossible without UI. (Pursuing the tort-law analogy, some accidents happen without negligence by anyone: they are just accidents. "Res ipsa" doesn't apply in such cases.) A civil judgment is one thing, but a criminal conviction is another. For the latter, you should be required to produce proof -- and proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- of just what the defendant is alleged to have done. It is one thing to find that there must have been UI (res ipsa loquitur), but quite another to find that C&E should be involved (because disciplinary action should require concrete proof of what was actually done). I am not expressing an opinion about whether the inference of UI is strong enough to be treated as res ipsa in this case; I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that. But I am expressing the opinion that without more than has been revealed in this forum, there isn't enough there for what amounts to a criminal conviction.

continuing previous post (which got discontinued inadvertently): One popular move [by ACBL officialdom at the 1986 Fall Nationals] was an experimental mechanism providing possible redress for players damaged by a "lucky coincidence." The onus was transferred to the lucky side to show reasonableness if, for example, one partner held back when the other had stretched, or if an outlandish view in bidding or play met with unlikely success because of the lie of the cards. There is much value in giving a "fixed" player a shoulder to cry on, even where score adjustment is impractical. Moves in this direction included further use of and publicity for the "Recorder" system of entering complaints . . . . (BW, Feb., 1987, p.2) The editorial was silent about what other "moves in this direction" were being considered. But the application of the principles outlined in the editorial to the 6D controversy seems pretty obvious.

The more things change . . . . This was in a Bridge World editorial, February 1987:

Are you getting old? Yes, we all are.

Whatever you do will be unsatisfactory to some contestants. I vote for whatever method doesn't knock my partnership out of an eleventh-place tie.

A detail omitted from my last post: If it does 2D-P-2S and you have a normal long-suit overcall of spades, it is reasonably safe to pass for now. If it goes all P, that means opener has spades behind you and you are well out of the bidding. Otherwise opener will convert to hearts, and you can reconsider the matter on the next round.

Regarding our proposal that 2D-P-2M-Dbl. is takeout of OM (and therefore penalty-oriented toward M), not takeout of M: After 2D-P-2H, you could agree (as we have) that 2S is "takeout of hearts" -- that is, it doesn't imply long spades, only four. We are more or less stuck if it goes 2D-P-2S and we have a normal takeout double of spades. We have to pass, at least if near minimum for a takeout double of spades. If 2S gets passed around to No. 2, he will have to be aware of this possibility. Our guiding principle is that we want to maximize chances to penalize the 2D side. We concede that this may cause problems when we should be on offense. We can only hope that we get some profits from defending (doubled) to make up for whatever losses we incur from offensive inefficiency.

We believe that defensive methods vs. Multi should give priority to catching them for a penalty. If that is right, 2D-P-2M-Dbl. as a takeout double of OM is better than 2D-P-2M-Dbl. as a takeout double of M, because the first version is also a penalty double of M. The contest hand, with KJxxx of spades and Axx of hearts, is perhaps a questionable takeout double of 2S (meaning a takeout double of hearts), but I think I'd chance it anyway because of the prospect of punishing them in spades. [Crowhurst played the 4th-hand double this way as long ago as 1980 -- Acol in Competition. Maybe it hasn't stood the test of time.]

Puerto Rico is (still) part of USA.

Matmat seems to have it right: a bidding-box fumble, not caught in time. If that is it, it sets a new record for serendipity -- and I would have expected that explanation to be included in the original report.

I can imagine no plausible explanation of 6D. Nor can I imagine a player who has some sort of wire that 6D is the objective cannot plan a more plausible route to that contract. So the whole thing is baffling, at least to me. Was there a protest/hearing?