mfa1010

It is also about system. 5♠ can theoretical mean one of these three only: 1) Sign-off. No need for a poll, since pass is obv a LA. 2) Forcing opposite 4KC. No need for a poll, since pass is obv not a LA. 3) Invitational. A poll could be helpful to investigate if not accepting is a LA. TD should first try to establish NS's methods. Only if he finds that they are "(3)" or "possibly (3)", he could meaningfully launch a poll about hand evaluation. The right question would then be: "What would you bid after 5♠, assuming that 5♠ is agreed as invitational?" I very much doubt that TD got that right. --- A different poll is possible. TD might feel on shaky ground as to what is expert standard. It is unlikely that NS can provide documentation about if they play (1), (2) or (3), but if expert standard is very clear, maybe that can serve partly as some form of background, if it corresponds to what NS claim. The right question to investigate if such standard exists is: "How would you interpret 5♠ partnering an unknown player [of the relevant level]?" --- The question that I fear that TD was asking and which would be almost worthless is: "What would you do after 5♠?" Then we wouldn't know from the answer if was based on system (being a "(1)" or a "(2)") or if it was based on hand evaluation (being a "(3)").

Polling players is almost worthless on this one. They will not give us a bridge evaluation of the hand but instead tell us how they personally interpret 5♠. And what matters is not the pollee's system but NS's system. And what that system is, is for the TD to judge. I concede that there are players out there who would treat 5♠ as a sign off. But we are told that this is second division in Israel, and if that is roughly as strong as second division in Denmark, then they are quite decent players. Interpreting 5♠ as a sign-off is in my opinion way-way off normal expert thinking, and I would expect quite decent players to think like that very, very rarely. So I would be easy to convince that raising with 4 key cards is part of their methods in practice. Or in other words. I would be very reluctant to foist upon them some system interpretation that I consider an outright out-of-level mistake. I would (also) be shocked if someone called the TD in this situation at my table. It is his right of course, and I would not critisize it since bullying opponents from calling the TD is so bad, but it just wouldn't have occurred to me to call him. After this thread I have come to remember a similar episode from 6-7 years ago in the Danish League. Some opp jump-raised his partner (1mi-1ma-3ma) and then showed 0/3. It didn't occur to me at all to call the TD when he later raised partner's slow 5ma with 3 key cards.

Yep, you are absolutely right, han. But I still think that passing the second double is a decent shot, though.

I think any bid but 2♥ shows something. Perhaps 1♠ was better when we do have the ♠K. 2♥ is an option, as is 2NT, but I like pass. I would expect 2NT now to show some values and a 4card heart suit.

We play that 3♥ is minimum but pass is only slightly encouraging if there is another way to show values. This treatment is especially useful after (1-level) overcalls that might be complete rubbish. I don't think much focus should be on doubling them. Either player can double for penalties and it happens but not very often.

(Didn't see the double post). The answer to the thread's title question is a clear no. I think it was a terrible ruling. There is no such thing in normal bidding as a sign off opposite 4 key cards. Pass is not a LA. All the talk about what constitutes a super acceptance or what responder might be able to calculate about opener's key cards is irrelevant, because responder really didn't have to go into all that speculation. Responder can trust opener not to stay out of slam with 4 out of 5 key cards, so speculative calculations are not necessary. This is just very ordinary bidding really.

I would allow it. There is no such thing in normal bidding as a sign-off opposite 4 key cards after asking for them. I'm not going to force some very weird bidding upon them because of a hesitation. Pass is not a LA.

Just curious, how does that work?

Standard expert methods are 3♥ is weakest option and pass more encouraging. Some play something different (and/or fancy) but that goes for just about any bidding sequence, I guess.

2♥ shows 5-4, and ideally we want chunky suits for a fit bid, that is secondary stuff. When we suddenly show up with 6-5 and 2 key cards, we can't expect partner to foresee that. I think it's a quite bad bidding plan to bid 2♥ and then try to catch up. 2♥ might even be final conract. But catch up we must when we get a second chance. It's not partnership trust in my world to misdescribe and then lean back. No thanks, I don't agree with that. Good idea. It's a nice way to learn.

X and pass. I think X is much superior to 4♦, since it caters to clubs and 3NT also. If partner bids 3NT I'm happy with my stiff ♠K.

These examples are rather strained as they are so carefully picked that the nice 1-5-6-1 gets nothing out of its extra distribution. Single club vs single club. 12 card fit missing the ace. Spade Q. About the bidding I agree fully with the numeric. South's bidding plan of blasting 5♦ is ok in principle but just a little too pessimistic with his actual values. North is on thin ice. 2♥ does not do justification to his hand at all, so he must try to catch up later. (I don't like 2♥ for that reason.) North should therefore clearly bid over 5♦ and he has to take most of the charge for this accident.

Most will probably play it from north, and that might be a lot easier. For instance, heart lead to Q and K, ♦AK and another, heart back. Likely 8 tricks then.

Double.

Pass. I'm not tempted to double. Seems like mp panic to me.

XX = multisuited takeout, any 2x to play. When we discuss "standard" in here, it is usually understood to be acbl standard, and what that is in this sequence, I really don't care... :) Something where pass is not to play is very bad in my opinion.

Gus and Tom won the Copenhagen Bridge Invitational Pro-Am that preceeded the main event, which is being played this Fri-Sun. http://www.copenhagen-bridge-invitational.com/ Gus Hansen learned the game as a teenager but hasn't been playing much. He is fascinated by the game though and reads a lot of bridge litterature. He seems to have great flair for the game. It was fun to have him participating Thursday! He usually never attends any tourneys in Denmark (or anywhere else as far as I know).

I have never played (or wanted to play) Namyats, but if I did I would open this hand 4♣. There are 9 tricks, is that not enough for 4♣?

But what about north? :D

I play it as takeout, but "there is no standard" seems to be the right answer. If partner had doubled instead of bidding 2♦, I play my X of 2♥ as penalty. My partner insists. :)

D. Takeout, but partner will pass often. He can't expect more shape than what I have. He will autopass this for instance, and 4♠ is not going to make. I'll lead my singleton, since I have control over trumps.

It's just that EW seem so much more likely to get it right at the table than NS. E is a thinking person. Maybe he has noticed the hole already (it's not like it's a small one...). Or maybe he will be able to figure out what is going on if something looks strange underway. In bidding or in defense. NS on the other hand have virtually no chance. They are only told about a piece of the whole system (the meaning of double) and it is unrealistic that they will ever suspect a hole and a consequent offbeat bid. This annoys me.

Perhaps, but are you bidding 5♦ over 4♠ later? If not then it could be better to live with the disparity and be sure to get both suits in.

I have no clue. I'll try a brave 5♦.

East is not bidding his hand, he is guessing. East should take-out double 2♠ to get his values across. When he decided to pass it is very hard to catch up later, but passing again was not quite the way to do it... :) West has other options than 2♥. 2NT or 4♥ were also possible, but 2♥ is ok.