Math609

Probably mgoetze got a brick in his head. Now he thinks we are dealing with a language problem :wacko: But before that he expressed his opinion on Nige1 (#171): “Maybe I'm not the only one who has nige1's posts filtered out by default”. ...and on Vampyr (#198): “My opinion of you was elevated for about 10 seconds! (The time between seeing that you had upvoted bluejak's post, which seemed like a classy action, and reading your retraction...)” And by the way, is this a “deviation” from a intellectual discussion? <_<

Do we need another brick in the wall? I dont think so. The lost brick was there all the time, glued to the systemwall. They just didnt recognize it right away when they saw it. But when they saw it they knew it was the right brick. And this brick didnt deviate from the other bricks. After all it was a part og the "great" brickwork! The brick was there, maybe unexpected. But it was there after all. That's why East didn't found any other brick to fit in the wall. No deviation, the brick was a part of the wall!

I can’t see that comparison of two similar bidding sequences is of no value as WellSpyder is implying. On the contrary I think it’s good and healthy for the overall discussion. So WellSpyder thinks I’ve weakened my case (what case, bye the way? deviation-case?). And how WellSpyder has earned all his experince sounds like research project to me. He has never raised his partner on a doubleton in this common 2/1 sequence and has not either seen anyone else do it. Great Scott! Well, I have a considerable experince and have in decades played with and against the strongest players here in Iceland. Just last week I raised my partner to 3♥ on a AK doubleton and we got to the only winning game on ♠KJ753 ♥AK ♦842 ♣752 ♠Q8 ♥QJ954 ♦AKQ9 ♣108 My opinion of the 3♥ bid: It’s a plain and good and solid bridge! It did not cross my mind to bid anything else. Two or three weeks before that I had a similar problem. I choose to raise partner to 3♥ on KD doubleton and we reached a slam in hearts. Spades were 4-1 so no spade slam. Finesse in diamonds worked and we got a diamond lead, but that's another story. This was our hands: ♠KQ863 ♥KD ♦D6 ♣7532 ♠A54 ♥AG10963 ♦AJ4 ♣8 Surely I had the choice here to bid 3♣, but I didn't like it on such a poor suit. 2NT is of course also a possibility but my holding in the minors is not great. But of several options I choose to bid 3♥ which I know is open to discussion because I have other alternatives. I hope this will clarify the issue for WellSpyder and I hope some day in the future he will find the right moment to raise partners suit in this sequence on a good doubleton.

Of course West believed at the table that 3♥ promised “at least 3 herats”. He said so when asked for clarfication of the bidding. All I’m saying is that in the post mortem he didn’t disagree with his partners explanition that he had “no other bid” playing this system. I dont understand what alphatango is trying to show us with theese game invitational hand with 6-card in hearts. What is the problem with these hands after openers rebid of 3♥? I have alredy in post #215 given some information of the system EW played. Of course I have information of this system they play, not their actaul notes, but general notes of the system. I have also learned some of their own notes from that time. So for further information for alphatango I can describe more better the meaning of two bid after responders 2♦: 3♠: 6+♠s, singleton/void in ♥s, 18+. 3NT: 6♠s, singleton/void in ♥s, stopper(s) in the minors, 18+. In my opinion the main reason for this "hole" in their system is that they dont play 2NT as a forcing bid as is suggested in the system notes i have in hand. For some reason or another they choose to deviate from the general system. I suggest that alphatango and others read my post #215 for further information. I would also like to know how they describe this natural bidding sequence (non contested): 1♠ - 2♥ 3♥ - 4♥/4♠ As I said before, no experinced player would ask for clarification here. But suppose he did. Would you say "3♥ promises at least 3 hearts"? Would anyone with some experince confirm this understanding? Of course not! We all know that in some situation partners best and only bid is to give a raise on a good doubleton. So we wouldn't dear to say that the 3♥-bid promises 3 hearts. Just a natural bid and natural bridge, can be doubleton.

It´s very difficult to participate in a discussion if you dont follow all the time. No evidence that responder agreed with this assessment? Let´s only say that he didn't disagree! Not manifestly obvious that 3♥ was the "only right bid"? He, who played the system, thought so and confirmed his opinion at the table! Do we need any more confirmation? Or are we going to argue with the player who plays the system and most presumably knows the system better than we do? Maybe I forgot to explain in my last answer that 3NT rebid to 2♦ shows singleton/void in hearts, most probably 6+♠ and 18+. So this hand does not fit under that category. Sorry, I thought is was rather obvious that 3NT shows no tolerance for hearts. If responder, by any chance, holds ♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦Txx ♣Qxx as alphatango is suggesting and are facing a rebid of 3♥ from opener, then he has the obvious call of 3NT. Meaning game invitational hand with excactly 5 hearts.

It seems to me that we are again and again comparing apples and oranges. For some reason many think that East had deviated from the system by jump-rising partners suit with only doubleton. But actually he had many reason for doing so: If partner is weak he has 6♥. If partner has game invitational hand he has 6+♥ or probably 5+♥ and 3+♠. What other choises has East over 2♦? 2 ♥ is to play opposite a weak hand, 2♠ shows 6+♠ and singleton/void in ♥, 2NT is non-forcing as already has been confirmed, 3 in a minor is natural, a hand too strong to bid 2♥, but not willing to play 4♥ even if responder has good six card suit. Usually around 17-18 with ♥shortness, not forcing. If you look at theese possibilities then it is rather obvious that 3♥ was a quite natural/normal bid on Easts hand. And that was confirmed at the table that 3♥ was simply the only right bid on this hand. After all it´s rather surprising to learn that the EW-par had this "hole" in their system. Maybe a lack of partnership discussion is the reason. Or maybe they could´nt handle this unusal and complex system. Having explained the main stucture after 1♥ 2♦, how can we talk about deviation? In my mind you deviate from your system when you open 1NT on a say ♠AQxx ♥KG10x ♦A ♣QJxx. You clearly had the option to open 1♣, but chosse to deviate from the system by open this hand with 1NT. And clearly 1NT was not the only right bid on this hand. And now to the main point concerning deviation. Im rather surprised that no one has mentioned a similar non contested sequence in a normal system: 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 4♥/4♠ I think no experinced player would ask for clarification here, but lets say for arguments sake that the defence ask for clarification. Any one here that would say that 3♥ promises at least 3 hearts? I dont think so! Would the rise to 3♥ on a doubleton be a deviation here? Certainly not, on the contrary its somtimes the only right bid as all experinced players know. Although its not very common (but not rare by any sense) to rise partners suit on a doubleton in this sequence, you wouldnt dear to state that partner has promised at lesat 3 hearts. I think the conclusion is very obvious: We can skip the deviation-variable when dealing with this problem.

Accurately described, accurately described and again accurately described! Tell me another one :D On the contrary the description of their agreement over 2♦ was obviously very inaccurate. So inaccurate indeed that they left the opponents, with no knowledge of the system, in total darkness. And that prooved to be very harmful for the defence. It is now obvious that West believed that that his partner had 3 hearts and East believed that the system bid was 3♥ on a doubleton ("my only bid"). So much of accuracy here! But to justify some kind of ruling here some put a new variable in the equation and very convenied one, "deviation". Wery easy task after that.

Correction: We are talking about E/W heren not N/S. It's true that E/W has not played this system for significant length of time, 1 year I think, maybe a little more. But if my memory is right, East had played this system before with another partner. Is this information of a great importance? I don't think so. I just repeat what Nigel has said before: The understanding about that call (3♥) is therefore implicit in your system, even if you have never discussed it and it's never come up before. But the point I would like to stress here is what E/W did not say at the table. Is a minor answer of "at least 3 hearts" good enough when playing a highly unusual system, totally unknown to the opponents? Was it really souths responsibility to ask for further information? Given a better information the defence might have worked things out at the table. See my post #187.

I am not sure how instructive this discussion has been. Overall I think Nigel’s post has impressed me the most. But I must admit that in many cases the discussion here is confusing and directless as it does not touch the real issue. One think it’s sufficent to confirm his statement with “experince” while another one is asked to proof his statement with a mathematical proof!! In other words one has to proof mathematically that a certain distribution beetween two hands is a everyday distribution! What kind of distribution? The distribution when an 16-19 hcp opening hand with a major is facing a partner with the other major, which of course is a everyday problem so to speek. The answer “experince” was of course adequate here if we are talking to an experinced player. And every experinced player knows that! And the ask for mathematical proof was really a naive question and got the smile from someone, wery understandable. And now the guy turned his pages in his Encyclopedia and got it all wrong, sad to say. Everyday hand was no longer a everyday hand...major facing a major is not a everday problem :blink:

I think we can do lot better than that. For the first we have similar situation when holding a heart suit against 5+ spade suit so the same problem rises there after the transfer bid to spade. Secondly it's not necessary to have 5 cards in the heart suit, you can also have 6-cards and we are facing a similar problem. Only when holding void/singleton in the transfer suit you can rebid your 6-card suit. The frequency? Hard to say, but obviously no rarity.

So Blackshoe thinks it is ridiculous to punish (hang) EW. So Blackshoe will obviously punish the innocent side which of course is ridiculous in it's own way. How Blackshoe reach his conclusion is beyond my understanding. Here are some important facts that we have not discussed properly and is of some (great) significance: (1) It was admitted at the table that 3H was the only right bid on this hand. So no deviation in my opinion. (2) The bid was not explained as highly invitational. That's perhaps alright because some could say that is rather obvious... (3) The bid was not explained as the only bid available to invite to game in hearts. That's a very, very important information for NS, which they didn't get. (4) It was not explained to NS that 2NT (instead of 3H) would be a non-forcing bid. Also a very, very important information which NS didn't get. (5) It was not explained that very often the 2D-bidder holds an 6-card suit in hearts (similar to weak two in hearts). Also a very important information which NS didn't get. The 2D bid was alerted at the table and explained as at least 5-card suit in hearts, no further information added. Perhaps alright at that point in the bidding sequence, but not good enough when asked later about the meaning of 3H. Now some say, that the pair who just described the bidding of 3H as "at least 3 hearts" and gave no further explanation of this very complex system is in top of things! Just fix your "rebidding-hole" before next tournament. No harm done guys, good luck! Sorry NS, nothing we can do for you...

Who is lying?? The first quote is certainly not from me!! My first statement about this deal was indeed #38 and I don't recall that I have ever changed my story. On the contrary I have stayed very firm in my writing. Sadly, this is not the first time Hrothgar wrongly accuses me! Now I'm accused for lying, but in #91 Hrothgar very strongly implied that I was accusing EW for cheating!! But as I pointed out at that time I had on the contrary asserted that this pair is a very honest one. So Hrothgar, please stop accusing me for something I haven't done. The discussion deserves a higher level than that!

Htothgar base his ruling on that very dubious base that 3H was an deviation from the system. How can 3H be an deviation if it was the only right bidding on this hand? Bluejak says that everyone has a hole in their system, including me. True, very true. But what bothers me is that when a pair discover a hole in their system which proves to be very expensive for their opponents, you put forward a three sentence ruling: Deviation. Fix your system. The opponents pay the price! So, we are dealing with lots of holes, not only in a bidding system. We have possibly holes in the law of bridge and it seems to me that we also have holes in a flawless reasoning.

The result stands, says Hrothgar. And maybe he is right...in the "darkness" of the law. The EW pair is obviously playing a very unusual system with a great deficiencies. That is not what you assume from a former National Champions. And all their explanations is as minimalism in art... The message from Hrothgar is very clear: Guys, you have a serious and obvious hole in your unusual system. But according to the law I just call this deviation. And that's alright if you fix it before the next tournament. I rule that NS should pay the price for this modification. Good luck! Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Whether there was an systematic basis for bidding 3♥ with a doubleton? It certainly was...hence Easts comment: "I had no other bid on this hand" It must be added that 2NT would not be a forcing bid here, which is rather unusual. But that systematic agreement was never explained to NS which must be of some importance. We surely can assume that there was some hidden systematic agreement involved in their system, therefore East noticed the gap at the table...and therefore we have some gap in his partners explanations. Regarding the two last questions in the last letter, I think I can guarantee that the pairs answer is NO. East certainly observed the systematic gap at the table. Maybe this is enough for everybody and will not lead to any conclusion. Probably a very difficult case for any AC.

In my opinion all facts are very clear and I doubt that any further talk to the players will clarify things better. Here is the facts that are relevant: (1) EW is a strong pair, former National masters. They are honest and know their duties. (2) It has been established after this hand that there was a gap in EW system. (3) East was certainly aware of the gap at the table. Why? He said more than once when we discussed the bidding: "I had no other bid for my hand!" (4) West's explanation was very inaccurate, to say the least: "At least 3 hearts". He gave no further detail of the system. His explanation of course meant that East hold at least 3 or more hearts, but NEVER 2 hearts. Hence his description was very misleading with severe consequences for the defense. The defense was indeed helpless after his explanation. (5) East, aware of the inaccurate answer from his partner and also aware of the gap in the system, remained totally silent. Should he? I really don't know what more facts you need, or what further questions is needed to be asked here.

Thank you for your answer, but it raises another question: Is it a standard operating procedure for AC to ,, talk to the players, ask them questions, find out whether they really had a hole in their system, whether they knew it if so, how far the description should or should not be watered down, and so forth,,?

More as I read it looks to me we might get a different ruling depending on who of the law experts here inside were in AC. So what is your final verdict? 1) Agree with TD? 2) Agree with AC? 3) Another ruling? 4) Unsolveble problem?

As I have looked more closely into this case I’m convinced that West wasn’t carefull enough when describing his partners bid of 3♥, especially when playing a rare and unusual system unknown to his opponents. Hence, his (very) inaccurate description misled the defence with horrible consequences for the defence as you all know. But whether this is classified under misexplaination, misinformation or something else I will leve it to the law experts to discuss. In my opinion West should have described the bidding of 3♥ closely to the following way: ,,3♥ is an invitational (natural) bid, 2NT wouldn’t have been a forcing bid,, With this wery brief description he says about everything that has to be said concerning the pairs method of bidding and some of the main structure of the system. That 2NT is not a forcing bid is a substantial and valuable information that should not be a ,,hidden folder,, in the EW-system. Certainly not. Whether West’s very inadequate or misleading answer was due to carelessness or laziness is not the issue here. We all pay our price for that kind of behavior at the bridge table (many times actually) and also according to the law. My final verdict: 4♥-1 (both ways). True, it is a harsh ruling but what else can we do?

♦A is the correct play (100% play) when you know that declarer has 3+ hearts. I have analysed this before. See post nr. 44 <_<

In the old days I was worried about the China syndrome, but now I’m facing the Ice-cube syndrome: People looking in to the 10%, when evaluating things, and forget about or deliberately boycotting the other 90%.

No problem to quit here. I think I've made my point and I also hope that i've clarified some aspects that might be relevant. But some people don't think so. But still, I've to say that you took a fully one-sided view when you expressed your opinion regarding some conversation here inside...Not fair conclusion in my opinion and most probably not the right one either.

As I've alredy stadet: Further conversation with you is usless. Try to respect that... Change your opinion with someone else, I'm totally def when you speak. Sorry. Ps. My advice: Talk to the AC (ICEmachine). They made the ruling, not I.

Looking at the Law we can see: 40. Special Partnership Understandings ,,A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score,, and later... ,,The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent’s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged,, I think it’s fair to say that information given (by West) to NS was wery limited to say the least. Probably we can say the information was inadequate, because NS never got information about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. For instance if I had got that information that 2NT was not forcing (contrary to what most players would think) I might have reached that conclusion that East had possibly some problem with his hand... But, I’m a very experinced player so I understand these inadequate situations at the table and therby I also understand why this special case is so difficult from a legal point of view, but as they often say: Lady justice is blind. But how blind is she?

Maybe my english is not good, but if it’s good enough then you dosen’t seem to understand a discussion from general point of view. That must be rather obvious to everyone. So any further conversation with you is useless of course. Ps. I’ve never said that this particular pair often deviates from their system, on the contrary I’ve said before that this par was a very honest one. My advice to you? Read more carefully before you speak!