Rebound

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sk1093h7dakqj965cq]133|100|Scoring: IMP Auction: you're South E - S - W - N P - 1♦ - P - 1♥ 1♠ - ?[/hv] At the time, I bid 3NT, gambling on K109x being a stop and a half. I think this was a mistake but it is not clear to me what the best bid is. 2♦ seems like an underbid and 3♦ seems like an overbid. If it please the court, I am interested in your opinion about this first, then I will post the rest of the hand because I have a further question.

To me, 3♣ looks too much like I am trying to get to 3NT. My vote was for 3♠ but I now believe this to be incorrect. I think 4♣ is a good call. I'm only sorry I didn't think of it.

Just for the record, my choice was 4NT. I only mention this because I wanted to thank Ben for his fine alanysis. It was very educational and I will make good use of it in future.

I really don't see any reason to do other than pass.

Although I somehow managed to neglect to submit my answers, I did record them before the contest closed. I now have mixed feelings. In a way I can't wait to see the panelists' answers Edit: As I was posting this Ben was posting some of the answers and I read the threads out of order :-) because, with the exception of this hand, where I voted for 2♥ (which at least has the virtue of many votes, judging by the responses in this thread), I seem to be off on the other hands in this set so I'm hoping I got this one right lol. (OT - Ben - any way to get my overall rank in round 1 just for curiosity's sake?) <snip> <snip> Anyway, about double - I don't like it because I have no strength in the club suit. I tend to avoid doubling for takout if all my strength is concentrated in my two longest suits. Seems to me that argues in favor of just naturally bidding the two suits you'd like to play in. If partner still wants to bid clubs you have no worry you'll end up playing with xxx opposite jxxxx in clubs when you'd be better off in a 7-card major suit fit. The way my brain has been working lately I may be off in left field with this post (if so, apologies for wasting your time), but it's the way I see it now anyway :-)

No offense, but to me it would seem pointless to bid a new suit unless you expect partner to make some use of the information. OTOH to me, how you expect partner to respond to that info would be a matter of style. If you tend to make thin slam tries I would go with the latter, but if they are very sound you should probably have partner cooperate when possible. Of course, I'm no expert, and there is surely a chance those among you will disagree. Just my 2 cents really.

Sorry, I never intended to take the thread so far off topic. I agree completely, of course, Roland. Such behaviour by any TD is appalling.

Fair enough. However, my reasoning for granting such a good result is upheld by the Laws. Law 12 sections B and C: B. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. C.2. When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. Judging by the fact that the opponents bid beyond 4♥ on the actual hand, I have little doubt they would have gotten to game. Mind you, the post you quote was intended to illustrate just that - that anyone who disagrees with a ruling of mine has only to point out where I have erred in law. Surely this is better than an arbitrary ruling with no such basis.

Put me in the "that's absurd" column. So you make an unexpected bid, one not covered by your system and you're supposed to advertise this to the opponents with an alert even though you can't explain its significance to them? I'm not arguing whether this is true, just that it doesn't make sense to me.

Well, this is, in fact, where the damage may lay if anything. It is one thing to debate whether or not a given call should be alerted. But a full explanation of any call is required if requested by the opponent. For this, perhaps a procedural penalty might be deserved. But as you mention, you were under time constraints, so I would consider those to be extenuating circumstances and to me a warning would be sufficient since the consensus seems to be you were not damaged by the failure to explain.

With all due respect, you must often expect partner's openings to be on the light side to pass with an opening hand. Just my opinion mind you.

Good point. However, I have been approaching this from the view that, regardless of the failure to alert, West's call of 4♥ takes away the need for North to make a call in any event. My post about what constitutes a convention was directed solely at the satatement no clear definition of a convention exists. I simply pointed out this is not the case. If, as has been pointed out, no agreement of the 4♣ call existed, I agree it was incumbent on North to say so, rather than that it was lead directing, although as I understand it, the question of the meaning of South's call did not arise until the opening lead was faced. So, to nutshell it, a judgement is called for: 1. If no agreement existed, the whole argument is essentially moot. 2. If an such an agreement existed, then I grant it ought to have been alerted but then the question becomes, 3. Was there damage caused by the failure to alert? West's argument seems to be that he wouldn't bid over 4♣ if it was lead directing rather than showing a 2-suiter. So, who do you believe? It looks to me like West was prepared to make another bid in any event, so I would have ruled against E/W, but that's just my opinion. Without being able to ascertain all the facts, (mind probes - when are we getting one? lol) I would just make a decision and stick to it. Finally, one last point. I firmly believe that, the stronger the player, the more incumbent it is upon him to protect himself. It has not been mentioned anywhere that E/W asked about the 4♣ bid before the end of the auction. Since W could have asked S what his bid was before calling 4♥ (this being BBO and not F2F) I have less sympathy for him, although this opinion is contingent on the overall ability of the player.

Sure it is. A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named. So, the first order of business in the actual case has more to do with whether N/S had a prior partnership agreement as to the meaning of the 4♣ call. If not, then it is, by definition, not alertable. It's hard to say in this case. There certainly is more than one possible meaning for the 4♣ call (well, perhaps exactly 2.) So, who do you believe? My take is that, just because North's length tells him partner's lead directing call is based on shortness rather than strength, it is lead directing nevertheless and the opponents have no recourse. Um seems I missed Luis's post - we seem to be more or less on the same page.

Well, while I heartily agree that it can't hurt to alert as often as it occurs to you on BBO, I respectfully submit that, at least in ACBL land, (I don't know about the rest of the world,) the distinction needs to be made between a conventional agreement and a treatment. Quoted from ACBL.org: Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted. A treatment is a natural call that carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Agreeing to open five-card majors is a treatment - when you open 1, partner "knows" you have five or more. This is indeed a message but not an unexpected one, so no Alert is required. Weak jump shifts, on the other hand, are unexpected and therefore Alertable. EXAMPLE: 1♣-P-2♠ If the 2 bid promises a spade suit of five or more cards, it is a natural call. The treatment involves the strength that the bid promises. If the call is forcing to game, no Alert is required. If it is weak or invitational, then it must be Alerted. Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them. So, taking this as a guideline, I would be hard-pressed to consider any of the calls mentioned to be alertable with one exception. As was mentioned, if 2♣ over 1♦ absolutely denies a 4CM, then I agree it should be alerted. This means that one would always call 1♠ holding 6 or 7 clubs and 4 spades. Just my 2 cents.

I would like to see what happens in terms of what the opponents play if, after drawing trump, ending in hand, you ruff a heart, play 2 diamonds, pitching 2 clubs, then ruff a diamond and another heart. Anyway, I am suspicious enough of the switch to a trump at T2 to play West for the club Q pretty much regardless.

First, I think it is great of you and the panelists to put in this effort, Ben. I'm sure we all understand and appreciate that it can be time-consuming. Just wanted to start with a big thank-you. Speaking for myself, I can't wait for the next one, even if the experts don't seem to agree with all my bidding decisions ;-) and I really enjoyed your added commentary. Cutting down to 6 hands seems reasonable. Perhaps even 5 would be ok if it would significantly reduce your workload and allow the quizes to be more frequent, i.e. to fit into your proposed 2-week time frame. Just my 2 cents. Great job!

Makes perfect sense to me. If you have a specific K ask for the club suit you're all set, although I confess I'd be in 7♥.

Nothing wrong with it. Opp's a pinhead... all move for the next round.

First of all, it seems E/W fixed themselves by over-bidding their way into a bad contract. Notice the first round of bidding. N/S passed the first round all together, and E bid 1NT over 1♠. What are they doing competing to 4♠? Alert aside, the opponents don't deserve protection from their own choices.

Thanks <silly grin>

Oh. Ok.

[Deleted due to being stupendously dumb]

Thanks. An alternative line once in dummy with the ♦ Q would be to hook a club right away and try to ruff clubs in dummy but I think it is (obviously?) inferior due to the possibility of giving up a heart trick either as a ruff or promotion. I dunno for sure tho. Hence the post.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s854hj102dak987cj10&w=s7haq875d102caq742&e=sak1032hk94dq64c63&s=sqj96h63dj53ck985]399|300|Scoring: MP I was West. Auction, uncontested. 1♥-1♠-2♣-4♥-all p[/hv] Pretty normal auction. Not necessarily the best defense, but North lead AK and a third ♦, winning in dummy, pitching a club from my hand. I then took 3 rounds of hearts, ending in dummy, followed by a ♣ to the Q, which held. I then cashed the ♣ A and the ♥ 8 to leave this position: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=s854hj102dak987cj10&w=s7haq875d102caq742&e=sak1032hk94dq64c63&s=sqj96h63dj53ck985]399|300|Scoring: MP I was West. Auction, uncontested. 1♥-1♠-2♣-4♥-all p[/hv] On the last ♥, South is cooked. So, wadda all you folks think? Good or lucky? In any event I am giving myself a pat on the back lol... I have a mental block when it comes to squeezes, so I am proud just to have played the cards the way I did :-)

Regarding ways to ensure the td of your tourney knows what he/she is doing: Whenever I run a tournament, the conditions of contest clearly state I am using the ACBL mid-chart and alert procedure and I provide a link to the site, advising that all rulings I make will adhere to the laws. This allows anyone who doubts my ruling to look it up for him/herself. To wit: in the first tourney I ran, I encountered this gem of a player. He opened 2♦. When asked what it was by his RHO, he said, "Multy (sic)". When RHO again asked for a description, he said, "it's multy, please bid." He refused to provide further information to the opponents and continued to insist the auction continue. When I arrived, I asked what the problem was. He said that RHO is an expert and should know what multy 2 diamonds is. I said that is irrelevant and warned him that he must provide an explanation of the agreed strength and distribution for the call and that the name of a convention was not sufficient. He still would not tell the opponents anything. So, although a major suit game was bid by only one other pair with the opposing cards, I explained to him and to the opponents once the hand was over, that since he would not explain the bid, I was forced to adjust the score. I adjusted it to 4♥ = in accordance with the law which states the opponents will receive the most favorable result that was at all likely if the irregularity did not occur. I invited the offender to look it up. I suppose I should add that if you disagree with this ruling, I would appreciate a response explaining why, for my own edification.