rhm

Fine in theory. Can you point to one single case, where this has convincingly shown somebody was cheating. To avoid selection bias you would need to record all deals somebody plays, not the ones where the opponents call the director and claim, "we have been robbed". The current procedure looks to me more like a tool to intimidate people taking unusual actions: "Don`t do this again, or face the consequences. Big brother is watching you" Sorry but I do not get it What is so "weird" about a bid, which has almost a 40% chance to be successful? You must be a truly great player if you never jumped to a contract over a preempt, which turned out on later scrutiny to have less than 40%. Or maybe you are just very conservative. My analysis seems to indicate that given the 3♠ preempt, chances for a slam to be there is about 70% What the perpetrator may have got wrong is that the he (probably) misjudged the the relative merits between 6 ♦ compared to 6♣. What is certainly true is that if 6♦ makes, your chances to get a useful swing are high. I said several times I would not have chosen this bid. I would call the bid eccentric. But in my dictionary weird or absurd is something very different. Rainer Herrmann

Rainer you are a smart guy, surely you don't view this as being a reason that 6D might be a good bid to try. When it is the only making slam surely a lot of the time you will get their via normal bidding (like starting with double). Much of the time it is the only making slam, I'm sure partner has diamond length. If you start with a double and then keep bidding, if partner has diamond length he'll probably bid diamonds at some point. It will be a very very rare hand indeed that the only way to get to 6D is to overcall it. Agreed I have never claimed that a direct 6♦ jump would be my choice, even if I would be desperate. Rainer Herrmann

What percentage of those hands find partner with the King of diamonds? I'm not even close to an expert, but with the hand in the post and perhaps with most of the hands in the simulations, I'll give thought to raising partner to 7 diamonds, especially if I take partner at his word and/or swing some myself. Imagine the problem the 6D bid gives partner on some of the hands. Surely they are as much or more than the problems LHO has. If your partner jumps to slam over a preempt you should not assume that your partner has 12 solid tricks in his hand and that the slam will make opposite a yarborough. Neither should your partner assume, when he considers various actions over a preempt that you are broke. (Mike Lawrence suggested that you assume around 7 HCP for partner, maybe slightly less when you are stronger) Otherwise you would get stolen blind far too often. So the king of ♦ in itself, though certainly a useful card, is not enough justification to raise Rainer Herrmann

Well, why would it - neither side has won, neither side has lost. I think both sides have lost: Justin has lost because he made a public accusation of cheating, Piltch has lost because he has been accused of cheating and lots of misinformation about the past has been tossed about. Yes Tim, but the problem is that Piltch has lost through no fault of his own and only because of someone else's hot headed and apparently incorrect action. Actually a number of people are now suggesting that the ACBL should take action against the other party. Yes the ACBL just loves mountains of unnecessary legal fees! Btw what makes you think Piltch was faultless and that the action was "apparently incorrect"? I can not see what the 6♦ bidder did wrong. Faultlessness can not be proven, faults have to be. 6♦ was a perfectly legal bid. Justin thought it was bizarre Closer inspection shows (according to my simulations with dealmaster pro) that after the 3♠ preempt 6♦ has close to a 40% chance of making It will be the only making slam in about 10% of all deals ( There was at least one other independent simulation which came to similar conclusions) Now the hand is difficult to bid over a 3♠ preempt and ♦ as the right strain may often be hard to reach by "normal" methods. 6♦ over 3♠ will sometimes put LHO in a difficult position. In my opinion 6♦ is eccentric (I would not choose it, but of course I also have my flights of fancy), but 6♦ is neither absurd nor illogical and not bizarre given the state oft the match. Justin may disagree, but this is his assessment. It is not unknown that even experts grossly misjudge the merits and disadvantages or what the probability are, that a bid may gain or loose. There was nothing wrong bringing the board itself into the public domain. But Justin clearly accused his opponent of unethical behavior and came at least close of accusing him implicitly of cheating. Where do we end up with if people accuse their opponents of unethical behavior, whenever an eccentric bid (which may look bizarre on first inspection) happens to be successful? In my opinion this is not acceptable. Rainer Herrmann

I doubt whether this is relevant, because the Bridge player choosing 6♦ had of course no access to this data at the time of the decision. But any experienced Bridge player will tell you that 6 ♣ is more likely to be mirrored in the other room than 6 ♦ as a final contract after the ♠ preempt. But to satisfy your curiosity: when 6♣ is down, 6 ♦ makes in 21% of the 436 deals. --> this is what actually happened. when 6♣ makes, 6 ♦ makes in 53% of the 564 deals when 6 ♦ is down 6 ♣ makes in 44% of the 613 deals when 6 ♦ makes 6♣ makes in 77% of the 387 deals So yes, given the facts 6 ♦ is against the odds and 6♣ has better chances to succeed. Rainer Herrmann

How did 6♣ go on those same parameters? 6C made on 56.4% of all deals double dummy (same parameter). But 6C is a much more likely contract to be reached in the other room. It is not such a swingy action Rainer Herrmann

I think nothing so far brought forward justifies the suspicion that cheating or UI took place. Given the bidding it is clear that the chance that partner has 4 or more diamonds is substantial and I am not even sure whether it is an underdog. (Slam still maybe) It is also clear that in this case a diamond slam will require least from partner to make (particularly single dummy after this bidding), but may be hard to reach and this action is very likely to create a swing. LHO may also have a very difficult decision whether to sacrifice or not. I can not judge whether the action taken was dumb or brilliant or something in between However , being a lot of IMPs behind, I admire the creativeness of the action taken and it does not look dumb to me. I did a simulation (1000 deals) I specified for RHO: Exactly 7 cards in spades headed by either two of the top three honors or three out of the top five honors At most 10 HCP result: slam in diamonds made in 38.7 % of the deals double dummy. For a shooting action against superior opponents this looks reasonable to me. In my opinion people jump to conclusion that something is fishy far too fast for no good reason. I deplore the fact that you can get a "reputation" rather quickly if you are not a famous expert and take creative actions, which are not considered standard in this game. So I am anything but surprised that some claim this player, who I do not know, has a "reputation". How would people have reacted if say Zia, being 100 IMPs down, would have taken this action? Probably most would have called the action "brilliant" and printed it in the newspaper. This is a creative game and this is a major reason why I like this game. I would love to be more creative and less rule based. I see no good reason to call even the director It is good sportsmanship to take such a result with a poker face or a good laugh and congratulate the opponents for their judgment. Rainer Herrmann

A simulation (1000) deals assuming both hands are at least semi balanced (but no other constraints like suit quality, intermediates, distribution of points between declarer and dummy etc.) shows a success rate double dummy of 32%. In practice (single dummy) it is likely to be slightly higher but not by very much, certainly below 40%. Rainer Herrmann

As I understand WJ05 you should pass with 12-14, showing 0-3 cards in ♦ by implication, since in my opinion the weak variant of 1♣ in WJ05 denies 4 or more cards in ♦. Opener's pass is strictly strength denying not showing tolerance for a ♦ contract. If LHO passes, partner can SOS RDBL if he wants opener to improve the contract. 1♠ in second position should deny the weak variant, but does not show necessarily 18+. Opener could also have 4 cards in ♠ with longer ♣ and 15-17 Rainer Herrmann

I do not on purpose exclude any relevant information from my calculation nor do I have any interest in favoring the finesse (plan 1) over the drop (plan 2). I freely admit that the precision of probability calculations may be a bit misleading since they are dependent on the assumptions you are making. Fact is that East overcalled a weak suit and then both West and East passed. I see from the fact that West passed and from the lead I can deduce something relevant. This limits his strength and his major suit length I do not see very much you can deduce from the final pass of East. East-West have 20 points. Even if all the remaining HCP except for the known king of ♦ are with East, it is not clear whether bidding on (probably DBL) is clearly correct and Pass is not. If West has nothing bidding on from East's perspective may be a disaster. And even if East is 3=3=6=1 a DBL is not clearcut in my opinion. It is not clear that East would overcall 1NT now with a 4 card major. Maybe East would act with a void in clubs Making the following assumptions: WEST no 5 card ♠ suit, no 6 card ♥ suit at most a doubleton ♦ East no void in ♣, no 5card major Then West will still have 4 cards in ♣ 38% of the time Playing for the drop will now work 69.5% for 5 tricks while the finesse works "only" 64.5% of the time but will guarantee the contract. This means the finesse will give you an overtrick 5% less often than playing for the drop, but 30% of the time you will be down playing for the drop. After this favorable lead I have no doubts what will in the long term maximize your matchpoint score. Rainer Herrmann

Both underbid in my opinion. While East should have raised 4♦, slam was out of the picture. Reopening in the balancing position with a void in opponents suit does not require such a powerhouse and East should give West some leeway for contesting the part-score. Accordingly I agree with East's 4♣ bid. For example few West would pass 3♥ with: ♠ AQJxx ♥ - ♦ Qxxxx ♣ Axx The actual West had a 3 looser hand and the bidding made it likely that the ♠ finesse would work. Anyway West should assume that East can cover one of his losers. The bidding made it also likely that East would have support for ♦. It seems reasonable to assume that North South have a nine card fit in ♥ and after East 4♣ bid, it was clear that East had fewer than 3 cards in ♠. Therefor East must have at least 7 cards in the minors. East quite rightly bid "pass or correct" over the reopening DBL, which means his ♦ support would be at least as good as his ♣ support. Accordingly 4♦ was too little. If West bids a brave 5♦ over 4 ♣, East has an easy raise to 6♦. Rainer Herrmann

"Strong" is a strong word. Can you give an example of a hand where you think West would have bid because of length in the majors? This is easy. My statement was, if anything, an understatement We know that West has the king of ♦ If West has 6 ♠s, he would have to have ♠ AKQxxx, his pass and lead being clearly ridiculous. If West had 6 ♥s, he would have to have in ♥ at least KTxxxx, which together with the king of ♦ would still justify a 2♥ bid over 1NT If West held 5-5 in the majors he would have to have at least ♠KQxxx ♥Txxxx ♦K ♣xx (with East having precisely the singleton ace of ♠ and the doubleton AK of ♥) and West should still bid 2♣ over 1NT. For all practical purposes West is marked with less than 6 cards in ♥ and less than 5 cards in ♠. Otherwise he would have enough distribution and/or HCP to act. I have recalculated the odds for the drop and for the finesse under these conditions: A 3-2 ♣ break reduces to 57.4%, in other words the chance that West has 4 or more cards in ♣ increases to 42.6%. (East having 4 or more ♣ is impossible) The chances of the finesse and drop to gain 5 tricks in ♣ are practical identical. This chance is according to my calculations around 64.3% . Rainer Herrmann

Sorry but I beg to differ. There is a strong negative inference from West inaction: The fact that West did neither overcall in a major over 1NT nor showed both majors with 2♣ makes it more likely, not less, that he holds length in ♣. My calculated odds for the finesse are too conservative. Rainer Herrmann

Finessing the ♣8 seems clear at IMPs. So let us concentrate on Matchpoints: It is crucial that East overcalled 1♦ and West led the king of ♦ It seems very likely that ♦ will break 2-6 or even 1-7. (East has overcalled on a nine high suit). It follows that West has at least 11 unknown cards outside of ♦ and East at most 7 unknown cards. This changes the odds whether the jack of ♣ will drop or should be finessed That West has the jack of ♣ is not 50% but better than 61% For the same reason the chance that West has 4 or 5 cards in ♣ is now more than 32% and in the unlikely event that East has 4 ♣ to the jack you should also finesse. The total probability for this is now almost 37% A 3-2 break in ♣ is now according to my calculations less than 63% So where is the advantage for playing for the drop? Your chances for making 5 ♣ tricks by finessing is about as good as playing for the drop. But if you play for the drop you either will make an overtrick or you will be down if the jack does not drop. If you finesse you will either make an over trick or at least make your contract when the finesse fails. Take into account that you are in a good contract and got a very favorable lead and there is a lot to be said to play safe for a positive score. Run the ♣ 8. Rainer Herrmann

You are unlikely to get more than 4 or 5 tricks from trumps so you will need at least 5 tricks from the red suits. Run the ♥ ten. If the ♥ finesse fails, you can afford only one trump loser and will probably need the queen doubleton of trumps in front to have a chance and no ♦ ruff. So you will next plan to play trumps from hand. Essentially you try for 4 trump tricks and 6 tricks in the red suits If the ten of ♥ holds or gets covered, you can afford two trump losers and your plan should be for a controlled cross-ruff. Ruff 2 ♣ by coming back to hand in the red suits. Now cash the remaining ♥ and discard your last ♦ from hand. You will then have to judge from the play whether West is more likely to hold the 4th ♥ (more or less certain if the queen of ♥ is still outstanding) or whether to play West for a third ♦. So play a red card where West will have to follow and ruff low or over-ruff East if possible, to ruff your last ♣. This likely will restrict opponents to 2 trump tricks. If East ruffs high and plays 2 rounds of trumps hope that the king of ♦ will stand up to discard your last ♣. Rainer Herrmann

Win and run the ♣8 I believe this play to be correct even at Matchpoints. Rainer Herrmann

Responder could probably have 5+ clubs since 2♣ would be nonforcing for most. Responder could possible have a fit since for some there is a gap between 2♦ and a constructive raise (2NT, 3♣, or whatever we play), which can be filled by redbl followed by bidding diamonds. Responder certainly doesn't need game values although his 2♠ bid does show game values. If he doubles, passes or bids diamonds as his next turn he may have less than game values. But indeed I think most wouldn't have a 5-card major. So assume for example you hold with your partner opening 1♦: ♠ AKxxxx ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣ AJ Bidding starts 1♦ --(DBL) -- ??? --(Pass) 2♦ --(Pass) --??? How do you describe such a hand if RDBL denies a 5 card major? Rainer Herrmann

Win in hand and duck a ♦ Win the trump return in dummy and now try the ♦ finesse. If it looses hope that LHO is out of trumps. If not hope LHO has Kxx in ♣. Rainer Herrmann

Is this treatment universal? True 1♠ is a one round force nowadays over DBL. But how do you develop a game forcing one-suiter where the suit is re-biddable but not good enough for jumping to game unsupported on the first or second round? If opponents keep quiet after the DBL this might be difficult if you start with 1♠ over DBL. What is wrong with RDBL and follow up bidding your suit if you want to force to game, particularly if your suit happens to be ♠? Rainer Herrmann

Not true. If East has A(J/T)xx to West (J/T)87, you make by playing low from dummy even if East has the ♦Ace (blocking the Spade suit). Correct. Rainer Herrmann

Going on seems clear to me. Partner's sequence does not show a desire to double them but that this is our hand not theirs. If I had a clearcut slam try I would make it. 5♥ might be misinterpreted. In an expert partnership pass and pull should invite slam. But unless I have such an agreement I would simply bid 5♠ with a less than expert partner. Rainer Herrmann

Assuming West has not led the ♠ 7 from JT7 you can not make if East has both aces. Otherwise, assuming ♦ come in for 3 tricks, you can not loose by playing the queen of ♠ on the first trick and holding up your king of ♠, whether the queen holds or not. Rainer Herrmann

If declarer has a doubleton ♠ and 12 tricks you need of course to overtake and shoot back a ♠. This can happen in a number of ways: When declarer has a singleton ♦, or the king doubleton or third in ♦. Overtaking will cost whenever declarer has 11 top tricks and a singleton ♠, since his 12 th trick is now a ruffing finesse in ♠. This looks more likely. (Killing dummy's entries by shooting back presumably a ♦ makes little sense, because you might as well not overtake the ♠ in this case). The dangerous case is where declarer has 7 cards in ♥ and the doubleton king of ♦. In this case declarer has ten tricks in the red suits and your partner will need to hold the king of ♣. Now when the jack of ♠ holds, a double squeeze is looming: Partner will have to look after the fourth ♦, while you are the only one, who can look after the ♠ menace in dummy. Accordingly nobody can look after the ♣. Your partner will have to switch to ♣ away from his king to break up the double squeeze, not an easy defense to find but entirely logical. If West is an expert defender, he will deduce that this defense can not cost, even if you held the King of ♦ and declarer the ace queen of ♣, because declarer will not have enough tricks in this scenario. Rainer Herrmann

So let's look at the bidding from the North perspective: At the point North bypassed 3NT at pairs, was North assuming that South, who forced to game with a ♣ suit, where he held at most 3 HCP, had virtually no points in the red suits either? But then South must have at least the QJ of ♣ and AKQ in ♠ to justify his game force, in which case 3NT will still be lay-down and 6C must have some play. It seems to me that North has quite a good hand opposite a game force. Passing in a minor suit game, when you have extras and know that 3NT makes, just risks this kind of disaster at match-points. I would rather invest and risk 15.5% to get a top score. Rainer Herrmann

Why is 2♠ absurd? What hand would now bid 2♠ bid in your opinion? Some have hinted that the hand might be a bit strong for a jump to 3♣. If we assume that a penalty pass of a 1 level overcall shows some values, I agree. 2♠ is the only clear force at this point (without any specific agreements), different to Pass or 2♥ and must show a desire to reach game. Since you did not reverse into ♦ and your major suit lengths must be limited (no double of 1♠) it must show a good ♣ suit among your goodies. If an expert partner bids 3♣ over 2♠, I would give up, because with the ♣ King I would expect him to bid 3♠ and with something in ♠ I would expect him to bid 2NT or 3NT. Granted that this is all not carved in stone, but if we assume an expert partnership it looks logical to me. Since 2♠ is forcing, you can always bid 3NT thereafter and 3NT might be better from partner's side if he happens to hold something in ♠ like Qx, which is not unlikely. (♠ is likely your weak spot in a 3NT contract) 2♠ was my choice and it did not fare well either. My guess is that not many (like you) even thought about the 2♠ bid and what it implies and that's why it probably did not score well. I do not know why it is absurd though. It seems clearly superior to a direct jump to 3NT. Rainer Herrmann