dburn

I have a lot of sympathy with this argument - it is the one Jeff Rubens used to advance in the Bridge World for just "doing what you would do anyway" even in the presence of UI from partner. This strategy is now considerably more strongly supported by Law 16 than it used to be, but it remains counter-indicated by Law 73 (which is why I remark that these two Laws are self-contradictory - or more exactly, why taken together they create a body of Laws that is self-contradictory; as was correctly pointed out to me the other day, neither actually contradicts itself). If, as aquahombre and others remark, you make the "normal" call having taken care to convince yourself that it really is normal, you are not necessarily in violation of L16, for to you there are no logical alternatives to the call you made. Of course, your peer group may consider that (in effect) there were, and you should of course submit to such a judgement. But suppose that I held this hand, and suppose my partner doubled very slowly. Now, maybe he had some 12-count with ♠Qx and only three hearts, and maybe he was doubling very slowly because he was screwing his courage to the sticking-point and beyond before he doubled. If he has such a hand, surely I should pass - we won't make anything, and they won't make 3♠ doubled. That's not likely, though - the opponents won't often have only eight spades for this auction, and besides, partner would double only moderately slowly (or not at all) with some shapeless junk, not double very slowly. Far, far more often than that my guy will be doubling very slowly because he has some 0=4=(5-4) or 0=3=(6-4) monster hand and is terrified that I will leave the double in, so I should not. That is why I consider that although L16 does not oblige me to pass, L73 might oblige me to pass, especially since some very strong players in their contributions to this thread have remarked that pass "could work" or "is reasonable", or words to that effect. A poll of such players per L16 would not provide evidence for enforcing a pass, since none of them actually would pass, but if bidding scored 2140 in 7♣ while pass scored 100 against 3♠ doubled, I might still consider that the opponents had a case under L73.

In a recent match, declarer played a club (a side suit) towards dummy in this position: [hv=n=skj962&w=sq107&e=sa84&s=s53]399|300|[/hv] West played a slow seven and South (who needed only to make one trick and avoid two losers) called for the king. I, East, considered ducking (the position regarding the suit and the success or failure of the contract were apparent to at least South and East). Should I in fact have done so?

This is an ancient (but nonetheless partially valid) argument that can be expressed more simply in these terms: You open 1♠ and partner thinks for a while before producing a limit raise to 3♠. Now, assuming that you have no prior knowledge of partner's tendencies towards aggression or conservatism, that slow 3♠ bid could be either a 2.5♠ bid or a 3.5♠ bid - nothing is suggested either way. You have a marginal reraise to 4♠. Are you at liberty to make it, and entitled to plus 420 or 620 if successful in your contract? Jallerton, as far as I can tell, would say yes. I would say no. In fact, I said "no" some years ago when as a member of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee I suggested the adoption of a general principle to the effect that when someone does something slowly, the UI that someone's partner is assumed to have is that someone does not want the auction to proceed "pass-pass-pass". This principle will not work in all cases, nor of course will it eliminate "reverse hesitations", where someone who really does want there to be no more bidding will act slowly in order to bar partner. But since one must try to impose some sort of order on the chaos that is Law 16, despite the best efforts of the Law makers to confound such an attempt by also creating Law 73, it is at any rate a starting point. The alternatives are either to allow full-scale cheating (since a slow raise to 3♠ demonstrably suggests nothing, people are at liberty to use it systemically until the officials detect a pattern, which would take years) or to cancel all good results achieved after slow actions on the basis that whatever X is, a slow action could demonstrably suggest X. Neither alternative seems to me particularly desirable.

seems entirely reasonable. This is actually quite a difficult "helpmate" problem - can North take no tricks with spades as trumps, assuming the best defence and the worst play? But it is not "entirely reasonable" for anyone to be called upon to solve it as part of the administration of a game of bridge. Suppose that with the ruling on this board outstanding, the (knock-out) match score is plus 1 IMP to North-South's team, and that East-West at the other table record plus 400 (unlikely, but they might have defended a higher-level spade cue bid and defeated it eight tricks on "normal" play - bridge is a funny game, although it is not intended to be). Now: if North is ruled down eight or fewer in three spades, he wins the match; if he is ruled down nine, he loses it. Is jallerton's notion simply that because of North's outburst when he found himself declarer in 3♠, a Committee should be formed that might or might not solve the tricky problem of whether North could, if he made strenuous efforts, have gone down nine?

It does not really matter how many tricks he claimed or conceded. If the Director is notified before the expiry of the correction period that the score for an illegal concession has been recorded (3♠ down nine), he will award declarer the fewest number of tricks achievable by "normal" play.

No, of course not. If you do bid 3NT, you may have violated Law 73C, although you have not violated Law 16B. Those Laws used to be complementary; they are now self-contradictory.

Nine, I imagine. But I am somewhat mystified as to what the point of all this may be. If the notion is that instead of scoring the board as 3♠ down nine, the Director should on his own initiative make some determination as to the actual result to be recorded, I have no difficulty with that. Though if you were to ask me to sit on an AC in order to determine, in the face of a challenge by some member of the offending side, what the result of the worst "normal" play by declarer might be, I hope you would understand if instead I went to the pub - I play enough hands misere on my own, without being required to do it by proxy. If you are asking what a Director should do in future cases of this kind, he should follow Laws 70 and 71 as closely as he is able. It is true that declarer has abandoned his hand; it is also true that his "claim statement" is sufficiently meaningless as not to constitute a claim statement at all, so that he has per L68B1 conceded all the tricks; but it is equally true that L71 means that he should in fact be credited with some of them. If you are asking what procedural or disciplinary or other penalties should be applied in this or similar cases, that is a matter for the Director at the time. If instead you merely wish to engender research on the maximum size of a storm that may be generated in a teacup, that is beyond my competence - I am no meteorologist.

Could easily work to pass - we will need nine fast ones to make 3NT, and why should we have them? Indeed, at the table I would certainly pass a very slow double, which is likely some distributional monster that was afraid of doubling (in case I did pass), but eventually could not think of anything else to do. I'm supposed to "carefully avoid taking advantage from [that] unauthorized information", right? The trouble is that over an in-tempo double, of course I would bid 3NT - we might have nine fast ones anyway (♥AQxx, ♦QJxx, ♣A opposite) with 3♠ down one or two (or even making). And if partner has a really distributional real monster, he will go on over 3NT and we will reach our laydown grand slam. Now, if everyone is like me and the other posters so far, the 3NT bid will be allowed because there are no logical alternative actions, where a logical alternative action is: "one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Pass could work by going plus when 3NT would go minus, and I would briefly consider but reject it over an in-tempo double for the reasons above. The only time I would actually pass is if partner doubled slowly, because that is what Law 73 tells me to do. Yet Law 16 tells me that it's actually OK for me not to pass even so. The words of Hilaire Belloc occur to my mind, and not for the first time either: Is there any reward? I'm beginning to doubt it. I am broken and bored - Is there any reward? Reassure me, Good Lord, And inform me about it. Is there any reward? I'm beginning to doubt it.

Would not blame anyone very much for the actual auction - one of the toughest things to do is identify key jacks that solidify suits. Greatly prefer 3♠ to 4♦ over 3♥, chiefly because it gives responder a chance. If opener does not bid 3NT or 4♣ next, responder can hope for something like his actual hand - 5=2=4=2 with not much in diamonds and (maybe) not ♣K, hence his opening bid is all in the majors. Still, ♠J is a very big card, and like shyams I see no way for responder to ascertain its presence with certainty. Move that jack to the diamond suit, and game is high enough.

When I click on an item in the News window using the Windows client, it brings up Internet Explorer (after the usual half-hour wait for that behemoth to load) regardless of the fact that my default browser is Mozilla Firefox. Is there anything I can do about this on my side? or does it need a fix on your side? (not asking for one - just curious).

If one of your higher priorities is to determine whether to punish the opponents by playing in 2♣ redoubled when advantageous to do so, you might consider: Pass = either a strong desire to play 2♣ redoubled (5+ clubs) or no desire to play 2♣ redoubled, but no major. Redouble = a "medium" desire to play 2♣ redoubled (4 good clubs). 2♦ = 5+ diamonds. 2♥ / ♠ = 4+ cards, no desire to play 2♣ redoubled. After pass, partner redoubles to play facing 5+ clubs (and opener with no desire to play 2♣ redoubled bids 2♦, which will usually be a 4-card suit unless he has four bad clubs). After redouble, partner passes or does whatever he would have done after a 2♦ response to Stayman (taking care to bid 2♦ and not pass if he would have passed a 2♦ response, bien entendu). Here 3♣ is obviously not natural, and can be used for whatever purpose you like. The same principle can be used if a transfer is doubled; e.g. after 1NT - 2♦ (Double): Pass = either 5 diamonds or only two hearts (shown by pulling partner's redouble to 2♥). Redouble = 4 good diamonds. 2♥ = 3+ hearts, no desire to play 2♦ redoubled.

What follows is long and not especially interesting, but someone expressed surprise that I had not given an opinion on this case. I plead both ignorance and laziness, and ask for 203,478 similar offenses to be taken into consideration. I am not sure exactly what took place here - if I read correctly, the players came to a decision at the table that declarer would indeed make three heart tricks, so the claim was not referred to a Director. The question appears to be: what would have happened if it had been? Well, the Director applies these Laws in order: Law 70A In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. This raises the unfortunate question of what "equitably" means; since no one knows, any given ruling is likely to generate more heat than light, but we cannot help that. For the moment we note only that "any doubtful point... shall be resolved against the claimer". Law 70B 1. The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Next, the Director hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections). 3. The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. In this case, the "clarification statement" appeared to be "I have three heart tricks." I assume in what follows that the defenders did not (as it appears that they actually did at the table) inquire as to how declarer proposed to make those tricks; I assume that either defender merely objected to the claim. See Law 70D3 below for guidance on what should be done if, for example, East had conceded the claim at the table after declarer had said that he would run ♥10 next, but West had objected on the grounds that he might have false-carded from ♥KJ(+) and wanted a Director's ruling at this point. Of course, no one would ever play with such a West again, but at least under the 2007 Laws it is far easier than it was under the 1997 Laws to rule against him as well as ostracizing him. Law 70D 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. [...2...] 3. In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim. Here, one might take the view that the successful line of play at the table is "embraced in the original clarification statement"; declarer thinks he knows which opponent holds ♥J and will play accordingly to make the three heart tricks he has claimed. Unfortunately... Law 70E 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless [...] failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. It is clear that the original clarification statement contained no indication that declarer would play so as to find East and not West with ♥J. A suggestion has been made (if I read correctly) that this has been implied by declarer but not stated, so should be treated as if it had been stated; I can find no basis in language or in Law for such a procedure. Declarer has not stated that he will run the ten next, so it is open to the Director to adjudicate on the basis that he would not. The question is, then, whether it would be "irrational" for declarer to lose a trick to East's remaining ♥Jxx by catering for West's holding the jack despite having won the nine with the king. The Laws provide no definition of either "rational" or "irrational", so the Director must make his own judgment; he may, of course, be guided by local regulation as to the meaning of those terms, by works of reference, or by common sense (though if he had any of that, he would have delegated the question to a junior Director forthwith). The many posts on this question so far have indicated no more than that there is a wide variety of opinion as to what might be an irrational course for a declarer of this particular class to adopt. It has been inferred that declarer cannot be all that strong a player, or he would not have played in this fashion to begin with. But such deductions are flimsy at best on the basis of such scanty evidence; it is true that a technician would play the suit by leading the queen, but a psychologist who as a player is as strong as or stronger than the technician might decide to gauge East's reaction to the play of a low card from dummy, since the difference in percentage chance of success between the two lines is very small. The word "irrational" means "contrary to reason", but this is capable of (at least) two interpretations in this context. On the one hand, we may say that to lose a trick to ♥Jxx is "rational" because there is a good reason for it: West might have false-carded, and if he would do so whenever he should do so, a "rational" declarer should lose the trick. On the other hand, we may say that a player who is convinced from West's play of the king that East holds the jack would have no reason to play the queen next; to do so would for this player be "contrary to reason". This dual meaning of the term "irrational" has led to much grief and anguish in the adjudication of claims, and this case is one of many examples of why. For myself, I imagine that I would incline to the second interpretation and allow the claim, all other things being equal. But I would have sympathy with a Director who inclined to the first interpretation and disallowed the claim, or even with a Director who took the view that declarer might have forgotten about the jack having successfully finessed against it, and believed the remainder of his cards to be high. I have, as always, no sympathy whatsoever with the current Laws relating to claims.

I know what your expert means :) Assume for the sake of argument that South is the dummy, and that after round one of the suit both East and West know that North has a doubleton. The actual case cited by Rubens had these pips: A643 (dummy) KJ (declarer) For reasons best known to himself, declarer chose to play the king, then the jack to the ace, then ruff the third round. Rubens says only that when each opponent has followed to three rounds, the fact that each of them has three cards in the suit may be regarded as "fixed" for the purposes of vacant space calculations. This is important, because it contradicts received wisdom that only suits whose complete distribution is known may be included in such calculations. But Rubens implies, if I have read him aright, that the location of the remaining card in the suit ("The Last One Left") is arbitrary - that is: assuming nothing else is known about the distribution, West is as likely as East to have the twelfth and master card in the suit. I know (or at least I think I know) that if dummy's holding were A543, the location of The Last One Left is not arbitrary at all - the holder of the two is a 4/3 favorite to have the queen-equivalent. But in Rubens's actual example, the holder of the five must also play it before the fourth round, so that... well, so that for the moment I am inclined to accept Little Kid's view of the matter. But I don't know. That's why I asked.

Well I see the automatic transfer bid is the choice of the majority which looks IMO suicidal as our defense rates to really suck. I would try anything that might keep the opps out of 4♠ and that includes giving them plenty of leeway to play in 3♠. The best choice of call for that looks like 2NT which leaves the minors open to them but eliminates 2♠ as an option. I don't understand this at all. If you think that your LHO will bid spades over whatever you do, then you should pass, because your RHO may not raise a 2♠ balance, while he will certainly raise a 3♠ bid over 2NT or any other fatuous effort. But there is no particular reason to suppose that East will have enough to bid 4♠ over 4♥, unless he is Larry Cohen (who would bid this without necessarily looking at his hand first).

Well, you can play the three or the two or the seven or (if you like) the ten. That isn't actually the problem, which is to avoid being shouted at from trick two onwards. Apologies for lack of clarity.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sk6hqj10dqj973ca54&s=sa872hak54d2c10732]133|200|Scoring: Rubber[/hv] North, Zia, opens 1♦, you bid 1♥, he bids 1NT (12-14). Having noticed that he does this with a four-card spade suit, you (not playing checkback, which is disallowed at rubber bridge) bid 2♠ (forcing for one round). He bids 4♥ (the man ain't got no culture), and the lead is ♣Q to the ace, king (RHO is Robert Sheehan, LHO is not quite so distinguished a performer) and you play a card of your choice. Avoid being shouted at.

Delighted to agree with Jlall, perhaps for the first and last time in our respective lives, but hey...

With: 54 AKQ3 you cash three rounds. West follows with the six, seven and ten; East with the two, eight and nine. If you had to bet your life on which opponent had the jack, whom would you choose? The answer is East, because you will survive four times out of seven. Unless you understand this, please don't try to answer the next questions. With: 65 AKQ4 you cash three rounds. West follows with the two, seven and ten; East with the three, eight and nine. On which opponent will you now place your bet? What if West had followed with the two, three and ten, and East with the seven, eight and nine? If your answer is "it depends on the bidding, the opening lead, the opponents' signalling methods, the competence of East and West in the field of game theory, the weather, the..." then you are a very fine bridge player and should turn your mind to many of the real problems on this forum. If on the other hand you have some time to help me with a baffling question, please contribute - especially if you are Jeff Rubens.

In this sort of position I tend to play: Pass = either no desire to play in 2♣ redoubled but no descriptive bid available, or a strong desire to play in 2♣ redoubled; Redouble = a suggestion that we play in 2♣ redoubled; Bid = no desire to attempt 2♣ redoubled, showing some additional feature of my hand. So, I could redouble with this hand but would pass with ♣AQ109x. Partner, of course, redoubles if he wants to play there facing that, or bids naturally otherwise. With an unfamiliar partner I can't do any of this, nor will I know whether or not I should pass if he redoubles, since I won't know what he intends by that. Since I don't seem to have anything clear to bid, I will pass for the moment and bid 2NT if he does redouble.

Was it a mistake? Maybe it depends on the circumstances. If the slam had been bid by Zia, in a last ditch attempt to win the Lederer single-handed, then we would all applaud his audacity If the slam was bid by a nameless novice in Bbo Relaxed at 3am after a bottle and a half of vodka, then why was it posted here in Adv/Expert Forum? We will never know.... perhaps the hand is sheer invention to make a dubious political point? Tony B) All political points are by their very nature dubious, but this hand actually occurred a few days ago. I seem to have offended JLOL (in his various guises) not a little, for which I apologise. I plead in mitigation that in response to hanp's observation that it was a mistake for East to be playing with West, I was under some provocation when I (West) asserted that it was a mistake to ask hanp a question - that was by way of a retaliatory, not an ab initio, insult. Still, "yes", "no" and "yes!" did not strike me as views from which one could gain very much. I also confess to having misunderstood one of cherdanno's comments, which was foolish of me and for which I also apologise. Mind you, whatever kind of idiot it must have seemed to him that I thought he was, I was mildly perturbed to discover that he believed I (although certainly an Englishman) might regard 1♠-2♦-3♦-3NT-4♣-4♦ as not forcing. I am still a little perturbed at this suggested sequence (I think it was mich-b who proposed it): 1♠-2♦-3♦-3NT-4♣-4♦-4♥-4NT because if the West hand were: ♠J10xxx ♥AKx ♦AQxx ♣K it would presumably bid the same way and the partnership would obtain a result no less undignified than the actual one (because West would bid 5♠ and East would bid a slam). It is axiomatic that one does not bid Blackwood with an uncontrolled suit, and although one tends to forget this axiom when the suit is the one in which partner has opened the bidding, one probably should not. I fully understand the idea that bridge is a game of percentages, and "cherry-picking" hands to demonstrate that such-and-such an auction may not work well is in general an unproductive exercise. If I have been guilty of that to an unreasonable extent, I proffer a third apology. But it seems to me that whereas one may bid games, or take decisions under pressure in competitive auctions, on the basis of percentages or intuition or both, this approach should not be applied to slam bidding. As to Ken Rexford's pertinent question about the meaning of 4♦, it did not mean anything very much other than that I did not want to pass 3NT (which, pace hanp, I still consider absurd), and I wanted to hear partner's next bid in the hope that if it was not 4♥ (which would simplify the auction for me greatly), it would be 5♣ only if he had a suitable hand for slam. Partner, on the other hand, thought he was obliged to cue-bid his club control despite not having a particularly suitable hand for slam at all, hinc illae lacrimae. Many auctions, but particularly 2/1 game-forcing auctions in the hands of unsophisticated people such as myself, suffer from this kind of flaw. But the truth may be, as Fred remarks, that the pair of you can end up in a daft contract without either of you having made a daft bid. Thanks to him and to everyone else for their comments. Sorry, partner and everyone else.

Would pass a response in either major. True, passing 1♥ may not work so well if the opponents [a] have and find an eight-card spade fit, or if 1♥ turns out to be a worse contract than 1NT would have done. But sometimes partner has five cards in his major (and sometimes he may suppress a weak four-card major to respond 1NT, because I might open a decent four-card major myself in fourth position). Would never (well, hardly ever) rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's major having opened 1m in fourth, so with five of his major, partner can correct to two of it if he would have transferred over a weak no trump. Moreover, passing one of his major almost always shows precisely three or an awful hand with four, so if he has five hearts he does not have to pass if dealer reopens with 1♠. Have monitored my results at both IMPs and matchpoints from passing out hands in fourth position: currently running at about 40% and -2.5 IMPs per board over a number of years. Indeed, only a couple of days ago I threw in ♠Q ♥Jxxx ♦AKx ♣1097xx for almost a complete bottom (partner had some junky balanced 11 with ♣KJx, the cards lay well for us and badly for them, and we could make 110 in clubs or 120 in notrump while they could make 1♠ with double-dummy play). To add to my remark that a lot depends on your opponents' style, I would say that in much of Europe, dealer will not have a shapely hand with a five-card major, because he would have opened two of that major to show a weakish 5-4 or 5-5 hand type. Hence he is less likely to overcall immediately than he would be in, say, the United States.

Anything could work, and slightly surprised that Bart's view is "very strong" one way or the other. But the philosophy here is that we pull to a contract that we think will have some chance to make, and the reason for this is that if we can make a slam, partner can bid one. Since all our cards are likely to be working hard on offense, I would be inclined to bid 4NT because of the large gain that will accrue (vis-a-vis pass or 4♠) if partner bids six of a minor and makes it (in addition to the small gain from plus 400 as opposed to plus 300, and avoidance of the large loss for -590). But I would not be at all surprised to be wrong at the table.

A "Butler" tournament is a pairs tournament with IMP scoring (the scores on each board are averaged to produce a datum, and each pair IMPs its own score against the datum). Assume the field passes the hand out (a rash assumption that almost never comes to pass, but it will suffice for the moment). Now: if we open and partner has nothing much, we will lose 100 or (rarely) 200 - 3 or 5 IMPs. If we open and it is our hand, we will win 3 or (rarely) 4 IMPs. The question thus boils down to: how likely is this to be our hand? And the answer to that depends to a very large extent on partner's and the opponents' attitude to opening the bidding. If our side opens a significant proportion of 11-point hands, vulnerable in second seat, we should probably pass. If their side opens a significant proportion of 11-point hands, not vulnerable in first or third seat, we should probably bid. Since I don't know what Hanoi's partner's style is, nor what his opponents' style was, I don't know what he should have done. Myself, I would bid, since one of my partners has had considerable success with the policy of always opening the bidding in fourth position. "If", he says, "the opponents can make anything, one of them should have opened the bidding."

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF. Because if opener has: ♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do: ♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx. Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control. As to sarcasm, I will say only that passing 3NT is a call that contains vast hidden merits that my humble and unworthy eyes cannot perceive. But if East had held ♠xx ♥AQx ♦KJxxx ♣Qxx then I would rather - well, I would almost rather play an entire session with hanp than play these cards in 3NT and not 5♦.