sfi

This was the penultimate hand in the China-USA2 Bermuda Bowl quarterfinal match this year. China were up 11 going into this hand, with no realistic chance for a big swing on the final one. Results of set are here. I suspect Lycier is continuing his theme on gambling tendencies in top-level bridge. Unlike the last hand, here I agree with him - I was stunned when BBO showed 4NT and initially assumed a misclick by the operator. Taking action over 4S has merit at this vulnerability, but East had already been able to double 4H to show length and some interest in competing. A second double, allowing partner to pass with a couple of tricks, would have been a much more sensible action if he really felt the need to try a second time (even though it might have led to a worse score here when North redoubles). However, West also deserves blame for not bidding 5H. Surely East's hearts are longer on the auction. All in all, a very good effort by China thrown away needlessly at the very end of the match.

Only three of five - he did play a small heart from dummy at trick one. I would be tempted to adjust the score to one less trick from South every time they argued, especially since declarer shows he doesn't get the difficulties of the hand at the same time as being abusive. A classy combination right there, including a classic case of Godwin's Law. Although a simple -2 for winning the club return and playing on hearts would also suffice. Maybe that's why I don't direct on BBO though...

Yes, but you have to play on clubs first. That's really all there is to the hand.

Whether cashing diamonds first is careless or irrational surely depends on the level of play. And determining that is sometimes pretty hard to judge accurately in the middle of a match. I've also never been overly impressed by a claim from someone who can't be bothered to show any understanding of key points of the hand, even if it's fairly straightforward. On this hand I wouldn't be annoyed if someone called the director when I claimed as in the original post, and I'd live with it if ruled against - mostly because I probably actually missed the problem if I hadn't indicated it in any way. Would I call the director? Sometimes, depending on level of player, their claiming style in the match, and whether it feels like they missed the point. But not just because there is a chance we can get a dodgy ruling in our favour. Would I consider someone else who called unethical? Not on the evidence of this one hand. BTW I don't know the actual hand, so the circumstances Justin mentioned would also come into play.

I agree with 1eyedjack. Why are we trying to "deal" with someone who is taking legal actions at the bridge table?

Don't get me wrong - Texas works in a weak NT system just fine. However, I was talking more about what is commonly played. My understanding is that there is less need to steer the contract into the NT hand when you're playing a weak NT system, so having two ways to get quickly to 4H or 4S is of more value than using 4C as (for instance) ace-asking. 3H/S can also be useful as artificial bids, so you give something up by playing them as natural and forcing when you have transfers. But that's the nature of any convention - you trade off simplicity for better definition. And the club standard here is much like what you describe, so it works well enough.

That would certainly limit your choice of partners. The standard agreements are well covered above, with the observation that Texas seems to be primarily used in places where strong NT is the norm and South African Texas where weak NT is typical. Some version of Texas makes slam bidding when holding major suits much more precise.

Same here.

I used to pass with these, but have now been converted to the view that double is a clear winning strategy in the 21st century. You lose way too many part score battles by passing.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I either believe any of the statements you rather fancifully attribute to me or that I want the outcomes you mention. If you read what I actually wrote, you may realise that I expressed no opinion one way or another on the desirability of acting as suggested by the original post. Nor am I intending to do so publicly. And if you are going to be using inflammatory language to cast aspersions regarding someone's belief about cheating, it would be a good idea to make sure you understand what you are replying to first.

The original poster is talking about refusing to play with suspected cheats, not against them. A much different and less fraught proposition.

A long time ago several of us discussed this topic until 4am at a nationals. We came up with three hand types (all 5/5 in the blacks): - minimum, where you want to make sure you mention the major. Here you open 1S and rebid spades if necessary. Here you may have to give up on clubs, but at least you show the 5 card major. - intermediate, where you have enough strength to bid a couple of times. Here you open clubs and bid spades twice. - maximum, where you are comfortable with a high reverse even after interference. Here you open 1S planning to rebid 3C next round. I didn't play it very much, but it still seems like a good set of agreements.

Given that partner is a passed hand and has doubled in the pass-out seat at the one level, I'm not overly enthusiastic about doubling 4S (although I would do so more often than not). Doubling anything less against a South that knows what they are doing seems like I'm trying to punish partner for getting into the auction.

I think the option to have robots bid against you is only available on the web interface. But they are free.

I understand. So after (2H)-X-(P): 3H=FG, doesn't have exactly 4S 3NT=heart stopper, 0-3S 2NT/3H=FG, exactly 4S 2NT/3NT=heart stopper, exactly 4S The other auction I gave was an extension of the idea. Edit: Justin's method looks like it has the same meanings for the various ways to get to the cues and 3NT.

France isn't in the Bermuda Bowl at the moment, so it would be hard for them to withdraw.

I think he meant France is next in line for a European slot in the Bermuda Bowl.

I typically play that bids going through 2NT show exactly 4 cards in the other major. In a similar vein, (2H)-X-(P)-3S is invitational with 5+ spades.

My initial thought is to angle for 4S unless I hear something to the contrary. The suit is good enough for trumps despite the expected bad break and little support. In most partnerships I would simply bid 2S and see what happens. 2D is the normal cue for heart support, so unless you have some specific agreements about the other cue here, 2S might as well be natural. If 2C is forcing, then 2S should be as well. The other option is simply to pass and bid spades strongly next round.

You have a lot of losers with those 4 diamonds. I would go cautious here and pass.

Last time this sort of public accusation happened during play when I was there, the accuser was banned for an extensive period of time. At the very least I would expect a formal investigation of declarer's behaviour leading to disciplinary action.

It is IMPs.

I did say 'almost everyone' precisely because I did not want to make any judgement about whether there is evidence or how compelling it might be. If there is, most people in the discussions do not have it yet.

Two ways, IMO. First is that reputations of some top players will be damaged no matter what the final outcome is - the current allegations have already been published in at least one UK paper (link somewhere on bridgewinners). Second and more important is that there appears to be enough frustration among top players about cheating that systemic changes may be made. What those effects might be we'll have to wait and see. I agree with your comment about not naming names - it's easy enough to find by even a cursory look through the forums over there. And I wouldn't even want to attempt a short summary.

My take is that almost everyone there is discussing rumours and innuendo without hard evidence. I disagree that nobody says this famous pair is cheating - quite a few people have said so. But without promised evidence and a process that provides natural justice, there is much more heat than light at this point. That's not to say that nobody in the rest of the bridge world, here included, is interested in the outcome. Many people are, and I'm sure there are many more discussions offline than online (for instance, I have a number of thoughts on the matters, but they will stay off the internet). One way or another, the world of serious competitive bridge is going to be significantly changed in the near future by the result of the issues currently being discussed.