wyman

So, I've asked 3 US Internationalists about this sequence, because I got into a heated discussion with a regular partner of mine about it. This brings up some really interesting questions IMO. One said "takeout." One said "standard is penalty, but I think it's right to play takeout over a weak jump since presumably they are not psyching it so it would be tough to have a pen X ever." The third said "We still play the double of a jump is penalties(not a trump stack) I would expect a hand with 3+ trump and like a 10 count. We decided that we would rather just bid a suit than make a takeout double there. The only times we play double as TO is when it goes (1C) X (1D) X or if they respond 1NT after the TO double" Note that this last comment is relevant to the other bd71 thread where Phil asks if he is "on another planet" for playing that (1H) X (1N) X is responsive. One said "DSIP." One said "DSIP, usually strong balanced." The third said "Double there would typically be the 1435 strong hand (but life's not perfect)." One said "DSIP, obviously shows extras." One said "Doubles once they run from a doubled contract are always penalty, so penalty." The third said "After we have started penalizing them all doubles are penalties" Regarding whether pass of 3S is forcing, I heard: "no, maybe you could make an argument for it to be, but i don't see why it has to be." Also, "I would say no, but maybe that's dumb." And third, "I dont think double [pretty sure he meant pass -- wyman] is forcing here but there is a really good chance it wont go all pass. (I know this is a little inconsistant but general rules are hard to mess with)."

modified -- please see above. And thanks.

My approach, which is incredibly difficult for me, and which I admittedly don't follow all the time, is to just try not to call the director at club games unless something egregious happens (or something totally innocent like a revoke or an exposed card or lead/call out of turn, where it's clear something has happened, and you need someone authoritative to explain things to opps -- I don't like making my own "rulings" at the table, nor explaining laws). I've had a director just basically yell at my opponent before (who admittedly should know better, but...), which should never happen, no matter how much of a jerk the opponent is. And I've had horrendous rulings of all kinds: club directors (ACBL) sometimes (read: often) don't know the laws. It's hard to fault them for this, since the players don't either, so no one ever calls them. But they often just don't know the laws. So, don't call them on matters of law. Basically my new attitude is: club games and results don't matter. I play them for practice or just for fun, and calling the director will undoubtedly make the situation (and my rapport with the opps) more uncomfortable, leaving aside the fact that like > 50% of the time -- even if the director agrees with you -- you won't get a ruling, since the director often has a financial interest in the club, which is sustained by the 5-game-a-week LOLs. Guess who's not getting a PP for saying, mid-auction, "why don't you ever trust my bids?" Yes, you can handle these things gently; ordinarily I do so pleading ignorance of the laws ("I always forget what the laws say about this, so I'm going to just call the director to ask -- no problem"). However, this is disingenuous, and it ends up being on you to tell the director what the law is anyway so (s)he can look it up, so it's hard to pull this off except in the most basic of cases. I would get an ulcer if I called the director as often as the laws suggest I should. The takeaway? Play top-flight regional games where the BCDs have been quarantined in some other section so that they can fight each other for a few red or gold points. The game up top is far tougher, but you learn more, and it probably improves your life expectancy unless you have like an amazingly balanced chi when dealing with morons. Edit: Per aguahombre's comment below, which is fair, I realize that the implication, which was unintended, was that BCD and/or club players are morons. I conflate my impatience in these situations with my impatience when dealing with morons (by which I don't even mean the uneducated -- I mean those who are unwilling to see more than one side of an issue, for example). In this situation, the issue is often a lack of education -- not just about the laws and the game, but about the purpose of director calls and the intent of the laws. My issue is never with players who don't know the laws. It's with ones who are rude, ones who are abusive and intimidatory, and ones who violate the laws with disregard for fairness and for others' enjoyment of the game. And it's with the directors who -- rationally or not, depending on their financial stake -- refuse to learn the laws and/or adjudicate. Thank you for calling me out; upon a reread, that statement read far differently than it was intended.

6♣. I give it more pause if we're NV, but a red 4♣? I'm just bidding it.

.

boom

No Bibi Jones option?

Regardless, those of us not bound by the WB may wish to comment on such happenings. This ruling is akin to an American juror commenting after a conviction "there was reasonable doubt as to his innocence, so we had to convict; " it isn't enough to warrant overturning the whole justice system, but it's certainly enough to cause concern. Just as a judge advises and oversees juries, perhaps it would be reasonable to have a TD (who did not make the table ruling) oversee/advise the committee as to relevant law.

I would not expect partner to lead a diamond missing the Q (in my hand) and another top honor (per declarer's bidding 3N). I'd expect a spade lead here.

This doesn't make it right, but... http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=majority+has%2Cmajority+have&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

...and if it's not, you certainly didn't violate any proprieties by choosing it!

Haha. Ok ok. Too many people I respect have said how horrible this X is, so I relent. But it would be great if someone would address my thought process, specifically about shapes.

My own $0.02: The double may, in fact, be barking mad. I am experimenting and trying to find the sweet spot where the X actually gets us to beat contracts without losing the extra 150 too often. I'll happily admit when I'm off my rocker. 1) I thought 2D was light in 1st chair at this vulnerability and expected something like KJxxxx/AJxxxx and an outside card. Maybe I'm getting conservative as I approach 30. 2) I think X says "lead a diamond." 3) I overvalued my holdings, it seems, but it sounds to me like partner has spades. And they don't have a quick source of tricks in either rounded given the auction and my holding. I thought this was a reasonable spec double at the time, with the added bonus of getting partner to lead the right suit. I see now I'm squeezed on the run of the spades. Incidentally, if partner holds: KJxxxx or KJ10xxx: they can make an overtrick DD (same situation as with K10xxxx, as we played) AJxxxx: they make on a diamond lead, and it takes a club lead to beat it AJ10xxx: anything but a heart or the ace of diamonds will beat it. Ha, no need to be sorry. Your construction is fine except that gives N/S 8 hearts, which I thought was unlikely. My best guess for shapes is: South: 3262 West: 3631 / 3721 / 3730 East: 4126 / 4036 / 4027 And none of these really look that promising for EW if partner (S) has a reasonably robust diamond holding (which I think he should have for a 1st seat red preempt) and an outside card (since apparently he's only got 1 of the top 3 diamond honors). This was my thought process at the time, at least -- I didn't do a full analysis of shapes, but I did think that diamonds were 3-2 so that KJ would be enough.

Phil's sig (by the water man) always makes me laugh.

I would say nothing. But if you made me, I'd say "LHO needs to lead spades thru twice. Since you're holding all of the high ones, the only way this can happen is if the S10 is led and allowed to hold the trick." This doesn't suggest that they _should_ have done anything, but it shows the mechanics of what needed to happen in order for the set to be achieved. They can worry about ATB and whether or not it's reasonable to find the right line after the fact. But pointing out the mechanism is instructive enough, and I'd feel like I'd have done my duty. I'd also point out that I'd really blown it by taking the practice finesse in clubs and mention that the game is brutal sometimes.

X is responsive even in this spot? Obviously most people play that (1Y) X (2Y) X is responsive, but it seems that there's merit to being able to say "they stepped in it" when they have a likely misfit, especially when they step in it vulnerable at MP. I am less familiar than I'd like to be with all situations in which people employ responsive X's. edit: I started that response over an hour ago, got distracted, and unsurprisingly while I was away someone has said more-or-less what I was going to say :)

I'm interested now: Let's suppose 3D can be a grope. Clearly you can also hold x/xxx/AQxxxx/xxx and bid 3D. So if the auction goes 1S 1N 3C 3D 3N doesn't north owe south a 4C bid anyway? And, especially at MP, won't south still bid 3N over 3D (even though he thought about rebidding 3S after j/s on his 3 card club suit) with like AK10xxx / AKQ / x / Kxx? So the 3N bid can't promise real clubs here. Also, for kickbackers who are also MP gurus: do you play that an immediate 4N over 4C is to play? And for non-kickbackers: Do you play that 4N over 4C is to play, and opener must cuebid to set clubs? I think there is merit in this.

You all must fly different airlines than I. IMO, reclining the seats is totally standard, and it takes up essentially no useful room.

Oops. AJx isn't a perfect min -- I have the J. Something like A10x / xxxx / J / AKxxx This is actually a reasonable slam. If everything breaks I get 5 diamonds, 5 clubs, 1 spade, and a spade (on a spade lead) or a heart ruff. And I guess even if diamonds don't break, I may get 2 heart ruffs, and I can always fall back on the spade hook if the lead is a trump. The problem is I can't ask partner about the DJ or the S10, so "investigating" the slam doesn't even seem practical. It's much more likely he has stuff wasted in hearts, so I'll still just bid 3N and take my avg/avg+.

If anything, let this be a lesson in judgement. Your partner has (almost) the best 2N bid that you could ever possibly construct here when it comes to slamming in clubs, and you still went down :) I think it's crazy to bid anything but 3N at IMPs, but at MPs, I think it's super crazy! Play 3N and outplay the field. Another point: you're missing 4 keycards. Partner can't have all 4, so you have at least one quick loser (unless you are missing the CK -- point to come on this). So he has 3 keycards and maybe one extra card? AKx / xxxx / x / AKxxx is kind of the best you can hope for, in which case you have 4 spades, 3 diamonds, 5 clubs if they break, and a heart ruff. This is a perfecto, though, and a max. What's a perfect min? Put 12 points anywhere you want: AJx / xxxx / x / AKxxx. Now slam relies on clubs breaking and playing spades for 4 tricks (unless you ruff two hearts, which is impossible on a trump lead). It's pretty bad. It's good to look at your hand and not be a bean counter; in this case, most of the field will see 14 and think "that's not enough for slam," and just punt 3N blindly. However, if you're going to move, you need some expectation of it being right. In other words, can partner actually have a hand where slam makes? We see above that he can, but that it takes a perfect max. The usual criteria is that if a perfect min makes slam a good prospect, then we should investigate (but not commit, of course).

So you want to bid 7S missing the SK?

Partner has 3 KC, not (necessarily) 3 aces. A large fraction of the time you're missing an ace.

1♦ for me too. I've played with people who want to be very sound vul in 2nd chair; that's the only circumstance where I'd open 2♦.

X no problem yet

I'd jump on the bandwagon for a summer NABC in Bozeman. I'd take a day or two off of play for Yellowstone, and I'd tack a few on at the end for Glacier, but whatever.