mpefritz

See my earlier posts for my full analysis of what I think happened on this hand. I continue to believe that I would interpret 4NT as quantitative in this auction in this SAYC tournament, but there are arguments for 4NT being Ace asking or quant. The manual, though, actively omits the 4C and 4NT continuations after a 2-level transfer and uses the word "direct" when speaking of a 4NT quantitative raise (in relation to 4C Gerber as ace asking in these cases). So 4NT as "Blackwood" is not insane in this case. fritz

I make out that: 1NT-2NT and 1NT-3NT are understood, but the use of 4C and 4NT after a transfer are specifically left off. The bottom of the page states: A direct raise of 1NT to 4NT is natural and invites 6NT.... Again, note the use of the word direct. I think it is silly, but if we are arguing dumb fine points, then we will have a LOT of fodder from this pamphlet. fritz

Note that this ended up right. McBruce -- when he had time to review the bidding -- made the correct adjustment. I agree with the above posts about asking for the TD, and if you disagree, mention it to them later when they have time to take another look. Also, I suspect most players make more errors than TDs. It happens. fritz

paulhar: Please recheck the manual that you quote. It lists follow ups of : 1NT-2H 2S-?? ?? Pass, 2NT,3C,3D,3H,3S,3NT, and 4S are ALL listed as options (note language: "Possible calls after the accepted transfer are:") Note that 4C and 4NT are NOT listed as possible calls. Yes, that is asinine, but that is what the system manual says. I do not agree that it leaves those calls out, but it actively leaves them out! (it could have used a see below for 4C and 4NT meanings...) fritz

I'm glad to hear Ben never misclicks to place himself in a worse situation. I found this hand interesting that without the stupid play of the spade K under the A at trick one, the contract probably won't make on the best line as outlined by Ben on this layout. However, after making the mistake of unloading the spade K under the A at trick one, this hand is much more likely to make on the best line you must play now. Any thoughts? I make this claim based on the club spots I will see as I run my tricks (after, of course, the now necessary diamond hook). fritz

Hmm.... Actually reading the chat log and explanation, MAYBE the 2NT opener thought 2NT showed 20-22 and 5♥ DID show 20-21 (and not 22), because he interpreted 4NT to be quantitative. Perhaps to clarify all future issues, McBruce should find the 2NT opener and ask him what he thinks the range is for 2NT. The SOUTH player obviously thought 4NT was some form of Ace asking, and McBruce explained that it meant 2 aces. Explanations for what bids mean should not be needed in this tournament since all players are told to play SAYC over and over and over and over and over. Here, though, the SAYC meaning of 4NT is not well defined. Anyway, no RCKB in this tournament. For the record, on this hand (I was not at this table), a fairly good player was my partner. Here's the chat record before his (incorrect) response to my Jacoby 2NT call: mpefritz: hi all, gl alphapts CC posted (PARD): Hi, Fritz and everyone else. (PARD): No CC needed. We all are supposed to play the same thing! mpefritz: i posted McBruces' approved cc At every table I use the same greeting. Anyway, I think McBruce is frustrated by players who are delaying the action for the other players in order to get information they should "know". Here South is not entitiled to what East or West think 4NT or 5H mean, but is responsible in signing up for THIS tournament for "knowing" what the bids mean in SAYC -- which is, perhaps, undefined :ph34r: South DID apparently get an answer to what the 2NT opener thought 5H meant, and McBruce augmented it with the fact that the 2NT bidder had 2 aces. fritz p.s. On this hand the responder to 2NT was a passed hand (Axx-QJTxx-T9x-Ax)

I am not convinced 4NT is asking for Aces, nor am I convinced it is quantitative. It depends on partnership agreement on continuations after a 2NT opening and a transfer. Depending on my partner, 4C could have one of several meanings after the transfer -- which then change the meaning of 4NT. However, this was a "SAYC-only" tournament. I cannot find anything saying what 4NT and 4C mean after a transfer. Directly over 2NT, 4C is gerber and 4NT is quantitative, but when there is no space for a jump in clubs, the meaning becomes fuzzy -- and is not spelled out anywhere I can find for SAYC. Nonetheless, the inquirer wanted to know something, McBruce essentially told the player that it meant 2 aces (which was correct as the 2NT bidder did have a max and didn't interpret it as quant). The asker could have made a case later to describe how the info would have changed things here -- it didn't. I suspect the hand in question is the hand I posted under interesting hands. fritz

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sat6hqjt76dt93ca8&w=sj984h543d872cqt9&e=s752hkdq654c75432&s=skq3ha982dakjckj6]399|300|Scoring: XIMP P-1H-P-2NT(1) P-3NT(2)-P-7NT(3) (1) Jacoby 2NT (2) 16-17 no singleton -- supposedly (3) tank 1 minute counting tricks. I wrote "think". Opps message "hurry up or I'll call director" Figured better than 70% chance of taking all tricks, but should probably be in 7H to be safe at IMPS. Lead: spade 4-A-2[/hv] I am showing the full hand as the best line should not be influenced by where the cards are. My plan was to win the spade on the board, hook in hearts, cash AK of diamonds (looking for Q drop since diamonds were longer than clubs) then run it is a a minor suit show up squeeze (or hook if the count was right). Does that seem reasonable? It doesn't work here. However, the comments from opps distracted me a little, as did my kid waking up in the next room. I smoothly unblocked the spade K from my hand under the A at trick 1 ( but didn't realize until diamond AK were cashed -- then it was too late to attempt to recover. I needed a diamond hook to work at that point once I lost a natural spade trick.) Two questions: 1) Suppose you, for some strange reason, did NOT want to "unblock" the spade K at trick one under the A. What is your planned line? 2) What if you decided to actually play the spade K under the A for a challenge -- like I did. What would your line be? thanks, fritz

Could the pause be someone checking to see how high negative doubles go in SAYC? Maybe the player did a quick web search to check if he could double for penalties or had to pass with his hand. The delay was probably in making the correct SAYC call. While a delay to check a CC would be inappropriate (and counter to the LAWS, I believe) in ftf settings, online pick up players or practicing partnerships have ccs available to review, and if not, have the internet to consult. Only pulling the double would be suggested by a pause if playing SAYC. fritz (can I put in my 2 cents worth in BB$ ?)

"i'm sorry eric and jack, i don't quite follow this (tho i believe it)... given no other clues, and given the 9 card trump suit shown, isn't it more likely that *someone* has 3 hearts while the other has one? " Yes, but at the point of decision, it is either x-Qxx or Qx-xx. So your question and the real question are different. "how does the act of playing the ace of hearts change this original assumption?" Stiff Q has been eliminated AND Qxx-x has been eliminated (RHO has already followed twice). And we are down to a specific Qx-xx versus a specific x-Qxx " by playing for the drop aren't you doing the same thing, playing for a particular 2/2 split (the one where lho has the Q)? " Not really. xx-Qx will show itself if that is the case. "i believe it's usually right to play for the drop, i just don't quite understand why" The basic (and partially) incomplete solution is at the time of decision is that LHO here has one more card in his hand than RHO. Therefore, the odds are slightly in favor of LHO holding the Q. (again, as mentioned elsewhere, this is based on the assumption that you have no other knowledge about the shape/HCP) "it's like if you're missing 6 clubs and lead the K from KQ10x then low to the Axxx, then low back... if rho follows to this 3rd round, do you finesse the 10 or play for the jack to drop? " You appear to be playing with more than a full deck if the J has not shown up. fritz.

I expect to see partner with a void in one of the minors. Declarer, assuming not totally off his rocker, has a stiff spade (or a void or some top honors). I would be looking at my longest non-trump, non-spade suit to lead (with suit preference built in if appropriate). fritz

Add links to GCC/acbl alerting proedures, etc. from the "Tournament Rules" page. Each tournament has this capability, and it should be easy to have a standard page of links for all ACBL tournaments. fritz

I think the request was that the name of the TD be given. There are certain ftf tournaments which I have avoided, because I knew the directors didn't enforce CC rules or didn't take the time to look into mis-alerts, etc... Yes, I did report these problems to higher-ups and it got nowhere. (For those who care -- it involves allowing non-English speaking pairs to show up without a filled out CC. I have since learned the system in question so I can get by most of the time, but the directors response was "You really expect me to get all the .... players to fill out a convention card? " !?! This was in a low-level Grand National Teams event of all things) My solution -- avoid tournaments when they are directing. Just because someone is certified by the ACBL does not mean that each director rules in the same way. It is not unreasonable to ask the name of the director. HOWEVER, if ACBLXX is always ACBLXX and no other director name for BBO ACBL tournaments, then maybe the real names don't matter. Players can mark the directors they do not prefer and avoid their ACBL tournaments. That would require the ACBL directors be listed in the tournament rules/profile. fritz

My take: It is unlikely that any real defense would have screwed this one up for anything but down 2. However, when WEST made the statement, it was clear to EAST where the spade A was. Leading the spade K now allows EAST to see if WEST wants a diamond ruff (maybe declarer forgot/didn't want to draw the last trump) via the spade 2 on the spade K lead. Here, on this hand, it doesn't matter. But if WEST had another club and was now void in diamonds, a diamond lead might help. So a defense does exists that would allow declarer to be down 1(diamond at trick 4). Give WEST a 7 imp penalty (300 point swing) AND a warning if this is the first yap in your tournament. If this is the second yap... fritz

I am trying to pick through the statements. Perhaps this case is not so easy as NORTH has not led. If NORTH had led a diamond, and then "CLAIM 7 tricks" had shown up, then you could accept that 6 tricks would be taken (the only order that makes sense). If NORTH led a club, then "CLAIM 7 tricks" had shown up, West would be getting only 3 more tricks. If declarer wrote "CLAIM 7 tricks:1C+2H+2S+1D" (only 2H listed in his sum) before the lead, I think you'd give him 6 more tricks? The other question is, in general, whether there is a different standard for irrational play at IMPs and MPs. I could see in this case that down 1 at IMPs might be a little more irrational play than at MPs (but I can also see that if he thinks his hearts are good, we likely wouldn't abandon the extra overtrick even at IMPs). I do suggest that in other cases, when there is a card on the table OR declarer is about to lead, order should matter is settling disputes of claiming. Especially online where people are trying to save time, and often abbreviate what they are trying to say. fritz

My post was with the intent to probe into whether order COULD be implied from a claim statement. As I understand it, then, DrTodd would make me go down 1 if I stated "Claim 7 tricks 2S+1D+1C+3H" THAT would likely lead me to an even newer level of anger than DrTodd experienced. A ruling like that, in my mind, would be much more offensive than what happened to DrTodd. I would likely decide that "Claim 7 tricks " or "Claim 7 tricks: 1C+3H+2S+1D" would lead to cashing the hearts before cashing the other winners, leading to the loss of 4 more tricks -- (depending on the pitches of the defense). 2S+1C+3H+1D would lead to the loss of only 2 more tricks 2S+1D+1C+3H would lead to taking 6 of the last 7 tricks. I would consider a 3H+1D+1C+2S to be nonsensical and rule for only 3 of the remaining 7 tricks. The reason I think order is important is that it CAN be used to imply order of taking tricks, else just use S,H,D,C order if total trick order is not important. Just a thought. fritz McBruce: Sorry about the Flames. Condolences from a long-suffering Cubs fan.

Back to the original problem: I am going to make several claims, each of which is a variation of what happened/could have happened. How are these different/same? "Claim 7 Tricks" "Claim 7 tricks: 2S+1C+1D+3H" "Claim 7 tricks: 1C+3H+1D+2S" "Claim 7 tricks: 3H+1C+1D+2S" "Claim 7 tricks: 2S+1C+1D+2H" "Claim 7 tricks: 2H+1C+1D+2S" "Claim 6 tricks" "Claim 6 tricks: 2S+1D+1C+3H" "Claim 6 tricks: 3H+1D+1C+2S" "Claim 6 tricks: 2H+1D+1C+2S" fritz

I asked about this several months ago. I thought Fred or Uday was going to associate an INVITE pop-up with a private message chat sound or one of the already commonly active sound parameters. Any updates on this? fritz

I haven't worked it out, but if one player has 5♥ and 3♦, his partner started with 3♥ and 2♦, it affects the black suit distribution likelihoods. So one player has 5 black cards, and the other has 8 black cards. You are missing 6 clubs and 7 spades. I suspect the odds of 3-3 clubs are slightly reduced in this case, compared other relevant red suit cases. Therefore, if you are concerned about the red suit distributions, the one that you are concerned about likely makes the club split less likely also, whereas if the hearts were 4-4 and diamonds 3-2, the club split would increase. These calculations should really be part of an odds analysis. So you also need to inlcude 4-1 diamond with the 1 diamond with 5 hearts, which would likely make 3-3 clubs better, etc... I can try to calculate these later, but it would include some assumptions about the bidding and leads, and i do not have time right now for it. I think the bottom line is it is not a simple one suit split analysis, as the splits in one are certainly dependent on the splits in the others. My gut feeling is to try the diamonds by leading low to the Q (caters to for AK, AKx AKxx in front of Q). fritz

I think the immediate hook(leading the T is best, and 9 on second round if covered). It works against: QJ3 - 82 QJ2 - 83 QJ32 - 8 It fails against QJ-832 It fails against 832-QJ AK wins with QJ-832 or 832-QJ, but loses in other cases. note: I am only comparing cases that matter. I won first spade in hand to lead ♥T. However, there are possibly communication issues when LHO covers the first heart. So I'd cross back in clubs to lead the ♥9. fritz

1st seat white vs white CPU is a question. But more importantly, suppose, for some reason, the passer legitimately "took a view". This question would not come up if partner did not psyche a 1st seat NV 1S (for all I know, maybe he meant to psyche a 1H bid and misclicked :lol: ). The question is: When someone makes a call that is consistent with (but not for sure determinate of) a fielded psyche, what is the ruling? I suppose what I'm getting so far is to report them for a CPU -- even though it might have been two not-so-good calls that look like CPU. fritz For the record, on the prior hand, they had a bad result as we had "magic defense" (according to them) to defeat their contract (although it seemed like the declarer misplayed for down 2). They may have been trying to get a non-standard result to catch up -- so taking a view is possible in my mind.

Let me repeat. I am not suggesting, implying, or encouraging the use of the c-word or any of it's substitutes here. I am assuming someone took a view (we had a good board the hand before), or was a beginner who didn't know any better. I asked the question here to make sure most would X the 1NT. I also wanted to get an idea of how the bidding would go IF partner decided to bid 2H after X of 1NT. I also wanted an idea of the lead. fritz

MPs, All White, both playing some version of Standard American 1S-1NT-? ♠Q74 ♥KJ5 ♦AT2 ♣J752 After his partner opened 1S and RHO overvcalled 1NT, this hand passed, it went all pass and Club 2 was led. His partner held ♠96 ♥87632 ♦96 ♣AQ86 I appears that the player who passed 1NT fielded a psyche, and made a lead not consistent with the bidding. HOWEVER, I have no idea of the level of the players and the passing hand could have been a beginner who didn't know to double. Or maybe it was a good player who took a view, AND partner happened to psyche. I also cannot determine how the bidding would have gone after 1S-1NT-X nor can I know how the hand would have played after a spade lead. (note: I am 100% NOT suggesting the c-word. no no no no no) So what is the ruling on an apparently fielded psyche? fritz

Thanks, I suspect the early results will mirror those that would follow. I am going to close my involvement of this question here and move it to the director's forum of fielded psyches vs ignorance vs does it even matter. I was actually dummy on this hand and my partner overcalled 1NT and it went swish. Opening lead of club 2 set the contract. (Note: I am NOT suggesting the "c" word here. no no no no no! i just want to know what kind of ruling should be expected.) fritz So the follow up question is: When you double 1N and pard bids 2H, what do you bid? Or does that expose the psyche? Also note that I did not ask "What is your lead?" , but asked "Your lead?" ;)

MPs, Both White Playing "Standard American", partner opens 1♠, RHO overcalls 1NT, you pass and it gets passed around. 1S-1NT-P-P P ♠Q74 ♥KJ5 ♦AT2 ♣J752 Your lead?