What is your approach?

[Robert]

Hello Walddk

 

Robson/Segal use a dual meaning fit showing jumps. They may be weak or strong. They do share a high offensive pattern. If you happen to also hold defense, you double later in the auction as needed. The weak fit showing jumps do not make any penalty doubles.

 

Partner can decide based on fit with partner whether to bid higher. Since he does not count on you for defense, his doubles tend to show solid values in their suits.

 

Partner would not have to decide what my fit showing 4H bid contained on this hand. I would not have passed the first time it was my turn to bid. I paid my entry fee. :(

 

LOLs can be used to describe either male or female. I have been called a LOL and I most certainly am a male. My army physical certified me as male. :)

 

The term LOL is sometimtes used to describe people who did not look fearsome, however, some LOLs of either gender can play very good bridge.

 

I have also heard a number of stories where the heroes of the story were reffered to as LOLs. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[awm]

I'd have bid my hearts the first time. Having not done so, I would bid them now. Here's my reasoning:

 

(1) It could easily be that 4♥ is the only making game. We could have three losers off the top. If I never introduce hearts, we won't find this game. Of course, the opponents could certainly bid 4♠ over us, but I'd much rather set 4♠ than play 5♣ going down...

 

(2) Partner may eventually have to make a decision about what to do when opponents bid 4♠ or 5♠. If partner has strength in diamonds it is probably right to defend. If partner has strength in hearts then we probably need to push higher.

 

(3) I think a direct 4♠ splinter carries more slam overtones than it should. Partner is basically forced past 5♣ on many hands, even if 4♠ is not exclusion keycard. Oftentimes this will mean playing 6♣ down when we should be in 5♣ or 4♥. Partner is going to have trouble figuring out that ♥AK are pure gold, whereas ♦AK are much more defensive cards over the 4♠ splinter. Admittedly 4♠ carries more appeal if it guarantees a void and I would open basically any 7-count with a spade void (as perhaps Ben's ZAR methods would mandate).

 

(4) If I bid 4♠ or 5♣ directly, what will happen if/when opponents bid 5♠? If partner doubles, do I trust him to make the right decision? After the 4♠ splinter, which I interpret as a slam try, I would double as opener on almost any hand with spade "wastage". Since responder's hand could well contain negative defense in hearts (highly unexpected) I'm not sure partner gets this right. If I bid 5♣ and LHO bids 5♠, this probably gets passed to me. Partner will rarely double or compete, since he doesn't know about the spade void or the ridiculous offensive potential of the hand. Now it's my guess whether to bid 6♣ or not, and I have no real confidence that I will get it right.

 

To give some example hands for opener:

 

Kxx AKx xxx KQxx probably makes 6♥ or 6♣.

 

Kxx xxx AKx KQxx can make 4♥, 5♣ is dubious, 5♠ likely goes down.

 

If opener hears 1♣-1♠-4♠-5♠, how will he know what to do? These hands look identical to me, yet on the first it is right to bid 6♣ or 6♥, and on the second it's best to pass or perhaps double. If opener hears 1♣-1♠-4♠-Pass, how does he know to stop in 5♣ on the second hand and bid on with the first?

[Walddk]

To give some example hands for opener:

 

Kxx AKx xxx KQxx probably makes 6♥ or 6♣.

 

Kxx xxx AKx KQxx can make 4♥, 5♣ is dubious, 5♠ likely goes down.

I agree with most of your points, Adam, just not this. In a previous post I did write that EW play a 14-16 NT.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

I would have bid 3♥ on the first round for the exactly the reasons Adam has given. If I get the chance to bid 5♣ over 4♠, partner is in a good place to make the correct decision over 5♠. It will tell him that pointed honors are defense, and round honors are offense. Yes he may somewhat misevaluate ♥Axx, but I think it is the best I can do.

 

For me, a fit jump is a competitive tool, not a constructive tool. So I don't care so much when partner misjudges the slam potential of heart holdings, since I am not implying slam interest.

 

Arend

[awm]

To give some example hands for opener:

 

Kxx AKx xxx KQxx probably makes 6♥ or 6♣.

 

Kxx xxx AKx KQxx can make 4♥, 5♣ is dubious, 5♠ likely goes down.

I agree with most of your points, Adam, just not this. In a previous post I did write that EW play a 14-16 NT.

 

Roland

Must've missed that one; I was assuming the fairly standard (in the UK) 12-14 range.

 

Take away the ♣Q from both hands, or add the ♠Q to both, and the point remains the same though.

[mikeh]

6♣

 

I started this whole mess with a weird bid: I think that there are 2 6-6 hands heare, and that RHO was walking the dog: AJ10xxx x AKQxxx void would not surprise me.

 

But I will pass 6♠ :( If partner doubles this, it had better be going down!

[luke warm]

first, i voted for 3♠... next, if i had bid 2♠ and it came back 3nt x'd (loudly) i'd bid 5♣.. over 5♠ i'd bid 6♣

 

as for the off topic stuff, LOL is not gender-specific to me and never has been... as far as chauvinistic remarks, are they any more offensive than other remarks that have been written on the forums, most of whose authors weren't taken to task with anywhere near the gusto roland was?

 

that's a serious question, asked because i really don't know... if (IF) one makes a chauvinistic remark, is it objectively more offensive that other insults we've all read, a few of us have posted, and fewer still have been the subject of? if they are, why?

 

if you're an advanded + offender, you may hide your answer

[inquiry]

I will speculate an answer. A random LOL comment about someone playing a hand poorly hardly offends anyone. Stories of random LOL stopping in 2♠ and playing poorly and making only 8 tricks against a pair of experts in a national master event while the entire field bids 4S down one, giving the experts a zero are legendary. These stories also tell us that the LOL got "her" points 100 master points that allolw her to play in the event over decades of random results and saving the "fractional master points". We all know people like this (all sexes, all ages), and we can relate to it.

 

In this case, Roland was talking about a national event, with a national recognized players, who happened to women. Now a condecending remark has a completely different tenor.

 

Ben

[mike777]

I object to "Little", this is typical of the discrimination that people of shorter statue face in our society. Let alone "Old" another cynical term to degrade not only short people but old short people...showing the obsession of our modern culture on youth....

 

Hopefully not only gender neutral terms but height and age neutral terms can be used in the future.....so we can all be neutered.

 

BTW looking like we will need my LTC and FTL arguments for the commitee now in 6 clubs :( Good think we wrote them down and showed them in writing to the opp before our bidding 6 clubs :).

[luke warm]

It might seem strange for me to be commenting on "offensive" posts, however, my decisions to insult people are typically very deliberate.  And I stand behind my insults...

just trying to understand a little more about the nature of offensive posts, here... roland made the statement that he didn't mean his post to be either offensive or chavinistic (i know, i know, one and the same eh?)... conversely, you admit that some of your insults are deliberate

 

so tell me again how a deliberate, unabashed, insult is somehow purer than one that possibly exists only in the minds of the beholders... put another way, i'm having trouble understanding why a subjectively perceived slight is viewed in a harsher light than one that is openly admitted

 

Hopefully not only gender neutral terms but height and age neutral terms can be used in the future.....so we can all be neutered

heh heh heh

[dogsbreath]

Hi ..

interesting to guess which of the ladies is Liz McGowan :)

 

I also suspect big 2-suiter with the S overcaller .. but a player of Liz's calibre would take the money and run ..not XX ..

And not South .. would foresee this situation ..psyching a strong bid then not knowing what to do over p's X .. so North is Liz

 

I've no idea what the right action is ... have i got the right lady?

 

Rgds Dog :(

[chicken]

the hardest thing for me is to imagine beeing a scottish woman :-(

compared to that the 5club bid was quite easy :-)

[Walddk]

Part 4:

 

And now the issue in a nutshell:

 

After the redouble of 5♠ you give it some thought*) and decide to pass. When this comes back to partner, she pulls to 6♣ which was the winning action on this layout:

 

*) agreed long think.

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sk5hakj5d96cj9652&w=s1087643h93dqj532c&e=saqj92h10dak874ckq&s=shq87642d10ca108743]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The TD ruled it back to 5♠XX+1 (-1600), appealed by NS. The on site Appeals Committee overruled and came to this verdict:

 

6♣X-1 (-200) 75% of the time, 5♠XX+1 (-1600) 25% of the time, hence -550 (and 14 imps against -1660 in the other room). EW have appealed to the national body, the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union, on grounds of incompetence of the AC and are waiting for them to reopen the appeal.

 

Eventually, these two teams tied for 1st place. The tie was broken on a head to head basis between the two teams. The result was in favour of the NS team, so the selection of the Scottish woman team for the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships will depend on the appeal, still pending.

 

How would you rule?

 

Roland

 

P.S. No, "dog", Liz McGowan was West and she was the one who walked the dog with her slow approach (3♠ and 5♠). Yes, she could have bid 6♠ after North pulled to 6♣ (doubled by East) but it wasn't that easy.

[Fluffy]

I feel those %s are reversed, -1250 seem more fair to me. It seems closer that you would pass your penalty double, specially with an UI. Sure passing is not right, but that is because doubling wasn't either. It is pretty hard to judge then.

[awm]

Is this really an occasion for a split score? I'm not totally sure because we really don't use split scores in the states...

 

However, I thought the rule was "you may not choose, from amongst logical alternatives, one which was demonstrably suggested by the UI." So if passing 5♠XX is deemed a logical alternative, the director's ruling should stand. It's not a case where it's somehow "hard to predict what would have happened if north had acted ethically." Seems to me you're supposed to just poll expert players and see how many would pass 5♠XX on the auction given (without hesitations). If it's a reasonable number, you award 5♠XX to both sides -- you don't award a percentage result like this one. My feeling is that passing one's own penalty double when it gets redoubled is always a logical alternative, and that with partner having shown a strong raise (2♠) it is very difficult to expect that 5♠ will make.

[han]

I agree with Adam

[whereagles]

Well, my judgement is that the UI clearly suggests taking out to 6♣, so I leave it at 5♠ redoubled.

[mike777]

Part 4:

 

And now the issue in a nutshell:

 

After the redouble of 5♠ you give it some thought*) and decide to pass. When this comes back to partner, she pulls to 6♣ which was the winning action on this layout:

 

*) agreed long think.

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sk5hakj5d96cj9652&w=s1087643h93dqj532c&e=saqj92h10dak874ckq&s=shq87642d10ca108743]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The TD ruled it back to 5♠XX+1 (-1600), appealed by NS. The on site Appeals Committee overruled and came to this verdict:

 

6♣X-1 (-200) 75% of the time, 5♠XX+1 (-1600) 25% of the time, hence -550 (and 14 imps against -1660 in the other room). EW have appealed to the national body, the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union, on grounds of incompetence of the AC and are waiting for them to reopen the appeal.

 

Eventually, these two teams tied for 1st place. The tie was broken on a head to head basis between the two teams. The result was in favour of the NS team, so the selection of the Scottish woman team for the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships will depend on the appeal, still pending.

 

How would you rule?

 

Roland

 

P.S. No, "dog", Liz McGowan was West and she was the one who walked the dog with her slow approach (3♠ and 5♠). Yes, she could have bid 6♠ after North pulled to 6♣ (doubled by East) but it wasn't that easy.

Roland you gave us the TD and the commitee conclusion but not the logic on how and why that decision was reached. Based on your post it seems they acted with no reason at all....?

 

I assume some law or rule was broken?

I assume a limited number of methods of restoring equity or applying penalties were available to apply?

 

1) Why did the TD rule that way?

2) Why did the AC rule their way?

3) What law or rules were applied?

4) What methods of equity did they have to choose from once they decided some rules were broken?

[Walddk]

I don't have the grounds of the rulings, so I don't want to speculate. However, if I were to rule based on the information I have from a very reliable source, only two rulings are possible:

 

1. 5♠XX+1

2. 6♣X-1

 

Either pass of 5♠XX is a logical alternative or it's not. You can't give a weighted score in a case like this. If South had a long think (agreed) before she passed 5♠XX, North can't pull. It is not even close in my opinion. If South had passed in tempo, North would not have pulled. The UI she got after the long think made her pull.

 

Therefore, the TDs ruling was correct, and I understand that the non-offending side has appealed to the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union on "grounds of incompetence of the AC".

 

It's a serious case when you need to go this far by dismissing a ruling of an AC. There is usually no further step beyond the AC. On the other hand, if the rules and regulations give you the option of bringing the case before the "Supreme Court", you are obviously entitled to do so.

 

Roland

[Free]

I'd bid 6♣ immediatly, let opps find it out...

[LH2650]

Had the match been completed, with the score known to the Appeals Committee when it met? It seems too coincidental that the adjusted score resulted in a tie.

[Fluffy]

Is this really an occasion for a split score? I'm not totally sure because we really don't use split scores in the states...

 

However, I thought the rule was "you may not choose, from amongst logical alternatives, one which was demonstrably suggested by the UI." So if passing 5♠XX is deemed a logical alternative, the director's ruling should stand. It's not a case where it's somehow "hard to predict what would have happened if north had acted ethically." Seems to me you're supposed to just poll expert players and see how many would pass 5♠XX on the auction given (without hesitations). If it's a reasonable number, you award 5♠XX to both sides -- you don't award a percentage result like this one. My feeling is that passing one's own penalty double when it gets redoubled is always a logical alternative, and that with partner having shown a strong raise (2♠) it is very difficult to expect that 5♠ will make.

No expert player would double 5♠, how can they think if they would pass a redouble?

[Walddk]

Had the match been completed, with the score known to the Appeals Committee when it met? It seems too coincidental that the adjusted score resulted in a tie.

Sorry, I don't know, but I will keep you posted as to the ruling of the L&E Committee of the SBU. Like all other national "bodies", they take their time in starting.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

So,

 

1♣ = (1♠) - 2♠!! - (3♠)

3NT = DBL = 5cl] = 5♠

DBL* = RDBL = 6♣

 

* = agreed long hesitiation.

 

One has to assume after 2♠ cue-bid and both 3NT and 6♣, this is a forcing pass situation. The double suggest defend. But the long hesitation suggest it is not clear defend hand. There are a ton of reasonable hands for partner where defend will clearly be right, but on these hand there would be no hesitation, partner would double quickly. Despite South's "misdiscription" of her hand, PASS of 5♠XX has to be at least a logical alterantive, and the slow double suggest strongly bidding on. IF the double had been "in - tempo", south would get a chance to guess to right, here, South does not have that luxury.

 

I would roll the contract back to 5♠X-XX.

[Walddk]

So,

 

1♣ = (1♠) - 2♠!! - (3♠)

3NT = DBL = 5cl] = 5♠

DBL* = RDBL = 6♣

 

* = agreed long hesitiation.

 

One has to assume after 2♠ cue-bid and both 3NT and 6♣, this is a forcing pass situation. The double suggest defend. But the long hesitation suggest it is not clear defend hand. There are a ton of reasonable hands for partner where defend will clearly be right, but on these hand there would be no hesitation, partner would double quickly. Despite South's "misdiscription" of her hand, PASS of 5♠XX has to be at least a logical alterantive, and the slow double suggest strongly bidding on. IF the double had been "in - tempo", south would get a chance to guess to right, here, South does not have that luxury.

 

I would roll the contract back to 5♠X-XX.

I think you got this wrong Ben. North's double of 5♠ was not slow, South's pass of the redouble was - and then North decided to pull her own double with the 2425 hand.

 

With this said, I agree that the correct ruling must be 5♠XX+1. North would never have pulled if South had passed 5♠XX in tempo. Why should she? She must expect 5♠ to go down after her parner's 2♠ (sound club raise). Wasn't that why she doubled in the first place? You are not allowed to have second thoughts after partner has warned you (slow pass) that it may not be such a good idea to defend.

 

To be honest with you, I would even rule "frivolous appeal, deposit forfeited". It's quite common in cases of hesitation ... then a pull.

 

Roland