seek experts' judgement

[000002]

This is a poor slam unless north hold something like xxxx Axxx Q Axxx or ♠J+2Aces,but it's very possible after serious 3NT. Maybe you can got slam ,MAYBE YOU NOT, but this is not the key for my door.

 

what is that key?Hesitation be used or not.

Did south bid normally after hesitation?

NO. unless she isn't an expert.

Because 90% experts recommend a slam try ,not 4♥.

 

"(2) It would be assumed that the signoff after a serious slam try was due to the hesitation, unless such a signoff was 100% clear."

i agree.

 

IF this can be ambiguity,more cabal appeared on the table.

[000002]

how many serious 3nt shows? what a range?

this is no help to N-S,because serious 3NT means over that ,not under it.

 

South try slam,and north can stop on 4♥ for his minimum.

did you disagree?

 

I think i forgot an important analyse to edit:4♥ back by south hint---

we lack ♠ control.

[PMetsch]

removed nonsense

[000002]

removed nonsense

WHY？

why you can not understand?

are you a younger bridge student?

[luke warm]

i think he meant he removed what he considered to be his own nonsense (tho it probably wasn't)

[PMetsch]

removed nonsense

WHY？

why you can not understand?

are you a younger bridge student?

OK here is the nonsense

 

I had made a reply that opposite

 

x

AJxx

xxxx

Axxx

 

you can make 12 tricks with a crossruff. But if opps lead a trump you need at least the ♦Q with partner.

 

I think slam is likely once partner makes a slamtry (he shouldn't do that with a balanced 9 count). But I understand the signoff, because if 6♥ makes the opps will call the director and then appeal. It has become a no win situation.

[Winstonm]

Looking at this auction carefully, bids 4, 5, 6 are all articial - I do not know if the system includes a direct bid of 4H over 2N but would assume it does. Once the singleton showing sequence begins, responder seems not to be able to know opener's strength, so with the 3D bid showing clubs responder has somewhat boxed himself in. I would presume 4H by him now would show some kind of club wastage.

 

I don't know their system, but it seems a passed hand cannot make a real serious slam try in this sequence; more likely it is a bid to see how serious opener is about slam and expresses some degree of doubt but not enough to totally sign off - almost more of a waiting bid than serious.

 

Is it possible in this sequence for opener to hold: AKx, KQxx, AKJxx, x?

 

I would think the long wait was due to trying to visualize minimum-type hands consistent with the bidding that would produce slam - once responder decided that there was a reasonable chance that one of these hands could be held, he bid 3N not so much as "serious" but as "if you are serious".

 

Perhaps the only thing that caused consternation in this sequence was the explanation of 3N as "serious" - perhaps a better description would have been to say "mild slam interest". Maybe this is what they thought they were saying, thinking that opps would know that the passed hand couldn't be overly interested.

 

What we say, what we think we say, and what is understood are all totally different animals at times.

 

I see your point and would probably have been annoyed too - but to me, now that I've had a long think about it - I am more inclined to believe that it was poor explanation rather than taking advantage of the pause. As long as the definition of 3N was actually "mild" slam interest, opener has no reason to move past 4H.

 

Winston

[Kalvan14]

I do not mean to be rude, nor to insult the bridge knowledge of those who felt a move was warranted, but one of the distinguishing facets of a good expert is the ability to forecast the play during the auction.  I gather that opener was a true WC player who would no doubt consider all of the matters I have referred to and possibly others beyond my ability or based on other (legal) aspects of the auction and their method/style.

 

And for those who say that opener should play responder for more than she had, because of the use of serious notrump: that would be asserting that you are a better judge not only of how serious 3N should be played in this sequence but of how THIS PARTNERSHIP has agreed to play it. No doubt that feeling prompted the comment our poster has complained of, in which one of the opps asked if he knew their method better than they did.

This sort of thing is the problem with committee rulings, especially in ACBL-land.

 

You're assuming that responder can't have a better hand for the serious 3NT. This is without any information to indicate that such is the case. In fact, if responder really couldn't have a better hand for the serious 3NT, then what was responder thinking about?

 

You're assuming that opener is a world class player, and giving credit for "considering matters beyond my ability." This is an implicit assumption that opener is ethical.

 

When you assume that the offending sides bids are 100% clearcut, and that they are 100% ethical, it's hard to rule against them isn't it? Especially when you don't really know the specifics of their system, since they haven't bothered to document them...

 

I submit that if the offending side were "no-name" players rather than a pair of known experts, the committee ruling would have been quite different. The committee would have ruled that:

 

(1) Any statements about negative inferences from other possible bids (3♥, 3♠) would have been ruled to be made in their own self-interest, and ignored unless they could provide written evidence of such agreements.

 

(2) It would be assumed that the signoff after a serious slam try was due to the hesitation, unless such a signoff was 100% clear.

 

(3) Any ambiguity in the offending side's agreements or system would be resolved by using the committee's judgement. In other words, the committee would judge whether they think bidding on was in order, and if so, they would assess a penalty. Note how different this is from your dependence on the offending side's bridge judgement in a concession that it is probably better than your own.

I could not have said it better: this post fully reflects my own thinking (and the problem is not just limited to ACBL land)

[Winstonm]

Given that we all know by the bidding that responder holds A/A and presumably a balanced hand, he cannot also hold the diamond Q else would have opened with a 10-12 NT. He may have opened AA, JJ with spots or maybe this is automatic for them, who knows. But it is highly likely that the only card outside the two Aces partner could hold is a Jack. As the only one that is of real value is the spade Jack and to investigate that holding would bypass 4H, it is quite reasonable to conclude that opener would have bid 4H without the hesitation.

 

I don't see the ruling as in any way based on status - but then I wasn't there, either, and descriptions of events in type do not reflect always the manner in which things were said or implied.

 

Many years ago I too was accused by a director of creating a frivilous committee, but the committee did not uphold that claim by the director, so I understand the passions and anger inherent sometimes by those involved. As we use the committee as the final arbitrator, good or bad, the best thing to do is present your case and then accept the ruling - not like it, mind you, but accept it and put it behind you so it doesn't further influence and harm your play and tournament enjoyment.

 

Easier typed than done. :)

 

Winston

[000002]

removed nonsense

WHY？

why you can not understand?

are you a younger bridge student?

OK here is the nonsense

 

I had made a reply that opposite

 

x

AJxx

xxxx

Axxx

 

you can make 12 tricks with a crossruff. But if opps lead a trump you need at least the ♦Q with partner.

 

I think slam is likely once partner makes a slamtry (he shouldn't do that with a balanced 9 count). But I understand the signoff, because if 6♥ makes the opps will call the director and then appeal. It has become a no win situation.

I am assurance that you are a bridge student.

[000002]

MR(lady?) winstonm:

 

i agree you that south can signoff if she wish or would,but after the north's hesitation ,this is unusual, unless the most top players assent it, unless she isn't a serious player.

 

the major reason suggest by you is :south's hand is not sufficient to bid slam,and not sufficient to seek slam too. I agree the anterior somtimes,but i disagree the posterior all the time.farther, the most of experts VOTE --try ,seek.

 

regards

000002

[Winstonm]

MR(lady?) winstonm:

 

i agree you that south can signoff if she wish or would,but after the north's hesitation ,this is unusual, unless the most top players assent it, unless she isn't a serious player.

 

the major reason suggest by you is :south's hand is not sufficient to bid slam,and not sufficient to seek slam too. I agree the anterior somtimes,but i disagree the posterior all the time.farther, the most of experts VOTE --try ,seek.

 

regards

000002

Feel free to disagree. :)

 

My point is that responder is strong enough to see if opener wants to try for slam - not that responder himself is strong enough to try for slam.

 

A subtle difference, but important.

 

Regards,

 

Winston

[000002]

MR(lady?) winstonm:

 

i agree you that south can signoff if she wish or would,but after the north's hesitation ,this is unusual, unless the most top players assent it, unless she isn't a serious player.

 

the major reason suggest by you is :south's hand is not sufficient to bid slam,and not sufficient to seek slam too. I agree the anterior somtimes,but i disagree the posterior all the time.farther, the most of experts VOTE --try ,seek.

 

regards

000002

Feel free to disagree. :D

 

My point is that responder is strong enough to see if opener wants to try for slam - not that responder himself is strong enough to try for slam.

 

A subtle difference, but important.

 

Regards,

 

Winston

OK

your meanning focus on north hand,and mine is south.

which committee focus on?

 

nice to met you here :lol:

[Winstonm]

000002:

OK

your meanning focus on north hand,and mine is south.

which committee focus on?

nice to met you here 

 

Nice to have met you as well. You have a good point. I think it critical for the committee to know what the understandings were in the distictions among the bids.

 

If what I am wondering is correct - that 3N is more of an asking bid than a telling bid - then 4H is pretty much automatic with the opener's hand. If this is not the case, then your argument is well founded. I think the committee should have discovered this and told you their findings.

 

Winston

[mikeh]

I do not mean to be rude, nor to insult the bridge knowledge of those who felt a move was warranted, but one of the distinguishing facets of a good expert is the ability to forecast the play during the auction.  I gather that opener was a true WC player who would no doubt consider all of the matters I have referred to and possibly others beyond my ability or based on other (legal) aspects of the auction and their method/style.

 

And for those who say that opener should play responder for more than she had, because of the use of serious notrump: that would be asserting that you are a better judge not only of how serious 3N should be played in this sequence but of how THIS PARTNERSHIP has agreed to play it. No doubt that feeling prompted the comment our poster has complained of, in which one of the opps asked if he knew their method better than they did.

This sort of thing is the problem with committee rulings, especially in ACBL-land.

 

You're assuming that responder can't have a better hand for the serious 3NT. This is without any information to indicate that such is the case. In fact, if responder really couldn't have a better hand for the serious 3NT, then what was responder thinking about?

 

You're assuming that opener is a world class player, and giving credit for "considering matters beyond my ability." This is an implicit assumption that opener is ethical.

 

When you assume that the offending sides bids are 100% clearcut, and that they are 100% ethical, it's hard to rule against them isn't it? Especially when you don't really know the specifics of their system, since they haven't bothered to document them...

 

I submit that if the offending side were "no-name" players rather than a pair of known experts, the committee ruling would have been quite different. The committee would have ruled that:

 

(1) Any statements about negative inferences from other possible bids (3♥, 3♠) would have been ruled to be made in their own self-interest, and ignored unless they could provide written evidence of such agreements.

 

(2) It would be assumed that the signoff after a serious slam try was due to the hesitation, unless such a signoff was 100% clear.

 

(3) Any ambiguity in the offending side's agreements or system would be resolved by using the committee's judgement. In other words, the committee would judge whether they think bidding on was in order, and if so, they would assess a penalty. Note how different this is from your dependence on the offending side's bridge judgement in a concession that it is probably better than your own.

I could not have said it better: this post fully reflects my own thinking (and the problem is not just limited to ACBL land)

Wow: quite a reaction to what were posted as additional factors over and above those that made the AC decision clearly (imo) correct :lol:

 

I would have hoped that the perception that good players get breaks from committees would not be widely held by members of this forum.

 

Those of you who perpetuate this myth do the game itself a serious disservice and you are insulting many good players who give of their time and energies in serving on committees. Being on an AC is a thankless task and it usually happens when you are tired and hungry or worse: depressed at being knocked out of the event.

 

Hesitation decisions are the most complex of those that come before ACs on a regular basis, and the ones that engender the strongest feelings. It is too bad, but attacking the AC is the easy way out: the tougher and better is to try to see why the AC ruled the way it did.

 

As for the factors to be considered, my post was inelegantly worded. I had tried to come up with some factors that occurred to me from afar. I was trying to point out that maybe a WC pair, familiar with their own style and methods, might know other factors that I, from this distance, could not discern. Were I on the committee, I would want to know about them, while being sceptical unless adequately proven.

 

While most agreements should be in writing, some will not be and that should not mean rejection. It should warrant careful examination, and the unwritten agreement ought not to be accepted if it were one that one would expect to find in the partnership notes, as one example of many factors to be weighed. Clearly, the bridge logic of the panel plays a role in this process.

 

If you doubt this, ask yourself this: do you have 100% comprehensive notes of all of your partnership agreements? I bet you don't!

[000002]

I would have hoped that the perception that good players get breaks from committees would not be widely held by members of this forum.

sorry, i'm confused

that means you can shut up in this forum?

 

someone hope and need this forum, we are talking with him.

OFCZ, i think my(many of us) skill is very good, look like a WC player, indeed

 

maybe it's very rude to you,but it's mild with our self-culture.hope you can understand.

[Chamaco]

If what I am wondering is correct - that 3N is more of an asking bid than a telling bid - then 4H is pretty much automatic with the opener's hand.

3NT, even the "serious" 3NT, in thi specific sequence, by a passed hand, when pard has opened a big club, CANNOT be an asking bid.

 

It is logical to infer that it shows a max, and 99% it shows 2 Aces: playing serious 3NT, the immediate cue at the 4 level would have shown a control but denying such a strength.

 

So, in this sequence, it is not a bid to grab the control on the way to slam, but just a way to tell to pard "Hey, my hand looks good for a passed hand, decide yourself whether it's wortwhile to explore slam"

[temp3600]

It was quickly assumed - and nobody objected - that everyone would choose the same action in the bridge problem given in a vacuum, and at the table in the described situation. I think it is far from obvious, especially in a borderline slam try situation like this one.

[Kalvan14]

If there was a break of tempo at the table by W (but the infamous 3N was or was not clear cut?), I would assume that E is under an obligation to consider all possible alternatives. In other words, a stop in 4♥ must be proven to be the sole lawful alternative. The more so since these two players enjoy expert status, and are apparently well known.

 

Please no argument about the "need to think": W is not checking what the nth relay step is. This is clearly a systemic treatment, and the auction should be fluid (ask for the singleton, 5 hearts yes/no, cue bid in spades yes/no, 3N yes/no).

If I am correct in this assessment, there should not be any break of tempo before 3N. Unless the message (I do apologise: the unintended UI) is that 3N is not as good as it might be.

 

Without being there it is difficult to distinguish between nuances: IMHO, the committee might not have approached the issue form this POV. And (once again) the lack of a written agreement is a bit embarassing. I and my partner regularly update system notes: how can you manage them otherwise?

[Finch]

(1) Any statements about negative inferences from other possible bids (3♥, 3♠) would have been ruled to be made in their own self-interest, and ignored unless they could provide written evidence of such agreements.

 

I have seen this comment, or similar ones with the same meaning a few times in this thread. The feeling from a number of people seems to be "if you can't back up what you say in writing, then anything you say must be ignored as self-serving"

 

That's simply not true.

 

There is one particular instance, when deciding if there has been a mis-bid or a mis-explanation, when the Laws say you assume a mis-explanation unless there is clear evidence otherwise; and that clear evidence otherwise is often only allowed if it's on the convention card (or supporting notes).

 

Other than that, the AC (and the TD) will listen to everything both pairs say. As a starting point, they assume that both pairs are telling the truth as they see it. They are also aware that players are advocating their own side, and will generally present facts in the way most favourable to their side. But if you explain your system, and its inferences, and it all makes sense and is internally consistent, and its an area that there isn't room for on the cc you will generally believed.

 

The times you won't be believed are when there is a space on the convention card to show this particular agreement and you haven't written it in, or it's something so basic it should be on there ("we play penalty doubles of opening pre-empts"), or when the cc flatly contradicts what you claim to be playing, or sometimes if you claim to be playing something very strange (e.g. that leaves a lot of hands unbiddable).

 

A point about system notes, and the assumption that any good partnership will have all these things written down. Well, my system notes are just that: they are notes on what my partnerships play. One set is about 60% complete, and the other set about 10% in terms of overall agreements documented, yet I am pretty happy with them they way they are. We see no need to write down stuff that we both think is obvious. So, for example, nowhere does it say that 1S - 1NT - 2S promises a 6th spade, or that 1S - 2D (FG) - 2H (relay) - 2S (relay) denies 4-card support, or even that 1C - 1H - 1NT does not deny four spades but does deny a heart singleton. Or.....

 

Remember that the Laws in general are not about what _you_ would have done, they are about "could have known" and "an action suggested".

 

As an aside, the sorts of things that people say that may be partly (fully) discounted are

 

- If I'd known the 1NT was 14-17 not 14-16 of course I'd have played the hexagonal squeeze rather than try and take a ruff in dummy

- Partner always thinks for ages in this type of auction, even when she has nothing to think about

- Person A claims there was an obvious hesitation, opponents claim they bid in tempo and A's partner says something non-committal such as "I wasn't really paying attention"

- Simply stating "there was no logical alternative to bid X". Explaning in detail what you know about partner's hand and why there was therefore no LA can be very helpful.

- If I had the correct explanation of course I'd have forced to slam rather than signing off in a part-score - with no explanation of _why_ you would have bid differently.

[Finch]

I want to add something on how to win TD and AC rulings in your favour. In theory all cases are decided on their merits alone, but there are a few practical ways to make life easier for all concerned.

 

Be calm, clear and concise.

Do not tell the AC how to do their job, nor accuse them of bias, nor accuse the opponents on cheating.

Do not give your honest opinion of the TD's ruling that you are appealing.

 

Explain not only what the opponents did wrong "they hesitated/they didn't alert" but exactly how you were damaged.

If relevant, explain not only what you would have done differently, but why this was a consequence of what the opponents have done.

 

The most frequent thing I see is "they didn't alert/they mis-explained" but no clear explanation of why you would have got a better result if they hadn't done so.

[Kalvan14]

Frances, a very compelling argument. Unfortunately, this is not a case of wrong information. It is a case of possible UI.

Can someone explain to me why advancer did not bid 3N in tempo?

Was he looking for the 5th heart or the ♠K on the floor? Or maybe he was working out the meaning of 3♦?

I can understand opener needing time to evaluate the hand. Not advancer, at least in this particular auction.

[arrows]

Explain not only what the opponents did wrong "they hesitated/they didn't alert" but exactly how you were damaged.

If relevant, explain not only what you would have done differently, but why this was a consequence of what the opponents have done.

 

The most frequent thing I see is "they didn't alert/they mis-explained" but no clear explanation of why you would have got a better result if they hadn't done so.

 

 

Thank you for these very wise advice, you may find some perfect comments

for your suggestion here:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=11444&st=0

 

same match, same opponents...