competitive 3S

[vang]

[hv=s=sq10xhxxxxdakxxxca]133|100|Teams (IMP)

Vulnerable against not

 

1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣

2♠ - 3♣ - 3♠ - pass

?

 

1♠ promisses at least 5 cards

3♠ is competitive

[/hv]

 

 

more about NS agreements: a direct 2♠ (instead of 1♠) was NOT available as weak with 6 cards. over 3♣, both 3♦ and 3♥ would be (semi)natural game tries (forcing to at least 3♠).

[gwnn]

pd should be short enough in ♥ to make bidding 4♠ worthwhile.

[Fluffy]

partner didn't ask us anything, easy pass.

[Guest Jlall]

Easy pass

[han]

Pass.

[jdonn]

Easy pass without looking at our hand.

 

Naturally game will make because the hand is here....

[TheoKole]

Pass. Partner could have made a game try ( I assume you play them) over 3 clubs and chose not to. The question you could ask yourself is whether partner has a heart control (and does it matter anyways even if he does have 2nd round control).

 

Partner is 6-2-3-2 AJxxxx, Kx, xxx, Kx (plenty to go to 3 spades) (Partner should make a game try.)

 

I can picture a defense of heart to the A, heart Q, K, ruff, heart, later lose a spade to the King and a diamond.

 

Partner is 6-2-2-3 AJxxxx, Ax, xx, Qxx (plenty to go to 3 spades) (Partner should make a game try.)

 

I can picture a defense of heart to the Q (duck or Grab the Ace? - does left hand opp have 1 or 2 hearts?) Say partner makes the right choice, now what?

 

Does partner play right hand opp to be 2-6-1-4 or 3-5-1-4 or 0-5-4-4 or 3-6-0-4 or 3-5-2-3 or 2-5-3-3 (all sound reasonable to me but need to be declared differently - *ps I would play opp to have 5 hearts and 2 spades if declaring in 4 spades*)

 

Bottom line, I don't think that partner has this much. Pass and double them if they go to the 4 level, partner should be good for 1 trick.

 

Good luck,

 

Theo

[vang]

how about AJ9xxx xxx xx xx (and many other weak hands)? yes, i see it's not a 100% game.

 

i understand this is an easy and disciplined pass _by the book_ but i'll still look at my hand, listen to the whole auction, thinking i may miss a game in red at teams and then bid.

[jdonn]

how about AJ9xxx xxx xx xx (and many other weak hands)? yes, i see it's not a 100% game.

 

i understand this is an easy and disciplined pass _by the book_ but i'll still look at my hand, listen to the whole auction, thinking i may miss a game in red at teams and then bid.

Partner knows you are red at imps too, and he knows this is a hand you could have. If you bid game you are brutally insulting him.

[han]

There are auctions feasible where your hand suddenly is huge. For example when you can deduce shortness in your xxx suit and you were max and your HCP are all well places and partner competes, then you might very well bid game in a similar auction.

 

But not here.

[vang]

I still think I may make a case for 4♠. But I won't do it since it's really not "my board" and I was curious about the following appeal problem:

 

The other player hand was AJ98x Jxx Q10x xx

 

At the table, 3♠ was bid after hesitation (accepted by all players). 4♠ was made but the TD decided that 4♠ might be influenced by hesitation and adjusted the score to +170. The appeal jury decided with 3-0 that 4♠ it's OK and restored table result.

 

Oppinions?

[Fluffy]

I think the hesitation was about competing or not competing, nothign to do with 4♠ bid, noting to encourage it at least.

[Codo]

In the time of the LOTT, there is not often hesitation between to compete and not to compete anymore, but between invite and compete there is a lot of....

 

So the AC was clearly wrong as 98 % of all posters disagree with a 4 Spade bid. So PASS is not just an alternative, it is by far the most choosen bid. There is no way that a sane AC can judge 4 Spade is allowed with the given circumstances.

 

After a hesitation there is NO room for a 4 Spade bid. I had not returned the fee if this had been good and/or experienced players.

[helene_t]

Counting LTC this hand may justify a stronger initial action than 2♠. Having failed to do that, I must respect p's decision of not going towards game.

 

98 % of all posters disagree with a 4 Spade bid.

My estimate is 80%. Possibly a more sophisticated model could give a more accurate estimate.

[matmat]

My estimate is 80%. Possibly a more sophisticated model could give a more accurate estimate.

one with widgets and gadgets and bells and whistles? =)

 

quick thread hijack -- how are these things done in appeal? is the problem given as a bidding problem and then the hesitation is revealed or is the hesitation revealed up front etc?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Pass.

 

But if your partnership follows the LAW,

i.e. a hand has to qualify to make a

comp. 3S bid, like a 6th spade or

shortage in their suit (not likely given

our club shortage), 4S becomes a

alternative.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

After a hesitation there is NO room for a 4 Spade bid. I had not returned the fee if this had been good and/or experienced players.

Agree, espessially with the last part of the sentence, that the

apeal is without any merrit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Halo]

Pass.

 

This auction just buys the contract with the top suit.

[whereagles]

The point is: is there a considerable number of hands for pard that are a normal 3♠ bid and yet offer good play for 4?

 

If so, bid 4. Else pass.

[vang]

quick thread hijack -- how are these things done in appeal? is the problem given as a bidding problem and then the hesitation is revealed or is the hesitation revealed up front etc?

I don't know how it's supposed to be done.

 

In this case, the AC got the full board and story with hesitation from start. One of them, professional in US, said that he'll bid 4♠ at teams in red anyway (on the basis that partner is competing, but has to have some extra playability, either the 6th card in spade or some diamond support), so hesitation doesn't matter.

[Codo]

It should have gone this way:

 

The TD asks players of the same level how they would act after the bidding started with ... till 3 Spade without telling them about the hesitation.

 

If these 2,3,4,5 guys say: Hey we all bid 4 Spade, no problem, then score stands.

If some of these guys say: Hey pass is a real alternative, or even: Clear pass, the TD should rule that the score is 3 ♠ + 1 = 170.

 

Obviously he failed to do so or at least he failed to tell the AC about this.

 

The AC was obviously influenced by this pro. This guy made a clearly wrong statement. Nobody cares about HIS choice in this situation. If some players of the same level had passed, pass is a logical alternative and so the score must be changed. Here in this forums, player of all levels passed or at least found pass an alternative.

From the facts you gave, this case seems to be too clear to be ruled different, but still it happened.

[helene_t]

My estimate is 80%. Possibly a more sophisticated model could give a more accurate estimate.

one with widgets and gadgets and bells and whistles? =)

I was thinking of a model that took into account that votes given after infuential experts had voiced their opinions may have been infuenced by the latter. Ideally I would have time stamps of the votes available.

 

Also if the sample is small, I should shrink the estimate towards 50/50. Think of the case when only one vote has been given. Then the only possible ML-estimates are 100/0 and 0/100, that is not reasonable unless the question was kinda stupid.

[han]

In the time of the LOTT, there is not often hesitation between to compete and not to compete anymore...

Uh? :lol: