SF Open BAM decision

[Mbodell]

First session of the Open BAM I had this LA question (hands rotated):

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skj87hat97dcaj985]133|100|Scoring: BAM

2D! X 2H 3D

3H 4D P* P

??

 

! 2D precision showing 10-15 points and a card away from exactly 4415 distribution

 

* pass was slow[/hv]

 

What do you think the possible reasonable actions for south are at this point?

[gwnn]

How about pass, because pd knows what I have and I have no idea what he has?

 

I see no other alternative?

[nige1]

The most probable reason for partner's slow pass is that he has high card values. He may have been considering a double or a bid.

 

Normally you might double but, after the hesitation, you should pass because that (>30%) logical alternative is not suggested by the hesitation.

 

Suppose you argue that a wild 4H is OK because partner may well have been considering a penalty double? I don't think a director should let you get away with that because it is more likely that partner has "transferable values".

 

When you pass, if it turns out that partner hesitated on a load of mince and if the director judges that he may have done so deliberately to inhibit action from you, then the director should consider a penalty.

[mike777]

Ihave no idea but i love this explanation of 2D and the response at the very very very top levels of bridge. Ugggggggggggggggg

 

We all ..I...repeat all know that 2D can mean a zillion things..under modern precision yet...this is the explanation we get....:P

 

Please let everyone play anything or anything.........:)

We all know they will tell us nothing................

 

Am I the only one to notice so much cheating, lack of ethics and lack of disclosure on these few Sf hands that have been posted? ( see the coffee house hands in the finals of the blue ribbon pairs.)

[nige1]

Ihave no idea but i love this explanation of 2D and the response at the very very very top levels of bridge. Ugggggggggggggggg

 

We all ..I...repeat all know that 2D can mean a zillion things..under modern precision yet...this is the explanation we get....:)

 

Please let everyone play anything or anything.........:)

We all know they will tell us nothing................

 

Am I the only one to notice so much cheating, lack of ethics and lack of disclosure on these few Sf hands that have been posted? ( see the coffee house hands in the finals of the blue ribbon pairs.)

Sorry I don't understand the joke :)

[keylime]

Since you have identified your hand through the opening and the rebid, I would think pard's hitch would enforce a LA of pass. I can't any other call but pass being permitted on review.

[hrothgar]

Ihave no idea but i love this explanation of 2D and the response at the very very very top levels of bridge. Ugggggggggggggggg

 

We all ..I...repeat all know that 2D can mean a zillion things..under modern precision yet...this is the explanation we get....:)

I think that the explanation is reasonable: (Its not one that I've seen before, but it took me all of a second to figure out what it meant)

 

A 4415 is 14 card distribution.

 

Obviously, a bridge hand is based on a 13 card distribution.

 

The opponents are stating that one can construct a valid 2♦ opening by substracting any arbitrary card from the 4415 shape. Therefore, the 2♦ opening encompases the following shapes

 

3=4=1=5

4=3=1=5

4=4=0=5

4=4=1=4

[hrothgar]

Since you have identified your hand through the opening and the rebid, I would think pard's hitch would enforce a LA of pass. I can't any other call but pass being permitted on review.

The 3♥ raise is consistent with a number of hands (for example, an offensively oriented 3=4=1=5).

 

The 2♦ opener has not yet clarified that he has a Diamond void, nor has he shown two bullets and a King, nor all of those intermediaries.

 

1. I don't think that pass is a logical alternative.

 

2. I think that this hand should have been presented as a bidding poll absent the hesitation. Ask people what the would have bid over 4♦. I don't think that you'd find many people who would pass.

[whereagles]

Well, I don't quite agree. I've made two descriptive bids already, I'm not that strong and pard didn't invite me into the discussion. Pass is definitely a logical alternative.

[Finch]

1. I have no problem with the description of the 2D call, it seems concise and accurate, what more could you ask for?

 

2. Personally, I cannot see a logical alternative to pass over 4D. We have already shown significant extras for our 2D opening once and we have nothing more in reserve. Bidding again is simply saying 'partner you have no judgement so I am going to bid the hand I've already bid once'

 

3. Having said that I see no LA to pass, I still need to ask what partner's hitch suggests. It definitely suggests acting, so an action double (which is a possibility I suppose) is definitely suggested. Personally I would not allow a successful 4H bid either.

[jdonn]

Ihave no idea but i love this explanation of 2D and the response at the very very very top levels of bridge. Ugggggggggggggggg

 

We all ..I...repeat all know that 2D can mean a zillion things..under modern precision yet...this is the explanation we get....:(

 

Please let everyone play anything or anything.........:(

We all know they will tell us nothing................

 

Am I the only one to notice so much cheating, lack of ethics and lack of disclosure on these few Sf hands that have been posted? ( see the coffee house hands in the finals of the blue ribbon pairs.)

What the heck are you talking about?? I don't get it.

 

This partly depends on what extent you have agreements. For example you might play over the double that 2♥ promises 4+ (whereas without it could have been 3). Certainly with no double pass would be clear. I think pass is right anyway, the raise is usually based on a void I think so really that leaves us with nothing to spare.

[pclayton]

What haven't we showed yet? 2♥ probably shows 4 or 5 hearts (pard can pass with less). Maybe we have a little in reserve for 3♥, but we are barred.

 

Pard hasn't showed anything more than ♥xxxx by the way.

[han]

1. I have no problem with the description of the 2D call, it seems concise and accurate, what more could you ask for?

 

2. Personally, I cannot see a logical alternative to pass over 4D. We have already shown significant extras for our 2D opening once and we have nothing more in reserve. Bidding again is simply saying 'partner you have no judgement so I am going to bid the hand I've already bid once'

I completely agree.

[han]

Ihave no idea but i love this explanation of 2D and the response at the very very very top levels of bridge. Ugggggggggggggggg

 

We all ..I...repeat all know that 2D can mean a zillion things..under modern precision yet...this is the explanation we get....:)

 

Please let everyone play anything or anything.........:)

We all know they will tell us nothing................

 

Am I the only one to notice so much cheating, lack of ethics and lack of disclosure on these few Sf hands that have been posted? ( see the coffee house hands in the finals of the blue ribbon pairs.)

The explanation makes more sense than anything you have ever posted.

[jtfanclub]

The 2♦ opener has not yet clarified that he has a Diamond void, nor has he shown two bullets and a King, nor all of those intermediaries.

He hasn't shown a void, but I think he's shown the rest.

 

3♥ is a dangerous, dangerous bid. All 2♥ said was that partner would rather play in 2♥ if you have 4 spades and 3 hearts (assuming that with such hands after 2♦ X P P you bid 2♠). It doesn't show any count at all.

 

This is a 3 over 3 bid with a likely 8 card fit. Doing that with a 10 count doesn't sound wise to me. Doing it with a 12 count doesn't sound so good either. Partner should take us for a 14-15 count on this auction. Even on a hand as good as this one, I wouldn't be surprised if we went for 300 and a bottom.

 

This is BAM. Since I think we probably narrowly escaped death with the 3♥ bid, I don't feel eager to double for penalties. And I don't think we're even close to a 4♥ bid. That's up to partner, not us.

 

I'd definitely reverse a 4♥ bid, or an X converted to 4♥, were I directing and it made (somehow). If they X'd and it was left in, then I dunno. I doubt it would make a difference.

[cherdano]

No way can we even consider bidding here. The offense of this hand seems closer to a minimum than a maximum for the 3♥ call.

[Guest Jlall]

How can you bid?

 

BTW this is also how my dad likes to explain the bid. I agree it would be the best way if everyone was....smart... but most people aren't so it usually takes longer to explain when you start this way which is why I choose not to. It's certainly valid though.

[mycroft]

I use that explanation (for the exact same bid) in away-from-the-table discussions, where people can think about it and work it out, not having to worry about their hand and the rest of the auction. But people either get it immediately or get thrown so badly by it that even the long explanation doesn't immediately get them back on track.

 

Therefore, at the table, it's "11-15, three-suited with short diamonds. Could be 4414, 4405, or 34 or 4315."

 

Posting here, it would probably have been "Precision 2D, could be 4-3 either way in the majors", and assume people would work it out.

 

Michael.

[blackshoe]

How can you bid?

 

BTW this is also how my dad likes to explain the bid. I agree it would be the best way if everyone was....smart... but most people aren't so it usually takes longer to explain when you start this way which is why I choose not to. It's certainly valid though.

I'm passing. If some idiot TD wants to suggest I have violated Law 73C in so doing, well, he's entitled to his wrong opinion B) -- and I'm entitled to appeal.

 

I agree with Justin regarding this method of description. Wish I'd thought of it. :P Playing, as I often do, against people who, when I claim on a five card ending, want me to "play it out" because they "can't see" how my line of play will work out, with three of the four hands in front of them, I also have to agree that explaining 2♦ in this way would more likely lose time than save it. :(

[mikeh]

How can you bid?

 

BTW this is also how my dad likes to explain the bid. I agree it would be the best way if everyone was....smart... but most people aren't so it usually takes longer to explain when you start this way which is why I choose not to. It's certainly valid though.

I agree with all those who say one cannot bid here.

 

But I disagree with all those who say the explanation is correct.

 

It is possible that it might be a correct explanation but only if you use a form of Precision 2♦ significantly different from any I have seen.. and, Justin, maybe your father does.

 

But 'One card away from 4=4=1=5' is NOT limited to 4414, 3415 4315 and 4405.

 

It includes 5 card majors hands... 5404, 4504, 3514 and 5314...

 

Furthermore, unless one does use the bid with a 5 card major, it is made worse by being not only false but overly cute.. I can't help but feel that in the average field (and I suspect that Justin's father doesn't play in the 'usual field I am speaking of, so this comment is not addressed at him or any other top player in a top field), the comment, intentionally or otherwise, has the effect of demonstrating the intellectual superiority of the explainer, as compared to the obvious confusion in the mind of the asker.

[jtfanclub]

But 'One card away from 4=4=1=5' is NOT limited to 4414, 3415 4315 and 4405.

 

It includes 5 card majors hands... 5404, 4504, 3514 and 5314...

No...to use the first example, you have changed the number of cards in 3 suits (spades, diamonds, and clubs). You cannot change three suits by changing one card.

 

He gave a 14 card hand, and then said 'remove one card', or words to that effect. Only four possibilitites for what suit the removed card was, and therefore only four possible distributions.

[mikeh]

But 'One card away from 4=4=1=5' is NOT limited to 4414, 3415 4315 and 4405.

 

It includes 5 card majors hands... 5404, 4504, 3514 and 5314...

No...to use the first example, you have changed the number of cards in 3 suits (spades, diamonds, and clubs). You cannot change three suits by changing one card.

 

He gave a 14 card hand, and then said 'remove one card', or words to that effect. Only four possibilitites for what suit the removed card was, and therefore only four possible distributions.

ok, I think you are right, but I think my post illustrates the difficulties conjured up in the minds of the not-so-smart (such as me, obviously) when this type of explanation is given :P

[pclayton]

I used to explain a 2♦ as:

 

"s/v ♦, no 5 card major, not 6♣"

 

That covers it.

[jdonn]

Mike, you are much too smart for such a simple explanation to have confused you!

[han]

Surely mikeh was just prentending not to get it to make a good point. :P