Bad, badder, badest

[jillybean]

My pard said his 2♠ was obviously weak and I should know that

 

Why is my hand worth 4♠ now? The ♣ and ♥ bidder is sitting over top of me, my pard couldnt overcall at the 1lvl, I have nothing extra in distribution

[mike777]

IN reading the posts there is alot of confusion over what 2spades means.

There seems to be some confusion over what hands partner MUST overcall one spade at unfav vul over one club.

[LH2650]

So do you believe if East was given the correct information he would double?  If so, then there is damage.  Regardless of whether you believe that East's double is wild or gambling, shouldn't NS's score be adjusted?

No. EW would have obtained a good score had they acted rationally based on the information available to them. They were not damaged by the misinformation, but by their own bad bridge.

 

There is no legal basis for adjusting the NS score if EW were not damaged by NS actions.

[han]

My pard said his 2♠ was obviously weak and I should know that

 

Why is my hand worth 4♠ now? The ♣ and ♥ bidder is sitting over top of me, my pard couldnt overcall at the 1lvl, I have nothing extra in distribution

Your partner is wrong, 2S here is the same as 1C-Dbl-p-2S.

[badderzboy]

In my humble opinion,

 

I feel EW are getting short-changed as ANY alert in the opening auction would at least stop the final contract becoming reality.

 

Did EW act so poorly that we assume they failed to play bridge so they lose the right to an adjustment ...

 

I guess it was a pickup and East misunderstood the 2S bid by West then I would not rule against them as they are the non-offending side.

 

I would likely adjust to 2D+3 or 4 - I haven't looked in great detail at the hand and East would never double the opening sequence showing the majors given the correct information so they was clearly damage by the failure to alert.

 

The best advice Jilly is to post on www.bridgetalk.com as you will get replies by some very experienced directors incl David Stevenson EBU and Francis Hinden and Jeffrey Allerton who will comment with a directors hat on.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

[blackshoe]

They were not damaged by the misinformation, but by their own bad bridge.

Given that 1♣ is natural (since there was no alert), I don't think the initial double was IWoG, and "bad bridge" is not enough to deny redress. Since it's the initial double that led ultimately to the bad score, IMO EW were damaged by the MI.

[han]

I agree that EW were damaged by the misinformation even though they both displayed poor bridge.

[jillybean]

My pard said his 2♠ was obviously weak and I should know that 

 

Why is my hand worth 4♠ now?  The ♣ and ♥ bidder is sitting over top of me, my pard couldnt overcall at the 1lvl, I have nothing extra in distribution

Your partner is wrong, 2S here is the same as 1C-Dbl-p-2S.

Ok, why is my hand worth a 4♠ bid after pards 2♠ bid?

[gwnn]

Because partner promises a constructive/invitational hand. In terms of hcp (of course this is a rough guideline), 8-11, and you have a prime 15 count.

[Echognome]

No. EW would have obtained a good score had they acted rationally based on the information available to them. They were not damaged by the misinformation, but by their own bad bridge.

 

There is no legal basis for adjusting the NS score if EW were not damaged by NS actions.

And I'm saying my claim is that if EW had attained the correct information about the NS bidding, then they might (would) not have doubled the final contract. That is the basis for damage. Guess what? They get the benefit of the doubt. Do you want a basis in the laws for that?

[jillybean]

Because partner promises a constructive/invitational hand. In terms of hcp (of course this is a rough guideline), 8-11, and you have a prime 15 count.

OK and how do you further evaluate this 23-26 hcp hand, what makes it right to bid game?

[jtfanclub]

Because partner promises a constructive/invitational hand. In terms of hcp (of course this is a rough guideline), 8-11, and you have a prime 15 count.

You had a prime 15 count.

 

Then LHO opened a club, and the king of clubs went down to worth 2 or so.

Then RHO responded a diamond, and the xx in that suit looks like a flaw.

Then LHO rebid a heart, and the AQJ7 went from being worth 7 hcp to 5, since the finesse is most likely off and the 7 probably won't set up even if it's not.

 

After this auction, I'd say the hand is worth 12-13 hcp. It's only barely worth an invite.

 

If your partner has, say, the ace of spades and the ace of diamonds as his only useful points, you're probably going to lose a diamond, two or three clubs, and a heart. If he has the ace of spades and the king of hearts, you're going to lose 4 or 5 minor suit tricks off the top. If he has the ace of spades and the ace of clubs, looks like you're losing two diamonds a heart and a club. And so on and so forth.

 

What 8 or 9 hcp hand are you hoping that partner will have that can make 4♠?

[Vilgan]

Given the location of the K of clubs.. I'm not sure that its a clear 4♠ bid. Most values are working, but the K♣ is questionable, no singleton, etc. If you need a heart finesse, it too is off. Given imps, I think 4♠ is a fairly normal bid but not an omg clear one. Over 4♦ and no x by partner, I think 4♠ at that point sounds a lot better than X.

 

Calling 2♠ preemptive is just a complete departure from common sense. Don't let someone bully you into thinking you were wrong when you weren't :(

 

As for ruling.. I think the contract should stand because the 2♠ by west and the x by east were both pretty crazy. However, N/S should a significant procedural penalty for the failures to alert. Nobody ever gives procedural penalties for crap like this and they really should.

[jtfanclub]

Calling 2♠ preemptive is just a complete departure from common sense. Don't let someone bully you into thinking you were wrong when you weren't :( The double WAS a mistake w/ no real defensive tricks but the bidding by east other than the X was fine.

See, here's what I don't get.

 

On the one hand, there's this advice to go to game with the doubling hand. Because, apparently, this hand is going to take so many tricks in hearts and clubs (since it's only going to take a maximum 3 in spades and diamonds total).

 

And on the other hand, there's people saying that the double of 4♦ is horrible. Because you aren't taking making tricks in hearts and clubs.

 

I'm having trouble imagining the hand partner could have where we make 4♠ and they make 4♦. Look at the auction, look at your hand. Do you really think there are 20 total tricks?

 

So how can this argument even happen, where some people are saying that East's failure to bid 4♠ is egregious because he has so much in the round suits, and others are saying that doubling 4♦ is egregious because he has so little in the round suits?

[han]

Considering how many things you say that simply aren't true, it isn't surprising that you don't get it.

[gwnn]

JT,

 

I knew I shouldn't have used the term "hcp" :(

 

how about

 

JTxx

Kxx

xxx

Axx?

 

Jxxx

xxx

x

QJxxx

 

oops this last one has 4 :P I suppose that's why game is on a finesse and a 3-2 break.

[jtfanclub]

JT,

 

I knew I shouldn't have used the term "hcp" ;)

 

how about

 

JTxx

Kxx

xxx

Axx?

 

Jxxx

xxx

x

QJxxx

 

oops this last one has 4 :D I suppose that's why game is on a finesse and a 3-2 break.

Don't think the second one has any chance to make. If opener has 4 clubs, then it's club, club ruff, diamond, club ruff and you're still losing the ace of spade.

 

I suppose opener could have 3-4-3-3. That would give his partner what, 2-2-7-2? Still on the lead of a club and another you're losing a spade, diamond, club, and a club ruff.

 

On the first one, that looks like it'll work. Even an opening heart lead won't set it.

 

So certainly there are some 8-9 point hands that'll make game, you're right.

[gwnn]

The point is 8-9 point hands will be good hands, partner doesn't jump around with a bad hand.

[LH2650]

And I'm saying my claim is that if EW had attained the correct information about the NS bidding, then they might (would) not have doubled the final contract.  That is the basis for damage.  Guess what?  They get the benefit of the doubt.  Do you want a basis in the laws for that?

I think that if you accept your argument you will never find a case where you fail to adjust after misinformation, and a bad result.

[LH2650]

Since it's the initial double that led ultimately to the bad score, IMO EW were damaged by the MI.

Why? The double properly represented East's hand. The EW misunderstanding is their problem, as is the penalty double without tricks in the face of a strong opposing auction.

[badderzboy]

And I'm saying my claim is that if EW had attained the correct information about the NS bidding, then they might (would) not have doubled the final contract.  That is the basis for damage.  Guess what?  They get the benefit of the doubt.  Do you want a basis in the laws for that?

I think that if you accept your argument you will never find a case where you fail to adjust after misinformation, and a bad result.

I wonder how many people on this thread have gone thru any director training.

 

The laws are there to protect everyone especially the NON - offending side.

 

In the quote above it is N/Ss responsibility to alert THEIR bids to their opponents so they created the MI not EW so guess what they are likely to pay the price.

 

I would even bet that Jilly may have even alerted the DBL as other two suits.

 

So any benefit of the doubt goes to the non-offending side EW.

 

So we need to consider an adjusted score for both pairs.

[david_c]

Since it's the initial double that led ultimately to the bad score, IMO EW were damaged by the MI.

Why? The double properly represented East's hand.

That's irrelevant. If East would not have doubled 1♦ with the correct information, and not doubling would have got a better result, then that means E/W were damaged.