Don't hesitate

[Codo]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sqxhxdajtxxxckxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

(3♠) pass (pass) X

(pass)

 

Your call?

[P_Marlowe]

5D.

 

 

Is this the hand, I am thinking it is?

The hand currently discussed in the DOUBL?

 

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Walddk]

5♦. Even if 4NT is for the minors (I don't think it should be, 13-15 balanced rather), I won't let partner choose with 6-4.

 

I know the hand but am not going to reveal anything.

 

Roland

[HedyG]

5 ♦seems right.

would a longish huddle by partner before the double change my bid?...

[paulg]

5♦ seems normal to me too.

 

A hesitation before the double could be for many reasons, most of which would mean that 5♦ is the wrong call but that is a good reason (ethical speaking) for bidding it.

 

Paul

[vuroth]

A novice thought - from the time I passed, I should probably have been thinking about what I would do if partner doubled (or bid 3NT, or whatever).

 

Not sure who hesitated when at the table, but I thought I'd share that bit of advice. Of course, most experienced players probably already do that all the time.

[jtfanclub]

I am such a coward. I would bid 4♦.

 

Something is wrong with this hand. Partner doubled, I have only two spades, if the opponents had a 10 card spade fit, would they let me bid at the 3 level? I doubt it. So I suspect partner's got a strong balanced hand with no spade stopper, and if we have two spade losers, I don't think we're making 5♦.

 

 

If the auction had gone 3♠ X P I would say 5♦, but I've been burned too often with partner balancing with a good but not great balanced hand.

 

P.S. I'm having a hard time imagining a hand where I would have the auction

 

3♠ P P X

P 5♦

 

Where I did not have exactly 3 hearts. Outside of checking to see whether partner has a major, the hands where I would bid 4♦ directly and the hands where I'd take partner's balance and bid 5♦ are exactly the same.

[jdonn]

5♦ of course, seriously what else?

[skjaeran]

5♦ is clear to me at IMPs.

 

If partner hesitated before the double (I know that happened at the table), I've got UI suggesting that 5♦ might not be as good a bid as without the hesitation, compelling me to chose the non-suggestid call. So 5♦ it is.

[Codo]

I expected more inspired players when a question is asked in a forum. :)

 

But I agree with the majority and think that you "must" bid 5 Diamond espacially after a BIT from partner.

 

At the table 5 Diamond had not been the winning call. Pass or 3 NT works better, 5 Diamond will often fail by one trick.

[cherdano]

5♦ still seems obvious to me.

[rogerclee]

I can't construct a series of heavy sighs by partner which would persuade me to not bid 5♦.

[Walddk]

5♦ might have been the right call actually, because it takes a club lead to defeat it from

 

Jx

KJxx

xx

A10xxx

 

Roland

[jdonn]

Entire hand, anyone? Enough of the story has leaked out that inquiring minds deserve to know.

[Walddk]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sa1096432h843dq52c&w=sk8haq1062dk8cqj63&e=sq5h9daj10964ck942&s=sj7hkj75d73ca10875]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

[jdonn]

Partner certainly has an interesting reopening problem. Also I would agree with south leading the ace of clubs, although of course this is far from automatic. Declarer will surely get the diamond finesse wrong and go down anyway.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

there was more to this.

 

A problem was also, how the whole thing got handled,

but what I know is only hear say.

 

Maybe someone, who knowes it first hand, could tell

the whole story.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jkljkl]

Hi,

 

there was more to this.

 

A problem was also, how the whole thing got handled,

but what I know is only hear say.

 

Maybe someone, who knowes it first hand, could tell

the whole story.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Hello,

 

on blml they are trying to gather the facts.

 

A fair recap of an email of Michael Gromöller can be found at

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043859.html

 

The position of Ton Kooyman ( I don't know bout his function at the venue) in answer to a not perfect recap by another poster can be found at

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043841.html

 

of course you can read and follow the whole discussion in the archives of

http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

(go to november 2008 sorted by date)

 

It seems likely that Michael Gromöller will post there too in the near fture,

 

ciao stefan

[Cascade]

Depending on the opponents and our own partnership bidding style i think there is something to jtfanclub's argument that given there was no raise to 4♠ there is some case for being pessimistic with this hand (or perhaps an optimistic punt on 3NT) - ♠ Qx is very poor holding when a pre-empt has not been raised. Even many clear-cut takeout doubles will have two spades (and many marginal doubles will have a stiff spade).

 

In general I think a slow takeout double conveys much less UI than a slow pass in second seat. Slow actions, particularly at high levels, will often not demonstably suggest one action over another.

 

In this case a slow double could be:

 

1. Marginal Minimum Values

 

2. Marginal Distribution

 

3. A marginal decision between a simple overcall and a double and bid hand

 

4. Some combination of 1 and 2

[jdonn]

In general I think a slow takeout double conveys much less UI than a slow pass in second seat. Slow actions, particularly at high levels, will often not demonstably suggest one action over another.

 

In this case a slow double could be:

 

1. Marginal Minimum Values

 

2. Marginal Distribution

 

3. A marginal decision between a simple overcall and a double and bid hand

 

4. Some combination of 1 and 2

Perhaps true, but don't these all point toward bidding less rather than more? If 1. you don't get too high, if 2. he is most likely short in diamonds so you don't get too high, if 3. he is bidding again anyway so you leave partner maximum room.

[marcD]

5♦ of course, seriously what else?

I guess 3NT is always a possibility so it would cross my mind but tough call to defend if there was indeed an hesitation on the other side of the screen .

The situation is tricky as a winning 3NT call will often trigger a director call from some opponents whether partner hesitated or not

[Walddk]

Hi,

 

there was more to this.

 

A problem was also, how the whole thing got handled,

but what I know is only hear say.

 

Maybe someone, who knowes it first hand, could tell

the whole story.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Hello,

 

on blml they are trying to gather the facts.

 

A fair recap of an email of Michael Gromöller can be found at

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043859.html

 

The position of Ton Kooyman ( I don't know bout his function at the venue) in answer to a not perfect recap by another poster can be found at

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043841.html

 

of course you can read and follow the whole discussion in the archives of

http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

(go to november 2008 sorted by date)

 

It seems likely that Michael Gromöller will post there too in the near fture,

 

ciao stefan

Interesting reading. Facts regarding the 3rd (and decisive) appeal seem to be disputed, but if the Germans have not been heard before the AC's ruling, I think they have been hard done by.

 

If I understand it correctly, the TD decided not to give a ruling and that the case went straight to the AC. Apparently, the reason for the TD's non-ruling was that no matter what he ruled, there would be an appeal.

 

My question is then: what do we need a TD for if he declines to give a ruling? Is that not one of his/her duties when appropriate?

 

Grattan Endicott of England, one of the leading experts on the laws, is concerned:

 

"I do think the organizers have landed themselves in a mess, and I am

concerned about a situation in which a contestant that has lost two

appeals then appears to find grounds for a third that was not on the

table at the start", he writes.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

After finishing the hearing I told the AC about this third case and I sent

both teams to the AC for a further hearing (second wrong statement). That

hearing took place and both sides got the possibility to give their opinion.

Nobody at that stage told the Germans that they had no right to be heard

(third wrong statement).

Then the AC asked the TD's and me whether it was necessary to have a

decision from the TD's on this case before they could handle it. Our answer

was 'no'.

 

I am a bit concerned about this part of Ton Kooyman's message. We have the hard facts that the Germans wanted to be heard in the meeting, but weren't. Someone tell me please how that is possible.

 

Also it is clear that if no TD was called during the board, that there is no evidence that at the other side of the screen, the hesitation was obvious and could be interpreted. Dr. Elinescu said he had thought before doubling, but that is not relevant. What's relevant is not who thought and who didn't, but if the other side could figure out who thought and who didn't. And apparently this was not the case.

 

Depending on the opponents and our own partnership bidding style i think there is something to jtfanclub's argument that given there was no raise to 4♠ there is some case for being pessimistic with this hand (or perhaps an optimistic punt on 3NT) - ♠ Qx is very poor holding when a pre-empt has not been raised. Even many clear-cut takeout doubles will have two spades (and many marginal doubles will have a stiff spade).

 

Perhaps the hesitation on the other side of the screen was South considering if he should raise to 4♠ because he had 3-card support? Not in the actual hand but East cannot see South's hand when making his bidding decision.

[gwnn]

maybe i'm too dumb to figure it out, but what actually happened? what did the player bid?

[hotShot]

maybe i'm too dumb to figure it out, but what actually happened? what did the player bid?

The player (as did the one at the other table) bid 3NT.