Bloody preempts again

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sq5h9dajt964ck942]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Sorry if you know the hand already, but I'd appreciate the great players of the forum to give their opinions on this problem.

 

3♠ Pass Pass Dbl

Pass ?

[rogerclee]

There are a few opinions here:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28325

[P_Marlowe]

5D.

 

I am not brave enough to try 3NT.

I think 3NT is a reasonable gamble, the partnership will

have a spade stopper most of the time, but of course

you will look silly, if 3S was based on

 

AKJxxxx xx xx xx

 

But it is a gamble, so ...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[keylime]

5D. Practical, down the middle, clear.

[dicklont]

Ich würde *immer* 3NT versuchen. :rolleyes:

[JanM]

This hand is being discussed in relation to an appeal - partner's DBL was slow (I don't know how slow - but even with screens, it's so unlikely that opener would have a problem in this auction that I guess it doesn't matter how long the break in tempo was) and this hand bid 3NT, which was successful. Although I think I would bid 5♦, I'm not at all certain that partner's slow double suggests bidding 3NT. There are a lot of hands where partner would be unhappy about doubling but wouldn't have a spade stopper. The slow DBL is most likely to suggest either a light hand or an off-shape hand. I'm not sure what that suggests about my bid. Remember that the laws on UI say that the UI needs to demonstrably (I think that's the right word) suggest the bid that was chosen. Did it here?

[helene_t]

I think it does. Of course the slow double doesn't promise a spade stopper and/or diamond shortness, but I think it's "demonstrable" enough that it increases the likelihood of such.

[jdonn]

I believe it demonstrably suggests the normal bid is less likely to work than usual.

[pclayton]

I believe it demonstrably suggests the normal bid is less likely to work than usual.

Absolutely. Typical problems that pard may have are:

 

1. A flexible hand with five hearts.

 

2. Something strong but offshape.

 

3. Something really strong and really offshape.

 

I would question any other call with this hand but 5♦, since both 3N or 4♦ are taking advantage of the hitch.

[ArtK78]

I believe it demonstrably suggests the normal bid is less likely to work than usual.

Absolutely. Typical problems that pard may have are:

 

1. A flexible hand with five hearts.

 

2. Something strong but offshape.

 

3. Something really strong and really offshape.

 

I would question any other call with this hand but 5♦, since both 3N or 4♦ are taking advantage of the hitch.

Agree with all of these comments. Any call other than 5♦ on these cards is suspect.

[Gerben42]

The screen was like this (if that makes any difference for you):

 

North East | South West

 

3♠ Pass | Pass Dbl

Pass 3NT | Pass Pass

Pass

 

you will look silly, if 3S was based on

 

AKJxxxx xx xx xx

 

Depends on if the lead can be read, and if opener believes you. If he believes that you have Qxx and partner has another ♠, he might duck it :)

[david_c]

It appears that the break in tempo was not disputed (though possibly because the German team was not given the chance to dispute it). If it had been disputed then I think there's a good chance that the case would have been thrown out.

[Gerben42]

It appears that the break in tempo was not disputed (though possibly because the German team was not given the chance to dispute it). If it had been disputed then I think there's a good chance that the case would have been thrown out.

 

This whole case makes me sick on several counts.

 

1. The Italian attitude of "win at all cost", appealing two decisions by the world's best directors, and then double shooting on the actual hand (call director when 3N makes AND the score is close, but not when it fails, rather than call directly). If a BIT happens with screens, the player on the other side of the screen from the thinking player should call the director, otherwise there isn't much of a case.

 

2. The directors, for not making a ruling on the 3rd hand and leaving it to the AC. I mean, what are directors for if not to make a ruling?

 

3. The AC, for not hearing the German team (other than asking Dr. Elinescu a question about the BIT) in a situation where it decides over the outcome of a semi-final in a major international event.

 

I will stop posting on these hands now as everyone on several forums now knows how I feel about this and I've had enough. Thanks for listening, anyway.

 

DISCLAIMER: This is my personal opinion and not related to any function I might have.

[jdonn]

Gerben while some of that stuff is certainly not the best procedure, it seems evident that none of it would have impacted the final decision. Sorry that it went against your country, but I haven't found a single non-German person who disagrees with the decision. I think you simply have to admit to bias in this case.

[TimG]

I believe it demonstrably suggests the normal bid is less likely to work than usual.

Doesn't the hesitation have to suggest something without regard to the actual hand?

 

If we decide that with one hand pass is normal and with another bidding something is normal, the hesitation can't be deemed to have suggested not passing in the first case and passing in the second. Can it?

[TimG]

This whole case makes me sick on several counts.

It sounds to me that you are upset with the manner in which this appeal arose and was decided, not that you disagree with the outcome. If the director had been called at the right time and the directors had been allowed to rule before going to committee (or whatever was wrong with the process), I don't think you would find the result of the appeal troubling. And, you are having difficulty separating the two.

[skjaeran]

Gerben while some of that stuff is certainly not the best procedure, it seems evident that none of it would have impacted the final decision. Sorry that it went against your country, but I haven't found a single non-German person who disagrees with the decision. I think you simply have to admit to bias in this case.

Huh?

 

It's far from obvious to adjust to 5♦-1, even if you agree to adjust (I certainly do).

 

It takes a ♣ lead to beat 5♦, which is not a stand out lead IMO. An adjustement along the line of 50% 5♦= and 50% 5♦-1 seems more proper to me. It might not in a jurisdiction where weighted scores are uncommon, but that's not the case in the EBL.

[jdonn]

Gerben while some of that stuff is certainly not the best procedure, it seems evident that none of it would have impacted the final decision. Sorry that it went against your country, but I haven't found a single non-German person who disagrees with the decision. I think you simply have to admit to bias in this case.

Huh?

 

It's far from obvious to adjust to 5♦-1, even if you agree to adjust (I certainly do).

 

It takes a ♣ lead to beat 5♦, which is not a stand out lead IMO. An adjustement along the line of 50% 5♦= and 50% 5♦-1 seems more proper to me. It might not in a jurisdiction where weighted scores are uncommon, but that's not the case in the EBL.

I thought we had been through this. Declarer is going to get trumps wrong on any lead after the 3♠ opening. That is virtually 100% certain.

[Codo]

Gerben while some of that stuff is certainly not the best procedure, it seems evident that none of it would have impacted the final decision. Sorry that it went against your country, but I haven't found a single non-German person who disagrees with the decision. I think you simply have to admit to bias in this case.

Maybe you missed the link to the

blml -- Bridge Laws Mailing List .

 

I can asure you that the contributors are mostly non German and many of them are quite sure that the handling was not rightly done.

 

So your words seem to lack some fundamental informations in this case.

 

I agree with you to disagree with Gerben that, if everything had been done according to the rules, the AC can/should rule 5 Diamonds -1.

But the procedure was so faulty, that it did impact the final descission.

 

(no need to belive me, I am a biast German after all. But follow the links from Walddk and read through the Amsterdam staff.)

 

And William Schroder and Grattan Endicott are not German- nor is Richard Harris, or Nigel Guthrie. And no, Wayne Burrows isn't from here either. Sorry, if I had missed some of this biased german loving people....

 

Maybe you have to admit to be uniformed in this case....

[helene_t]

This whole case makes me sick on several counts.

It sounds to me that you are upset with the manner in which this appeal arose and was decided, not that you disagree with the outcome. If the director had been called at the right time and the directors had been allowed to rule before going to committee (or whatever was wrong with the process), I don't think you would find the result of the appeal troubling. And, you are having difficulty separating the two.

Huh? Are we discussing how the case should have been handled from the beginning (i.e. the defenders should have reserved their rights once the pause was noticed etc.)? I thought the discussion was about what the appeal committee should have done, given the unfortunate circumstances.

[jdonn]

Maybe you have to admit to be uniformed in this case....

Maybe you have to admit to not speaking English very well. I said the FINAL DECISION would not have been different. I even conceded that it was probably poorly handled. What exactly are you arguing against?

[zenko]

These are really two separate issues. Do laws really allow this kind of ruling procedure? If they do the law should be changed/clarified at once.

 

BTW at the table without hesitation I would bid 4 diamonds, but I understand that might be a minority view

[whereagles]

Joining the 5♦ bandwagon, expecting pard to have something like a 3433 with around 14 hcp and no spade wastage.

[Codo]

Maybe you have to admit to be uniformed in this case....

Maybe you have to admit to not speaking English very well. I said the FINAL DECISION would not have been different. I even conceded that it was probably poorly handled. What exactly are you arguing against?

I am the first to admit that my english is much worse then it should be.

 

But maybe this time your readingabilities or your memory did not serve you well.

 

IT was you who said:

Gerben while some of that stuff is certainly not the best procedure, it seems evident that none of it would have impacted the final decision.

 

But according to the laws, the procedure has a really big big impact on the final descission.

 

I otoh wrote:

I agree with you to disagree with Gerben that, if everything had been done according to the rules, the AC can/should rule 5 Diamonds -1.

But the procedure was so faulty, that it did impact the final descission.

 

Anything not understandable in this part?

 

But please feel free to tell me what I understood wrong with my limited skills. Your English is surely better then mine.