a competitve decision

[Flame]

This question comes from a debate i have. I need only experts or semi experts votes, explenations will be very welcomed from everyone (not only experts)

 

?[hv=s=skq743h8765d974cj]133|100|1♦ 1♠ 3♦* ?

 

3♦= 10+ with fit[/hv]

I could bid 4♠ based on the law of TT but i thought this will help the opponents more then me, normally they will be in 5♦ and my 4♠ doesnt help about it, and my bid can also carry them to 6 with the right hand, for example if west hold xxx of spade , will like his hand much better now.

I decided to pass it.

Later there was also a director situation , because 3D was bid with 4 hcp, and we missed 4sp, they played 4D, the directors said my bid was a ubnormal move and therefore i have no rights to get a corrected score.

my questions are, first what do you bid 4s pass 3s or maybe something else.

also do you consider this bid as a "move" or a good bridge bid

[inquiry]

It seems to me that you ahve four possible bids.

 

1) Pass

2) 3♠

3) 4♠

4) 3NT (!!!!!)

 

Pass is wrong. Here is why, it allows your left hand opponent to cue-bid 3♠ as a game try, and even if not a 3♠ cue-bid, can raise to 4♦ as a game try. If you bid 3♠, you take away the possibility of a 3♠ cue-bid, and you fuzzy up the meaning of a 4♦ game try (too bad their suit is not ♣, because now a clever WEST can bid 4♣ as a game try, with 4♦ as competititive. Three ♠ might be a slight underbid here, based upon values and fit. Your partner will be short in ♦, didn't make a two suited overcall, and his spade suit is not all that great (and not preemptive jump overcall), so he rates to have a fair hand. If vul, I guess I would bid 4♠ at imps, as 3♠ might miss game.

 

4♠ is right on value, right on legth. You have a nice supporting hand. If you were a ZAR point counter, this thing is golden (5hcp - discount J, 13DP, 1 control point, 2 points for KQ of "trumps" and four more points of fourth and fifth spade along with stiff club. that comes to 25 points). Three ♠ sounds just "competiting" and your hand actually grades out much better than that.

 

Pass, ok, I agree with the director that this was a "swing" type of bid, trying to create action. But, you were misalerted (psyches are of course legal).

 

3NT. Someone always finds a way to bid three notrump on a hand, and here is your chance on this board. When doubled, find your way back to 4♠. A clever WEST may let you play 3NT undoubled of course. Yuck.

 

So what do I bid? At imps vul, 4♠ stands out. At imps, not vul, I would probably bid it too, but here it depends on my partner's overcall style a lot more. If he overcalls light at the one level (as I do), I guess I would try 3♠ only.

 

At matchpoints, not vul, clear 3♠ bid I think. Vul, more of a problem. I think I will allow myself to be pushed into 4♠ by bidding 3♠ and then, 4♠. So if I look at my responses at imps I am pressing to game and at matchpoints I am being more conservative.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Comment the first:

 

As I have noted before, the optimal strategy during many competitive bidding sequences is to randomize across a set of possible bids using an "optimal" probability density function. Given that 3D was alerted as 11+ HCP, I consider Pass to be a perfect valid call with your hand. [i've gotten some great results by deliberately suppressing a fit during a competitive bidding sequence] I'm not saying that I would necessarily pass a high percentage of the time, but I would assign pass a probability higher than 0%.

 

In contrast, I beleive that pass is irrational after a preemptive raise.

If the 3D bid was weak, then partner's overcall rates to be much more constructive. In turn, we need to be accurately positioned to explore game. I'd probably bid an immedate 4S.

 

In short, I think that your actions were quite justified.

The Director does not appear to have a good understanding regarding competitive bidding.

[whereagles]

1. I would bid always bid 4♠, no matter what opps/vuln/etc. This bid gives an accurate picture of my hand and encourages pard to bid on or sacrifice. A bluffing pass has some merit, but as a rule it is better to just bid your hand than to gamble the information transmitted will help opps more than your side.

 

2. If 3♦ is marked as 10+ support in their card, you're not entitled to any redress. If it is marked as preemptive, you may or may not be given redress, depending on how the Director judges the situation (you can always appeal if you disagree with the Director's judgement). If opps have no convention card, normally the Director rules misinformation, taking therefore 3♦ as preemptive and acting accordingly.

 

3. Ask pard why with he didn't balance 3♦ with singleton diamond and 15 points ;)

[JRG]

I bid 4♠ regardless of whether 3♦ is preemptive or Limit+. My partner accuses me of ignoring the vulnerability too often (i.e. I bid it regardless of the vulnerability). Also, your partner can have quite a good hand for a simple overcall - he's got a 5-card or longer ♠ suit but presumably is not strong enough to double and then bid ♠s. He is almost guaranteed to be short in ♦s (at most a doubleton, more likely a singleton - possibly void).

 

You said the final contract was 4♦, that means you got another chance after your Pass. Any particular reason for selling out to 4♦? Yes, you might push them into a making 5♦ that they have failed to bid, but on the other hand, your partner might have a good enough hand to punish them if they do bid 5♦.

 

I think the director was incorrect in his (or her) ruling (you may have to put up with the score you got for defending 4♦, however, the opponents should not get that score). Although most players will bid some number of ♠s on your hand, your action (as Richard pointed out) is definitely one to be considered and some (possibly small number of) people will take it.

[Polish Goalie]

I can only agree with what has already been stated. If 3♦ shows 10+ the one bid I would never make is 4♠ , there is too much chance of driving them to slam. Personally I must admit a strong temptation for 3NT, but in practice I think 3♠ is best, followed by 4♠. If 3♦ is really preemptive then I bid a straight forward (law of TT) 4♠. As Hrothgar said, I don't think the director got this one right.

[Free]

As far as I can recall I had a problem with wrong information, and because I bid we couldn't get an adjusted score, since it was MY DECISION to bid and not let them play. If you get the same punishment when not bidding, it sounds VERY strange. I think the director messed up this one. Nobody is obligated to bid, and if it's your judgement to pass because you think they might bid slam if you raise to 4♠, then no harm is done. If you would've had correct information, you'd definitly bid 4♠, so it's not your fault, and a score adjustment has to happen.

 

As for what I'd bid: I'd probably pass as well, see where they get. I have only losers in ♥ and ♦ (ok p should be quite short there), and a loser in ♣ if partner doesn't have the Ace. Pass or 3♠ are the best imo, you only bring some ♠s to partner together with a singleton, but you can't deny you have a lot of direct losers.

[inquiry]

From the description given, there was no indication that the bid was not described as the partnership agreed to play. That is, assuming EW's agreement was that 3♦ showed specifically 10+hcp an support, there is no redress NS is allowed. After all, psyches are FULLY allowed in this situation.

 

Now, if their agreement was actually that this is a preemptive raise, then mis-information has been provided. Clearly pass is a much less attractive alternative if the bid had been correctly described as per that agreement. As a result if I was directing, which I wasn't, my ruling would be....

 

1) if EW agreement is limit raise for 3♦, result stands

2) If EW agreement was 4-8 weak preemptive and it was misalerted, I would rule misinformation had been provided and that, yes, NS had been damaged, and I would have adjusted the score.

 

And I guess I would quote Law 40C...

 

40 C. Director's Option

If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.

 

And yes, I know the opponents responsibility here to protect themselves, but pass in light of 10+ is not that unreasonable (I wouldn't pass, but that is not the issue).

 

Ben

[whereagles]

The Director's decision was his own judgement of the situation. You can't say it was "right" or "wrong". In fact, I might very well rule as he did unless Flame convinced me he would definitely bid over a non-forcing 3♦ and pass a forcing 3♦.

 

And of course, if you disagree with the Director's judgement, you appeal. That's what appeals comittees are for ;)

[mishovnbg]

1. 3NT playing with Ben, else 4♠. I like partnership style of play.

2. Pass is good bridge bid if you need a swing.

3. As I many time wrote, often TD's mistake to judge like player, not like TD. In case of misinformation TD don't have rights to judge what can be happen, hе must only determine by several steps that I already wrote in forum, damage for innocent competitor. Board in example is clear for adjusting, becuse in case of right explanation of 3♦ bid, 4♠ can be bidded by innocent side. Important here is that TD no need to be even sure for anything, possibility of better result for innocent competitor is enough!!!

 

Misho

[inquiry]

Board in example is clear for adjusting, becuse in case of right explanation of 3♦ bid, 4♠ can be bidded by innocent side. Important here is that TD no need to be even sure for anything, possibility of better result for innocent competitor is enough!!!

But my friend, what if 3♦ was alerted/described correctly by patrntership agreement, and this time, for the first time ever, your RHO got creative and used a preemptive raise as a psyche with full knowledge that his partner would play him for 10+. Yoiu going to argue that competitots should be protected from their opponents psyches? If you you need a new bidding style.. lol.

[Flame]

Thx all for replaying, there are some others which im cuirious to see what they would bid, but most already answered. I don't care about the ruling here, just wanted to see what you bid and what you think of the pass bid (this is why i mentioned the director thing) thx

[the hog]

I would bid 4S over both meanings of 3D. In fact there is more value in bidding it over a forcing rather than non forcing 3D bid.

[Fluffy]

I pick 4♠, or pass if I am vul vs non.

 

I know litle about the code, but I have seen many mistakes about such decisions where directors decide you missed a good opportunity of succes so you shouldn´t be awarded any good score, and I always think... who are them to judge if experts calls after wrong information are good or bad?, such criterium is for appeals comitee, so I would love to see directors just adjust the score against the 'guilty' pair, and let them get the trouble appealing to comitee, not reversed as I often see.

 

I know little about the code, maybe what I said is agaisnt it, but anyway I think it should be the correct way to work such situations.

 

Of course if the pair agreement is that 3♦ is really 10+: east just psyched, either voluntary or involuntarilly, nothing of what I said applies.

[mishovnbg]

Board in example is clear for adjusting, becuse in case of right explanation of 3♦ bid, 4♠ can be bidded by innocent side. Important here is that TD no need to be even sure for anything, possibility of better result for innocent competitor is enough!!!

But my friend, what if 3♦ was alerted/described correctly by patrntership agreement, and this time, for the first time ever, your RHO got creative and used a preemptive raise as a psyche with full knowledge that his partner would play him for 10+. Yoiu going to argue that competitots should be protected from their opponents psyches? If you you need a new bidding style.. lol.

Hi Ben!

In case they can prove such their agreements by conv. card and 3♦ bid was explained by bidder as psyche, result will stay, if p of bluffer react his immediate turn normally - because his p is unlimited, he can't pass for example without penalty. In case of 3♦ was mistake, board will be adjusted too - forgetting own system can't be taken as acquital.

Was pleasure for me to teach you friend :(

Misho

[Flame]

I agree with all the responses except one.

"You said the final contract was 4♦, that means you got another chance after your Pass"

this is super wrong, if you dont bid on time, dont bid at all, this is the worse time to enter, my pass was made to hide my spade and hoping this will cause them to misjudge and it seems they do so now i will save them ?

also in this bid opponents are in the best possible place to double you for penalty when its right, they know they are strong but have no game, they know their distribution... they know too much, if you dont enter on time then dont enter at all.

[mishovnbg]

I pick 4♠, or pass if I am vul vs non.

 

I know litle about the code, but I have seen many mistakes about such decisions where directors decide you missed a good opportunity of succes so you shouldn´t be awarded any good score, and I always think... who are them to judge if experts calls after wrong information are good or bad?, such criterium is for appeals comitee, so I would love to see directors just adjust the score against the 'guilty' pair, and let them get the trouble appealing to comitee, not reversed as I often see.

 

I know little about the code, maybe what I said is agaisnt it, but anyway I think it should be the correct way to work such situations.

 

Of course if the pair agreement is that 3♦ is really 10+: east just psyched, either voluntary or involuntarilly, nothing of what I said applies.

Hi Gonzalo!

 

Will be important for you to study very carefull Law, if you prepare yourself as champion. How do you expect to win, if you don't know rules, by which you suppose to win? Yes, rules are very boring, but if you really like to win, you need them too. Else you will be vulnerable to attack at table by speculative usage of Law. Some of theese tricks you can find at Slavinski page, address I posted in BBO forum.

 

Misho

[Trpltrbl]

4♠.

let them figure it out at 5 level, where they belong.

 

Mike :unsure:

[JRG]

The Director's decision was his own judgement of the situation. You can't say it was "right" or "wrong". In fact, I might very well rule as he did unless Flame convinced me he would definitely bid over a non-forcing 3♦ and pass a forcing 3♦.

 

And of course, if you disagree with the Director's judgement, you appeal. That's what appeals comittees are for :)

The burden of proof is NOT supposed to be laid on the non-offending side. If you are not sure, you are supposed to rule against the OFFENDING side.

[JRG]

I agree with all the responses except one.

"You said the final contract was 4♦, that means you got another chance after your Pass"

this is super wrong, if you dont bid on time, dont bid at all, this is the worse time to enter, my pass was made to hide my spade and hoping this will cause them to misjudge and it seems they do so now i will save them ?

also in this bid opponents are in the best possible place to double you for penalty when its right, they know they are strong but have no game, they know their distribution... they know too much, if you dont enter on time then dont enter at all.

The quotation is a little out of context. The first thing I said was that I would bid 4♠ at my first opportunity, regardless of whether 3♦ was preemptive OR a Limit Raise AND regardless of the vulnerability.

 

The reason I mentioned your second chance to bid 4♠ is that I think by passing you have eroded (NOT given away) your right to protection. From my perspective, the question is who you trust - partner or the opponents. If you are saying you would have bid 4♠ if you had known the 3♦ bid was preemptive, then you are saying you trust the opponents more than you trust partner. In the case of a preemptive 3♦ bid, the points that person might have held can just as easily be held by the opening bidder rather than your partner. So you really have no more protection. It seems you are saying that because the opponent made a Limit Raise, partner may not have full values for his overcall.

 

1) The opponents have said (by their bidding), that they do not believe they can make game.

2) I think you should evaluate your hand as being awfully close to being able to make 4♠, even if the 3♦ bid showed a Limit Raise. Your partner is, presumably, short in ♦s and you are short in ♣s. Your partner overcalled 1♠ and has a maximum of A-J in that suit. Presumably he has some values in ♥s or ♣s (or both). I didn't mention it in my original post, but vulnerability is important here. My partnerships tend to have pretty close to an opening bid for a vulnerable (non-preemptive) overcall.

 

Now, having said that, I truly believe the same thing you stated, that is, if you are going to make a preemptive bid, make it immediately, don't give the opponents extra time to exchange information. I think this is a basic principle of preemptive bidding. Here, however, looking at the hand you hold, you should be starting to wonder who is making what.

[1eyedjack]

The Director's decision was his own judgement of the situation. You can't say it was "right" or "wrong". In fact, I might very well rule as he did unless Flame convinced me he would definitely bid over a non-forcing 3♦ and pass a forcing 3♦.

 

And of course, if you disagree with the Director's judgement, you appeal. That's what appeals comittees are for :)

The burden of proof is NOT supposed to be laid on the non-offending side. If you are not sure, you are supposed to rule against the OFFENDING side.

There appear to be differing codes applied by TDs depending on which side of the Atlantic. In USA the TD seems to act as nothing more than an automaton to determine who is the offending side, rule against that side, schedule it for the inevitable appeal and move on to the next problem. In UK it seems that the TD should do his best to predict the result of the AC and make that ruling in advance. Yes, if in genuine doubt the non-offending side would be protected, but every attempt would be made to allay or limit those doubts, and if the balance of doubt was substantially in favour of the offending side then rule in that favour.

 

This issue was discussed in some depth at

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=535

[Flame]

Hi JRG Im glad we agree on the specific subject of late bidding, yes if you think the first bid is a disaster then you might fix it with a second one, but i didnt think my bid was a disaster and i was ready to claim what i worked for. my pass was a premptive bid, its main perpose was to mislead them into not getting to the right contract (which i suspected have 80% to be 5D, 19% to be 6D, and 1% to 4D) now when they got to 4D i sure dont want to ruin all the good work of my i did so far by bidding 4sp now.

About believing your partner or the opponents i agree on the principle, but i dont think i didnt believe my partner here, i believe she had her overcall (which is about 8 hcp the way we play) its about who will the information about my spade support help more my partner or the opponent and i decided that in this specific place it will help the opponents more.

Thanks for all the replays it been a good thread.