Preempting too low

[lamford]

What happens when you can't find any such player?

 

At a local sectional this weekend we had a BIT case where the, IMO, right ruling was made provisionally at the table, but the director went to poll. 

 

The case was (us silent) opponents bid P-1♠(10-15 precision)-2♠(constructive)-BIT 2nt!(kokish try)-3♣! (forced) - BIT 3♦! (short suit diamond try) - BIT 3♠ (reject game try) - 4♠ (bid game anyways, and no it wasn't a slam try type hand).

If you can't find such a player, you have to ask people to imagine they are such a player and think what they would bid. Not ideal, but the only solution.

 

For example, Collings opened 1NT on ♠AKQJxxxx ♥x ♦x ♣Axx against me once and it went 2H on his left, BIT and then pass from partner, and the director ruled that there was no LA to Collings' 4S. He would have been unable to find a player of the same style as Collings (sadly there were none, and haven't been many since) who would open 1NT on that hand.

 

Your example is different. The person clearly regarded the hand as only worth a game-try (from the facts you present). I presume therefore, without seeing the hand, that passing 3S was an LA for a person of that level and playing those methods.

[gordontd]

As blackshoe says, rule it 3♦ making whatever.

 

If he thinks it is a 2♠ bid, then he does not think it a 3♠ opening, and for such players, they would consider passing 3♦ - and some of them would.

 

..............

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid S, then 3S, all along.

:P :D :lol:

 

Be serious! No beginner, opening with a pre-empt, considers the second round of bidding!

Strange statement.

 

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

 

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

 

Sven

And do you think they planned their later action when they were deciding on their first call?

[Cascade]

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

This seems a strange appeal committee ruling.

 

The table bid to 3♠ and presumably made ten tricks.

 

But if we are considering whether 3♠ was allowed it either was and 3♠ is the contract or it wasn't and 3♣ was the contract.

 

There is as far as I am aware no basis in law to allow some fraction of 3♠ (if it was an illegal action) and no basis to take away some fraction of 3♠ (if it was a legal action).

 

On this case in general it is far from clear to me that a slow PASS from south demonstably suggests bidding on. Particularly if south was an inexperienced players. Inexperienced players can have doubt even when the problem is a "WTP?". In this case the slow PASS could have been contemplating Double or bidding a new suit or raising. On the other hand north has the best part of seven tricks in her hand and a partner who barring an east west accident is bound to have some values. Bidding 3♠ seems very much a "middle of the road" action to me.

[pran]

As blackshoe says, rule it 3♦ making whatever.

 

If he thinks it is a 2♠ bid, then he does not think it a 3♠ opening, and for such players, they would consider passing 3♦ - and some of them would.

 

..............

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid S, then 3S, all along.

:P :D :lol:

 

Be serious! No beginner, opening with a pre-empt, considers the second round of bidding!

Strange statement.

 

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

 

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

 

Sven

And do you think they planned their later action when they were deciding on their first call?

Yes, I can tell for sure that at least some of them did with just the logic I referred to.

 

But is it really material whether they planned it or were just ready to do it when they doscovered that the preempt didn't shut out opponents?

 

Sven

[campboy]

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

Neither of these make any sense. Either the 3♠ bid is legal, in which case score stands, or it is illegal, in which case the only possible contract if North passes instead is 3♣ -- and it seems obvious that this will make 10 tricks.

 

Perhaps you meant to say 3♣+1 though, in which case I agree with your ruling (and understand what the AC were thinking, but their ruling is an (illegal) Reveley ruling).

[gordontd]

But is it really material whether they planned it or were just ready to do it when they doscovered that the preempt didn't shut out opponents?

Yes, it's material, because you were taking issue with a statement about beginners not considering the second round of bidding.

[o_fata]

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

 

Perhaps you meant to say 3♣+1 though, in which case I agree with your ruling (and understand what the AC were thinking, but their ruling is an (illegal) Reveley ruling).

Yes. Sorry. I ment 3♣+1

[blackshoe]

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

 

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

I've seen beginners do this but I think their logic, such as it is, goes more like "I have a preempt", and then, when the opponents compete, "I have a preempt, but maybe I should have preempted higher last time". They do not plan ahead.

[Cascade]

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

 

Perhaps you meant to say 3♣+1 though, in which case I agree with your ruling (and understand what the AC were thinking, but their ruling is an (illegal) Reveley ruling).

Yes. Sorry. I ment 3♣+1

Do you know on what basis the appeal committee made its ruling?

[Cascade]

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

 

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

I've seen beginners do this but I think their logic, such as it is, goes more like "I have a preempt", and then, when the opponents compete, "I have a preempt, but maybe I should have preempted higher last time". They do not plan ahead.

Isn't irrelevant whether or not they plan ahead.

 

What is relevant is whether or not at the time of the 3♠ bid PASS is a logical alternative.

 

The reasoning 'he only bid 2♠ the first time so for this player PASS is a logical alternative' is flawed.

[blackshoe]

How is it flawed?

[Cascade]

Because there is new information from a round of bidding which provides a context in which to determine what is a logical alternative.

 

I now have AKQ 7th and the auction has died at 3♣ and I have shown a less offensive hand what do I bid now is the question that the player needs to answer. It is far from automatic that because the player underbid on the previous round that he will necessarily underbid on the next round.

[blackshoe]

It's also far from automatic that he will bid on this round.

[jdonn]

Because there is new information from a round of bidding which provides a context in which to determine what is a logical alternative.

 

I now have AKQ 7th and the auction has died at 3♣ and I have shown a less offensive hand what do I bid now is the question that the player needs to answer.  It is far from automatic that because the player underbid on the previous round that he will necessarily underbid on the next round.

I have highlighted what I think is the flaw in your line of reasoning in this particular case, and in general in cases like this where someone preempts then bids again when UI points that direction. You haven't shown a less offensive hand than you hold. If you open 2♠ on this hand, then (unless you can demonstrate otherwise) you have shown exactly this offensive of a hand because 2♠ encompasses the hand on which you bid it. You have no extra offense for a player whose agreement is to open 2♠ on this hand.

 

Your argument suggests the possibility that the player intentionally misbid earlier in the auction (since if it was unintentional he still wouldn't know on the next round that he misbid). It's a tough sell to make, and rightfully so as it's far too easy to lie about if it's not true.

[Cascade]

It's also far from automatic that he will bid on this round.

That is a different argument.

[pran]

About rebidding after a preempt: I address those who claim that a player who has opened with a preempt should not bid again after and an opponent competes with a bid.

 

I bet all of you have many times seen players do just that?

 

We all agree that when preempting one should initially bid as high as the cards can justify so that bidding again should be out of question. Still such rebids happen, and happen relatively often with not so good players.

 

Therefore it is my opinion that we cannot just deny a player who has received UI to bid again in such situations, we must first carefully judge whether PASS is a logical alternative for him.

 

Sven

[Cascade]

Because there is new information from a round of bidding which provides a context in which to determine what is a logical alternative.

 

I now have AKQ 7th and the auction has died at 3♣ and I have shown a less offensive hand what do I bid now is the question that the player needs to answer.  It is far from automatic that because the player underbid on the previous round that he will necessarily underbid on the next round.

I have highlighted what I think is the flaw in your line of reasoning in this particular case, and in general in cases like this where someone preempts then bids again when UI points that direction. You haven't shown a less offensive hand than you hold. If you open 2♠ on this hand, then (unless you can demonstrate otherwise) you have shown exactly this offensive of a hand because 2♠ encompasses the hand on which you bid it. You have no extra offense for a player whose agreement is to open 2♠ on this hand.

 

Your argument suggests the possibility that the player intentionally misbid earlier in the auction (since if it was unintentional he still wouldn't know on the next round that he misbid). It's a tough sell to make, and rightfully so as it's far too easy to lie about if it's not true.

Disagree.

 

If you open 2♠ on this hand you have not shown exactly this hand unless you have a partnership agreement to open 2♠ on this hand.

 

A beginner who agrees to play weak twos - say 6-10 HCP with a six-card suit - does not have that agreement.

 

It is far from clear to me that the UI points in the direction of bidding 3♠.

 

If partner has a defensive hand that was considering double then that doesn't suggest that we bid on. We have more spades and fewer clubs than we might have in a weak two so it seems more likely to me that partner has too few spades to raise and or a surprise for the opponent in club than that he has a hand that would suggest bidding on. A hand that is defensively oriented against 3♣ might not be at all useful in 3♠.

 

The extra offense in the hand (over a standard weak two) points in the direction of 3♠ not any UI.

[jdonn]

The UI argument is another story, I don't intend to address that. I only mentioned it out of necessity. Let's just suppose the UI points to bidding, since if it doesn't then we can agree case closed.

 

As for what I was addressing which is the LA argument, it all comes down to your statement with which I agree:

If you open 2♠ on this hand you have not shown exactly this hand unless you have a partnership agreement to open 2♠ on this hand.

So there are three possibilities. It was the player's agreement to open 2♠ on this hand, he unintentionally misbid, or he intentionally misbid.

 

If it was the player's agreement to open 2♠ on this hand, case closed as pass is clearly a logical alternative with the hand already described.

 

If he unintentionally misbid, the player wouldn't know he had misbid. Therefore in his mind 2♠ showed the hand he held so pass is again a logical alternative with the hand (in his mind) already described.

 

If he intentionally, he must demonstrate that to the director. If he can't do so then the director should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders, which in this case means assuming there was no misbid. That brings us back to the first case where passing is a logical alternative with the hand already described.

 

Theoretically he should only be able to win the LA argument by demonstrating to the director he intentionally misbid. However I really don't know how someone could do that adequately in a case like this since the possibility he unintentionally misbid always remains.

[Cascade]

If he unintentionally misbid, the player wouldn't know he had misbid. Therefore in his mind 2♠ showed the hand he held so pass is again a logical alternative with the hand (in his mind) already described.

This is flawed in my opinion.

 

Even if he unintentionally misbid he still arrives at a situation in which he has the best part of seven tricks offensively and opponents who are bidding passively and therefore a partner who (almost) must have some values some of which we can hope are useful.

 

Unless partner's values are very defensive then one may well reason that playing 3♠ is likely to be more successful than defending 3♣. In fact I could imagine a beginner who opened 2♠ with this hand even pulling a double of 3♠ - I saw something similar at the club a week or two ago when my opponent opened 4♥ and I bid 5♦ which there partner doubled and they pulled to 5♥ (unsuccessfully) and this was not a beginner. For this sort of player PASS would not be a logical alternative.

[jdonn]

If he unintentionally misbid, the player wouldn't know he had misbid. Therefore in his mind 2♠ showed the hand he held so pass is again a logical alternative with the hand (in his mind) already described.

This is flawed in my opinion.

 

Even if he unintentionally misbid he still arrives at a situation in which he has the best part of seven tricks offensively and opponents who are bidding passively and therefore a partner who (almost) must have some values some of which we can hope are useful.

"Unintentionally misbid" means he think she has bid correctly. That means in his mind he has already described his hand, his partner knows what he has and has made a decision. I don't accept an argument pertaining to his hand that he has already described. What you are arguing is he should trust his opponents more than his partner. I don't believe it ever fails to be a logical alternative to trust one's partner.

 

Btw I visited my home town this last weekend, which has a small and very friendly bridge club with a lot of poor players. I had this hand come up against two players I did not know, so untill this occured I didn't realize they were beginners. I was south.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxhjtxdj9xxxxcxxx&w=saxhaqxxdxcaqjtxx&e=skqxxhkxxxdqxckxx&s=sjt9xxxhxxdaktxcx]399|300|Scoring: MP

2♠ 3♣ P P

P[/hv]

Would you have said it's not a logical alternative for me to pass the hand out, even though my hand is within the range my partner expects, since my partner 'must' have values?

[Cascade]

There is a big difference between your hand and the hand in the opening post.

 

A logical alternative is not just a function of the auction but also of the hand that you hold.