Embarrassing Score ATB

[wank]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq9xxhajxxdkxxckx&w=sxhkq98xxdxcjt8xx&e=satxhtxdaqt9xcq9x&s=skj8xxhxdjxxxcaxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1NT pass 2♥ 4♥

pass pass X pass

4♠ 5♥ X pass

pass XX end

 

1NT was 12-14, 2♥ was a transfer, redouble was in anticipation of 1 off or making. Actual result was -3 for 1000. Assuming a trump lead, 4♠ from north (which presumably they would bid through a transfer break) can be made by reversing the dummy but is obviously rather tricky.

 

Who was more druggy? West for overcalling 4♥ on nothing or east for the optimistic wielding of the blue card (East actually thought of making a slam try over 4♥)

 

BTW North tanked before passing 4♥. What do you think of the X from south?

 

We won this match despite doing our cocos on this board. Teamies were in 3♠ but from south so 4♠ would be off.

[Jlall]

lol

 

umm EAST

[jdonn]

Redouble huh. So he assumed NS were on crack?

 

4♥ pushed NS to a contract that might well go down. Well done west.

[Jlall]

Redouble huh. So he was on crack?

FYP

[gnasher]

Add me to the "East was barking" camp.

 

I think South's double was normalish but not automatic. Did North really take more than the 10 seconds mandated by the rules (assuming that this was an EBU event)?

[wank]

I think South's double was normalish but not automatic. Did North really take more than the 10 seconds mandated by the rules (assuming that this was an EBU event)?

I meant tanked as in tanked - at least a minute's tanking.

 

We asked for a ruling which was a trifle humiliating after racking up -1000, but it was ruled as result stands. No logical alternative to doubling apparently.

[Jlall]

I think South's double was normalish but not automatic. Did North really take more than the 10 seconds mandated by the rules (assuming that this was an EBU event)?

Isn't 10 seconds mandated everywhere?

 

Agree that pass is a LA for south so if he had UI suggesting X will work better usually then he has to pass.

[nige1]

We asked for a ruling which was a trifle humiliating after racking up -1000, but it was ruled as result stands.  No logical alternative to doubling apparently.

If the director polled South's peers, I think he would discover that pass is a logical alternative.

 

Presumably North took more than 10 seconds to pass. IMO, such a hesitation normally suggests action. So I think you were damaged.

 

I fear, however, that under current (daft) rules, the victims (EW) may forfeit redress if the director judges their subsequent actions to be wild and gambling, egregiously bad, or a double-shot. The consensus seems to be that East's actions satisfy all these criteria.

 

Nevertheless, if the direcor still judges NS to have committed an infraction, then, IMO, he should consider imposing a PP.

[Mbodell]

I would never consider passing with the South hand 4♥. They are already in game (so I don't need to worry about doubling them in to game) and we have more points then they do! Pass can't be right, either X or 4♠ must be right, and given partner already knows I have 5 spades he can help evaluate when I show values. Now I do double more aggressively than many over nt openers, but I'd definitely want a poll of peers to tell if pass is really a LA here.

 

And I agree that the XX is terrible.

[gnasher]

Isn't 10 seconds mandated everywhere?

It's a matter of regulation, not law, so it's up to the regulating authority (eg the ACBL or the EBU).

[gnasher]

I meant tanked as in tanked - at least a minute's tanking. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to doubt you. Still, I expect you can understand my surprise, given what North had.

 

We asked for a ruling which was a trifle humiliating after racking up -1000, but it was ruled as result stands.  No logical alternative to doubling apparently.

What did the appeals committee say?

[gnasher]

I fear, however, that under current (daft) rules, the victims (EW) may forfeit redress if the director judges their subsequent actions to be wild and gambling, egregiously bad, or a double-shot. The consensus seems to be that East's actions satisfy all these criteria.

 

Nevertheless, if the direcor still judges NS to have committed an infraction, then, IMO, he should consider imposing a PP.

I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's either what the laws say or how they're applied. This is what the relevant law says:

 

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has

contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the

infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the

adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending

side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the

consequence of its infraction only.

 

If we decide that pass with a LA for South, and that East's subsequent actions were wild or gambling, the adjusted scores are:

- NS: score for 4♥ undoubled

- EW: (score for 4♥ undoubled) - (cost of subsequent idiocy in the actual auction)

[jukmoi]

I think that double by South is pretty normal. Sure Norths tanking suggest bidding but IMO it is rather extreme to force South to pass here.

 

Agree with what others are saying about Easts action whereas Wests 4♥ seems normal if a bit aggressive.

[mikegill]

I think pass is clearly a LA from South. It's not like his side has so many HCP that passing out 4♥ is unreasonable. Why can't his partner have Qx Axx KQxxx Jxx - he'll pass the double and 4HX is getting wrapped, maybe with an overtrick. I would definitely roll it back to 4♥ undoubled. East's actions are somewhat reasonable if West were at unfav only.

[jdonn]

It depends on the level of player. There is no way pass is an LA for a good enough player simply because he never would pass and could easily explain why it's so likely to be a losing action in the long run.

[kfay]

East is really dumb. They almost doubled you in 4.

 

 

 

What's the most common treatment for [Weak 1NT]-P-(Transfer)-Double...

 

If it's cards, well... then....

[Bbradley62]

ATB: 100% to East

[Finch]

East & West were clearly on different wavelengths.

 

East thought 4H showed a good hand (on the assumption that weaker hands would double or bid 3H). West thought 4H was a pre-empt (on the assumption that 3H would be a stronger hand, and that very strong hands would start with a double).

 

The redouble is mega-aggressive, mind you. It's clearly sensible if EW were a long way down in the match. Something like x AKQxxxx Jxx xx is enough (sometimes for an overtrick), and that isn't inconsistent with the action. On the actual hand just swap West's minor suit lengths and 5Hxx is playable, particularly as (i) North is unlikely to pick out a diamond lead from Kx (or Kxx) and (ii) the HJ is likely onside from the auction and tempo.

 

I think East is getting too much blame and it's a joint effort. Given that EW were a vaguely sensible pair, conceding 1000 is usually a joint effort!

 

Given EW won the match anyway, an AC would not have been needed.

[Jlall]

The redouble is mega-aggressive, mind you. It's clearly sensible if EW were a long way down in the match. Something like x AKQxxxx Jxx xx is enough (sometimes for an overtrick), and that isn't inconsistent with the action.

Sorry Frances, I do not understand how a 10 count with partner is consistent with this auction. RHO opened 1N, and LHO doubled 4H, and we have 12 points. So at best RHO has 12, and LHO has doubled 4H with 6 points? Even if that were the case, SURELY he has a heart void at least to be doing this, in which case 5H is STILL down at least 1 and on a bad day 2. To play LHO for 6 points and a stiff heart just seems lol.

 

I would never XX no matter what the match score is, partner obviously was just preempting. Even if I somehow had the crazy notion that jumping to 4H showed a good hand and not just 8 hearts and whatever or 7-4 and whatever, I might re-think that when this auction was happening and realize it's not possible for partner to have an opening bid.

 

I might remember that XXing is generally only good if we have some surprise for the opps, since they are not making random doubles. A balanced hand with Tx of trumps is not much of a surprise for them. It just is really really bad no matter what the circumstances in my opinion.

 

Also, if you're down a lot redoubling in general based on a bid partner made is a terrible idea because partner also knows you're down a lot.

[xcurt]

My thoughts

 

1. North probably thought that one of 4S ("We have a 9-card fit and partner is probably short in hearts") or Dble ("Hey, I have AJxx and a tap suit") was correct. Since he couldn't decide, he tank-passed, in practice "forcing."

 

2. It's probably theoretically wrong to pass out 4H on the South cards, but I'm pretty sure that enough peers would pass that it's a LA. I feel pretty strongly that you can't claim some action isn't an LA because you can construct a non-obvious, but strong argument that the non-LA action is nullo vs the action you wanted to take. Allowing such reasoning let's OS exploit the UI to avoid errors, even outright blunders.

 

3. West tried to be a hero. 4H wasn't the last error, but it could have easily been -800 against nothing. Partner did track two aces and the CQ and EW still only took 8 tricks in hearts. 10% blame to West.

 

4. East was barking. In my experience penalty redoubles almost never gain. In this position, where the doubling side have a much better idea of their side's assets, redoubling for penalty is insane. 90% to East.

 

If this did to to AC, I would rule split score NS +100, EW -1000.

[Mbodell]

2. It's probably theoretically wrong to pass out 4H on the South cards, but I'm pretty sure that enough peers would pass that it's a LA. I feel pretty strongly that you can't claim some action isn't an LA because you can construct a non-obvious, but strong argument that the non-LA action is nullo vs the action you wanted to take. Allowing such reasoning let's OS exploit the UI to avoid errors, even outright blunders.

It depend how "non-obvious" the argument is. Because what you are really doing is figuring out who the peers are. I'd like to think my peers are composed from people who would find a double with the south hand as a WTP action. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe a poll of players with roughly my ability/experience level and roughly my familiarity of playing this nt range would find some people passing.

 

I'm sure a bunch of beginners would pass this (I'm not saying only beginners would pass this, just that sampling beginners would get some votes for pass), but that is because many beginners don't double without the complete setting tricks in top trumps in their hands. That shouldn't effect what is a LA for me.

[jallerton]

I would have doubled if partner had passed over 4♥ in tempo, but the problem is far more difficult when partner takes a minute to pass, as the slow pass demonstrably suggests that I bid on.

 

I would have to wonder how obvious double is: the hand has good defence, but you had been planning to pass out 2S.

 

I did a simulation of South’s problem and was surprised quite how much double does gain: if LHO bids 4H on most hands with a decent 7-card suit, double gains about 3.4 imp/board on average over the 20 hands I looked at. [Maybe this just proves that it is wrong for 4th hand to jump to 4H here without considerable playing strength. East may have thought that this was obvious, hence the reason why he could not envisage 5H going more than one off]

 

However, my simulation does not help South in the present situation. Players do not have access to simulations at the table. Nor, crucially, are they able to poll their peers to determine whether a non-suggested action is a logical alternative.

It is ironic that a South who tries to do the ethical thing by changing his intended double to pass loses unnecessary imps when it transpires that he could have "got away" with doubling.