WBU Swiss Pairs 3

[VixTD]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq10963hqj10875dj9c&w=s7h32dkq107432cq74&e=s854hk9d6cakj9852&s=sakj2ha64da85c1063]399|300|Scoring: MP

..1♠..4♣..4♠..5♣

.P(H)..P...5♠...P

...P...6♣...X....P

...P....P[/hv]

Result: 6♣X (E) -2, NS +300

 

There was an agreed hesitation by North over 5♣. EW called the director for a ruling at the end of play.

 

Can you see any reason for the TD to do anything here?

[mjj29]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq10963hqj10875dj9c&w=s7h32dkq107432cq74&e=s854hk9d6cakj9852&s=sakj2ha64da85c1063]399|300|Scoring: MP

..1♠..4♣..4♠..5♣

.P(H)..P...5♠...P

...P...6♣...X....P

...P....P[/hv]

Result: 6♣X (E) -2, NS +300

 

There was an agreed hesitation by North over 5♣. EW called the director for a ruling at the end of play.

 

Can you see any reason for the TD to do anything here?

I don't think that pass is an LA to 5S, even if the slow pass wasn't systemically forcing. Double is an LA to 5S, but I'm not sure which of those the hesitation suggests, so probably nothing to see here. 6CX-2 looks like an amazing score for EW since NS seem cold for 7S. (Of course, I think 1S, the slow pass and 5S are all wrong, but doesn't look like they are illegal)

[bluejak]

I would ask North why he bid 1♠. If he says it seems the obvious bid on the hand then he is playing an illegal agreement.

 

I do not think our score of +260 was very good. ;)

[RMB1]

I would ask North why he bid 1♠ with a view to deciding whether 1♠ was in accordance with their partnership agreement, which would be illegal.

 

I would ask South why he bid 5♠ rather than double.

 

As it stands, Pass is not a logical alternative for South and the slow Pass does not suggest 5♠ over double.

 

However, I would be concerned that something in North/South's experience or South's demeanor allowed North to choose 5♠ following South's illegal/psychic/deviant 1♠ and slow Pass. Assuming similar procedures to the EBU, I would make a record of the hand.

[mink]

Sorry that I cannot comment on what is a legal opening in Wales.

 

South knows by opps' bidding and his own 3 ♣ cards that North is very likely to be void in ♣, so he will expect him to think some time no matter what else he has.

 

Karl

[recurse]

I would ask North why he bid 1♠. If he says it seems the obvious bid on the hand then he is playing an illegal agreement.

 

I do not think our score of +260 was very good. :D

Any law that prohibits N from opening 1♠ is too restrictive. Whatever happened to allowing players to use their judgement?

[bluejak]

In bridge you are not given total freedom to play whatever you want, judgement or no. As to what happened to it, it was never [or not for a very long time anyway] a rule that players may use their judgement in all situations whatever.

 

Whether players should be allowed to do this is not a matter for this forum: feel free to argue it on Changing Laws & Regulations. But since the player concerned presumably never informed his opponents he was opening lighter than was permitted, there is also the question of MI.

[Cyberyeti]

In bridge you are not given total freedom to play whatever you want, judgement or no. As to what happened to it, it was never [or not for a very long time anyway] a rule that players may use their judgement in all situations whatever.

 

Whether players should be allowed to do this is not a matter for this forum: feel free to argue it on Changing Laws & Regulations. But since the player concerned presumably never informed his opponents he was opening lighter than was permitted, there is also the question of MI.

Is it legitimate to use any judgement here ?

 

What if the player said "I looked at all the intermediates in my suits and decided this was easily a 9 count, so I opened it at the one level".

 

I think RMB1 says pretty much exactly what I'd have said otherwise.

[gordontd]

Pass is not a logical alternative for South and the slow Pass does not suggest 5♠ over double.

I agree with the first part of this, but I'm not sure about the second - although it seems to be the majority view in this thread.

 

Holding the South hand, what could my partner have been thinking of over 5♣? Certainly not doubling. Without a doubt partner was thinking of bidding more, with extra distribution. Does that not suggest 5♠ over double?

[mjj29]

In bridge you are not given total freedom to play whatever you want, judgement or no.  As to what happened to it, it was never [or not for a very long time anyway] a rule that players may use their judgement in all situations whatever.

 

Whether players should be allowed to do this is not a matter for this forum: feel free to argue it on Changing Laws & Regulations.  But since the player concerned presumably never informed his opponents he was opening lighter than was permitted, there is also the question of MI.

Is it legitimate to use any judgement here ?

 

What if the player said "I looked at all the intermediates in my suits and decided this was easily a 9 count, so I opened it at the one level".

 

I think RMB1 says pretty much exactly what I'd have said otherwise.

The rule is where it is to allow for judgement. You should be reading it as "The minimum is 11 or compensating distribution down to an absolute minimum of 8 and meeting the rule of 18" (this is the EBU level 4 rule, but others are similar). Yes, it's written as just "this is the minimum", because that's a much more simple and easily enforcable rule. It does allow you to open _any_ 8 count that meets the rule of 18, but in that case you can't use your judgement to make it any weaker. You may want to, but then, I want to make brown sticker overcalls and play encrypted signals - and they won't let me do that either.

[VixTD]

[bluejak] I would ask North why he bid 1♠. If he says it seems the obvious bid on the hand then he is playing an illegal agreement.

[RMB] I would ask North why he bid 1♠ with a view to deciding whether 1♠ was in accordance with their partnership agreement, which would be illegal.

Again I wasn't the TD dealing with this directly, but I was involved in some of the discussions with North. I asked him if he thought 1♠ was a normal opening bid on this hand, and he said "No, it's not a normal opening bid, but..." and proceeded to explain why it was important to open the bidding on this hand, if not with an artificial 2♦ or something reserved for the purpose, then with one of a suit, on the grounds that "the hand most likely belongs to us and we have to get our bid in first, we'll be stuffed if East opens 4♣..." all of which rather suggests to me that he would certainly make a habit of opening 1♠ with this hand in this partnership.

I also thought South underbid her hand considerably, although I have to admit she was rather "stuffed" after the 4♣ overcall. North also said that she should have bid 6♠ when 5♣ was passed round to her, as she can confidently place a club void in the North hand.

"What sort of opening bid can I have where six is not laydown?"

"So you're saying she fielded the psyche?"

"Yes she fielded the psyche, but she should have known to bid 6♠."

 

Anyway, there was no thought of adjusting the score, as NS scored well below 30% on the board. I'm a little worried that South's actions could well have worked out well for their side opposite a different psyche. North was apprised of the Orange Book regulations for agreements on opening suit bids, and the hand was recorded as (I think) an amber psyche.

[jallerton]

I would ask North why he bid 1♠ with a view to deciding whether 1♠ was in accordance with their partnership agreement, which would be illegal.

The problem with only asking North is that North might have had the same thought process playing in a brand new partnership.

 

I think you should also ask South whether she agrees with the 1♠ opener. If the answer is yes then that suggests that there is a partnership agreement.

[jallerton]

Pass is not a logical alternative for South and the slow Pass does not suggest 5♠ over double.

I agree with the first part of this, but I'm not sure about the second - although it seems to be the majority view in this thread.

 

Holding the South hand, what could my partner have been thinking of over 5♣? Certainly not doubling. Without a doubt partner was thinking of bidding more, with extra distribution. Does that not suggest 5♠ over double?

Maybe, but even if you are correct and South doubles 5♣, North will surely pull to 5♥ or 5♠ (and if South then stops to consider what partner might hold, she might then find the raise to slam).

[Bbradley62]

I do not think our score of +260 was very good. :(

Out of curiosity, how did that auction go?

[bluejak]

2♠ 3♣ 3♠ p p p

 

2♠ was spades and another, weak.

[dburn]

2♠ 3♣ 3♠ p p p

 

2♠ was spades and another, weak.

Not only would that not have been a very good result, South would presumably have been fined for attempted fielding of a psyche.

[Vampyr]

2♠ 3♣ 3♠ p p p

 

2♠ was spades and another, weak.

Not only would that not have been a very good result, South would presumably have been fined for attempted fielding of a psyche.

Is that called a "blue" psyche, when a player has not psyched but partner has catered for it?

[bluejak]

Thank-you for your rudeness. It is appalling that you see fit to attack other people in public in this way.

 

You know perfectly well that this is a misjudgement, perfectly understandable: if I had had a perfectly normal

 

QJxxx

xx

xx

Q9xx

 

even 3♠ is in jeopardy.

 

Suggesting my partner is cheating in an open forum when you know perfectly well a freak has been misjudged shows what lovely people you are.

 

As to my judgment, I know I have a freak: quite possibly it is my fault for not going on to 4♠, knowing both that I have a freak and that there are no game tries available. Nice of you to blame my partner in this offensive manner.

 

I hope that if your aim in life is to upset people by accusing them of cheating in a public forum with insufficient evidence that you never post here again. The aim of this forum is to help people with their rulings, not to make random unjustifiable accusations against easily identifiable people in an attempt to upset others.

[jeremy69]

if I had had a perfectly normal

 

QJxxx

xx

xx

Q9xx

then even 3S is in jeopardy

 

I don't think that is a very likely hand when East has bid 3C. Given a red suit Ace is very likely to be opposite the second suit then I would have thought it completely normal to bid 4S but to bid 3S is, I agree, a bad bid rather than catering for a psyche but I think you take the original comment about psyching a little too seriously. Perhaps it was an expression of how bad the 3S bid was felt to be.

you know perfectly well a freak has been misjudged

 

;) ;) :) :P

[bluejak]

QJxxx

xx

Q9xx

xx

 

I agree that now 3S is not in jeopardy, but 4♠ is not a contract that you really want to be in, is it?

 

The original comment was that my partner had deliberately done something wrong. In what way do you think I am taking this too seriously?

[dburn]

In what way do you think I am taking this too seriously?

In the same way you always do. It really ought not to be necessary to raise a large flag with the word "JOKE" on it to make it clear that no one is actually accusing your partner of anything at all (other than taking, shall we say, a slightly conservative view either of her own hand or the likely content of yours, or possibly both).

[nige1]

[jdonn]

Yes all sarcasm should include little yellow smiley faces. Never without them, never! Otherwise sarcasm would be completely undetectable. We can now safely assume that all smileyless posts are to be taken completely seriously and all appropriate offense expressed vigorously in one's defense. I am quite glad this important issue has been clarified.

[bluejak]

In what way do you think I am taking this too seriously?

In the same way you always do. It really ought not to be necessary to raise a large flag with the word "JOKE" on it to make it clear that no one is actually accusing your partner of anything at all (other than taking, shall we say, a slightly conservative view either of her own hand or the likely content of yours, or possibly both).

Joke? You have consistently attacked may abilities as a player and in as a Director and in my knowledge of the Laws over many years in a variety of forums. You have demeaned my abilities time and time again. Now you have decided to attack my friends and partners as well. You have upset me more times than you could imagine, which I expect pleases you. You have often sent me into deep despair. You have killed many arguments I have made by personal attacks. You have driven me off one forum nd nearly driven me off another by your repeated attacks. No doubt you consider it a triumph whenever you upset me.

 

And you are claiming these attacks are jokes?

[gnasher]

South would presumably have been fined for attempted fielding of a psyche.

Which law or regulation would South have broken by attempting to field a psyche?

 

The original comment was that my partner had deliberately done something wrong.

And which law or regulation says that what your partner was alleged to have done would have been improper?