Round 2, Board 12

[inquiry]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=st95ha5dk762ck986&s=sak64h8daqjt8ct43]133|200|Scoring: IMP

West and east both pass of the first round. Assuming South opens 1♦, west bids 2♦ (Michaels cue-bid) and east will bid 3♥ if that bid available. After that NS stay out of the auction.

 

[/hv]

 

EW are making 3H, so while 4D is not a great spot percentagewise, it scores well enough. The 3D contract was a mistake, as I should have bid 3H but I feel asleep at the wheel. 3D is a better contract than 4D, but I gave it only 10 as It was operator error. the other contracts below 3H are due to opening bid that did not allow the 2♦ cue bid so the opponents did not enter the bidding.

 

4D=10

2S=7

3S=3

5D/3N = 2

4S/6D=1

3Hx/7D = 0

 

 

4DS bluecalm/redds

4DS elianna/awm

4DS gnasher/catch22

4CS lobowolf/bkjswan

4DS sallyally/joylson

4DS Siegmund/MSchmahl

3DS tylere / bid_em_up

2SS mbodell - javabean

3NTN East4Evil/sohcahtoa

5DN Flycycle/Wackojack

5DS jdonn/gib

5DS jlall/hanp

3NN karlson/threenobob

3NN kfay/jchiu

5DS kristen33/jillybean

5DS olegru - driver733

3NN rogerClee/cherdano

6DS peachy/lg62

4SS tlgoodwin/timg

7DS ant590 - crayzeejim

3HEx hrothgar/Free

[TimG]

The other contracts below 3H are due to opening bid that did not allow the 2♦ cue bid so the opponents did not enter the bidding.

This brings up an interesting question. When west shows majors, certain contracts become better or worse because of the distributional information provided. This is taken into account in the scoring of the contracts. When west is unable to show majors, should the same distributional information be considered when scoring contracts? This would effectively mean two sets of scores depending upon the information the opponents were able to reveal which doesn't seem to be a good thing. Neither does it seem right to consider information not available to all participants.

 

I do not intend this question to be a request for a scoring adjustment, just curious about the issue in general and this is the deal that sparked the curiosity.

[rogerclee]

How can 4D score 10 while 3N scores 2 if you agree 4D is often down, so they will often be the same result? This is not mathematically consistent.

 

How can 3N score the same as 5D when 5D is down at least 1, while 3N is just down 1 basically always?

 

How can 2S score 7 when LHO has the majors? Do we just pretend he doesn't have the majors if you open 2D, but he does have the majors if you don't?

[paulg]

The other contracts below 3H are due to opening bid that did not allow the 2♦ cue bid so the opponents did not enter the bidding.

This brings up an interesting question. When west shows majors, certain contracts become better or worse because of the distributional information provided. This is taken into account in the scoring of the contracts. When west is unable to show majors, should the same distributional information be considered when scoring contracts? This would effectively mean two sets of scores depending upon the information the opponents were able to reveal which doesn't seem to be a good thing. Neither does it seem right to consider information not available to all participants.

 

I do not intend this question to be a request for a scoring adjustment, just curious about the issue in general and this is the deal that sparked the curiosity.

My view is that when the hand is set, certain conditions are specified with respect to the East-West hands. These conditions should be used to determine the scoring whether they arise in the bidding or not, as this reflects what happens in real life and in other competitions like the Bridge World Bidding Challenges.

 

In this case, I hosted one pair who started 1NT - (Pass) - 2D! (Staymanic) and the West hand would have no bid to show the majors, so he did not. Their bidding has influenced the oppositions', perhaps to their disadvantage this time. But it is a facet of their bidding and so should be scored as such.

 

The other question is how much freedom the hosts should have in interpreting the conditions. I hosted two strong club pairs who definitely benefited from lack of interference over their strong 1♣ opener. Whereas on board 7 a weak jump overcall of 2♠ looks a lot more normal than a 2♠ overcall over 1NT.

 

I think you just have to take it all with a pinch of salt. Ben's doing a great job and even doubling his pay will probably not help.

[awm]

I think that 4♦ will make pretty often in practice; LHO will often lead a major rather than leading a club from Hx, and a major suit lead is normally sufficient to score it up.

[TimG]

My view is that when the hand is set, certain conditions are specified with respect to the East-West hands. These conditions should be used to determine the scoring whether they arise in the bidding or not, as this reflects what happens in real life and in other competitions like the Bridge World Bidding Challenges.

Would it be OK to specify that spades break 4-0? Or, that a particular honor was onside?

 

I think you just have to take it all with a pinch of salt. Ben's doing a great job and even doubling his pay will probably not help.

Maybe I was being a bit critical, but it was meant entirely constructively. I hope this contest becomes an ongoing event and am just trying to add discussion of how it can be as good as possible so it's more likely to draw interest and continue.

[JavaBean]

I have to agree with Paul - if the bidding script says oppo will bid Michaels, then he has the majors whether he gets a chance to say so or not. If your methods prevent him from showing the majors, and that's information you could have used to find a better contract, then your methods have put you into the wrong contract. At our table my 1♠ opening (lol) got us to 2♠ without a peep from the opponents, which looked great when we saw they had a ten-card heart fit and would likely outbid our diamonds if given the chance. But it seems the reason they didn't get the chance is because West had too many spades to enter the auction - unlucky.

[paulg]

My view is that when the hand is set, certain conditions are specified with respect to the East-West hands. These conditions should be used to determine the scoring whether they arise in the bidding or not, as this reflects what happens in real life and in other competitions like the Bridge World Bidding Challenges.

Would it be OK to specify that spades break 4-0? Or, that a particular honor was onside?

In this case I think it is highly likely that West is 5-5, as with some 5-4s he would overcall on the second round or double 1♦. So I would score it with spades a heavy favourite for 5-0. If North happened to hold ♥AQ, then I would perhaps weight the ♥K with the bidder 60-40 or the like.

I think you just have to take it all with a pinch of salt. Ben's doing a great job and even doubling his pay will probably not help.

Maybe I was being a bit critical, but it was meant entirely constructively. I hope this contest becomes an ongoing event and am just trying to add discussion of how it can be as good as possible so it's more likely to draw interest and continue.

I wasn't trying to be critical either. Just that most competitions of this form have their random element.

[Free]

In 4th seat we play precision, but don't have much agreements in place. With the North hand I probably should've doubled 2♦ but I didn't. Later on we had a misunderstanding about a Dbl and got an absolute bottom...

 

Any idea what's best with the North hand after 1♦-2♦ where 1♦ shows 12-16 with 2+♦ (precision)?