Singleton run

[mycroft]

Nah, lamford, let's allow "first round control and slam interest". 100% of -5200, after North redoubles to show second round control and extra length.

 

Yes, I'm joking. Sort of.

[AlexJonson]

I have found this post very interesting.

 

I need to get out more and meet players who go for 2300-5200,knowingly, either to punish partner - or themselves as in this case.

 

I'm not really convinced that this constitutes anything resembling ethics. Until I am convinced, I'll bid as a card player and leave it to the opponents and the TD.

[bluejak]

A "card player" in my experience is one who tries to win by playing to the rules, not despite the rules. The card players I play with and against try to follow the rules, including the UI rules. Sure, they often go wrong, but not by pretending that UI is a matter for the TD and their opponents.

[jallerton]

Sorry, what's going on here? 3C was NOT alerted and the systems card says WJO, so North misbid. We're not given any information to suggest East or West asked South what the bid meant - so where's the misexplanation? And I don't understand how there can be UI here either (excluding hesitations) - if no explanation is given, South thinks the bid is natural and bids accordingly.

 

There may be something wrt what South thinks 5H meant - if there's evidence to suggest this pair have previously played it/do play it as some sort of (grand) slam try, then passing is almost certainly using some sort of UI (eg a scared look on North's face!) or CPU or fielded a psyche. But if there's no evidence of this, can't North have 6C and 5 (rubbish) H for his bid, and South opt for 5H over 6C because it's 1 trick less and he has KQJxx?

 

I must have missed something because I thought that a mistaken bid isn't punished.

 

ahydra

 

The mistaken bid "isn't punished" in the sense that there will be no misinformation as E/W have been given a correct explanation.

 

 

You are also correct that South may not have UI. However, North does have UI. Presumably he did not intend 3♣ to show clubs, but when South did not alert the call, he learnt that South had interpreted the call as natural.

[lamford]

I need to get out more and meet players who go for 2300-5200,knowingly, either to punish partner - or themselves as in this case.

I'm not really convinced that this constitutes anything resembling ethics. Until I am convinced, I'll bid as a card player and leave it to the opponents and the TD.

Having thought about this hand a bit more, it is clear that pass of 5Cx is demonstrably suggested over redouble, and should therefore be disallowed. North could hardly have a more suitable hand, whether partner is making a cuebid or bidding 5C to play, and it should be 100% of -5200. This has the added virtue that the next glossary of bridge can amend the definition of Ghestem as "a device to allow the director to change -100 to -1100" to a "device to allow the director to change -200 to -5200". I think this does resemble active ethics and I would certainly arrange a second game with someone who deliberately redoubled with the intention of going for 5200 (and I would promise not to think we were playing Ghestem next time).

[AndreSteff]

I have been to lenient, as I awarded NS 3 tricks in 5♣ doubled. It should have been two.

 

West's pass on 5♥ for me certainly passed the shudder test, 5♥ and 5♠ both can be on, so I distracted the difference in IMPs between 5♥-2 and 5♥X-2 from the 16 IMPs that EW won on this hand. Thinking about it, I cannot be sure that a double of 5♥ would have passed the shudder test either, when the contract would have been made. My agreement is thus: after freely bidding a vulnerable game against non-vulnerable opponents we either play, or defend a doubled contact. East's pass then conveys the message, that he thinks 5♠ may be made. Since partner had no penalty double, while I hold a void 5♠ must be the winning call.

 

 

I polled three players on this and they agreed, but two of them would have doubled in stead of bid 5♠.

 

Moreover, West told me that he had wanted to call me after the 5♥ call, but that his partner (a TD) had told him not too as "everybody knew what was going on anyway".

[lamford]

I have been to lenient, as I awarded NS 3 tricks in 5♣ doubled. It should have been two.

It should have been a weighted score of one or two, depending on how often you thought a trump would be led.

[AlexJonson]

Having thought about this hand a bit more, it is clear that pass of 5Cx is demonstrably suggested over redouble, and should therefore be disallowed. North could hardly have a more suitable hand, whether partner is making a cuebid or bidding 5C to play, and it should be 100% of -5200. This has the added virtue that the next glossary of bridge can amend the definition of Ghestem as "a device to allow the director to change -100 to -1100" to a "device to allow the director to change -200 to -5200". I think this does resemble active ethics and I would certainly arrange a second game with someone who deliberately redoubled with the intention of going for 5200 (and I would promise not to think we were playing Ghestem next time).

 

 

Good fun, Lamford

 

And if screens or other technology, do you wonder if 5C was invitational? Leave it, if you have xxx, Hx?

 

Some are obsessed with the much less probable 5C as demanding to play, not invitational, not lead directing - lead directing is less worrying obviously, emphasised in case some idiot seizes on this.

 

Is it an LA to go for let's say 1700+ etc, is it a rational risk. Who knows - ask/consult as Bluejak might say. None of Andre's consulted players seriously passed.

 

We had a stray money Bridge post recently. How do you feel if you personally are carrying the cost of the decision in cash, rather than Internet nonsense.

[campboy]

I do not believe that redoubling is a possibility here, since there is no reason to suppose that partner is bidding to make. Eight solid clubs opposite would not be enough to make 5♣. So -2300 or -2600 or some weighting between the two (I haven't done a full analysis).

 

I also do not believe that pass is suggested over redouble. With the UI, he knows that passing guarantees a bottom, whereas redoubling gives partner a chance to wake up -- and it is not unlikely that he will, since making a weak jump overcall and then redoubling partner's raise is inconceivable.

[lamford]

I do not believe that redoubling is a possibility here, since there is no reason to suppose that partner is bidding to make. Eight solid clubs opposite would not be enough to make 5♣. So -2300 or -2600 or some weighting between the two (I haven't done a full analysis).

 

I also do not believe that pass is suggested over redouble. With the UI, he knows that passing guarantees a bottom, whereas redoubling gives partner a chance to wake up -- and it is not unlikely that he will, since making a weak jump overcall and then redoubling partner's raise is inconceivable.

Firstly it is teams scoring, and therefore the question of a bottom does not arise. Your argument is valid if partner is bidding 5C to play, but not if he is showing a control and making a slam try in one of our suits. In the first case, I agree, we might only have ten tricks on a trump lead, say. In the latter, I would expect us to make slam. And we mustn't even think about the fact that partner thinks that we have made a weak jump overcall - that is continuing to use the UI.

[campboy]

I have to think about how partner will interpret my next call to determine how to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, don't I? I think passing avoids advantage best because redoubling might wake partner up. In fact, if North had redoubled and South had woken up I would be adjusting.

[lamford]

I have to think about how partner will interpret my next call to determine how to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, don't I? I think passing avoids advantage best because redoubling might wake partner up. In fact, if North had redoubled and South had woken up I would be adjusting.

Right, so you don't need to be worried about partner waking up, as the TD will put him to sleep again. Redoubling actively pursues the largest possible minus (-5200) and still locks in the safe -2600 that we have banked.

[jallerton]

I have been to lenient, as I awarded NS 3 tricks in 5♣ doubled. It should have been two.

 

West's pass on 5♥ for me certainly passed the shudder test, 5♥ and 5♠ both can be on, so I distracted the difference in IMPs between 5♥-2 and 5♥X-2 from the 16 IMPs that EW won on this hand. Thinking about it, I cannot be sure that a double of 5♥ would have passed the shudder test either, when the contract would have been made. My agreement is thus: after freely bidding a vulnerable game against non-vulnerable opponents we either play, or defend a doubled contact. East's pass then conveys the message, that he thinks 5♠ may be made. Since partner had no penalty double, while I hold a void 5♠ must be the winning call.

 

 

I polled three players on this and they agreed, but two of them would have doubled in stead of bid 5♠.

 

Moreover, West told me that he had wanted to call me after the 5♥ call, but that his partner (a TD) had told him not too as "everybody knew what was going on anyway".

 

I agree with the rectification adjustment to 5♣x by North; you are right that the contract would probably make two tricks rather than three.

 

However, I strongly disagree with your denial of redress to East/West, the non-offending side. Here is why.

 

1. As a matter of Law, the TD can only deny redress to East/West if either of their Passes over 5♥ is deemed to be "wild" and/or "gambling". It is not sufficient for either of the Passes to be deemed to be a "serious error" as the opportunity to make these calls is clearly related to the infraction of the 5♥ bid.

 

2. Just because the TD happens to play Pass as forcing in this particular sequence at this vulnerability, there is no reason why East/West should have this agreement.

 

3. High level competitive bidding decisions are rarely easy. To illustrate the point, we need look no further than the people consulted by the TD: two out of the three said they would double 5♥, despite holding a trump void and probably at most one defensive trick.

 

4. As I understand it, West's stated reasoning for passing was that he was concerned that either a 5♠ bid or a double from him might be interpreted as wild or gambling by the TD. The TD should sympathise with a non-offender's predicament in this situation. Remember, it was North, not West, who caused this mess!

 

5. Some commentators have suggested over the years that the non-offenders are supposed to "continue to play bridge" after an irregularity. OK, let's analyse the situation as West. North can't have a natural 3♣ overcall now that he has run from 5♣x. Perhaps we have come across Gh****m misunderstanding before and we infer that North has both red suits. Can North be 5-5 in the reds? Not really, no. In that case, North would be bound to stay in 5♣x because that is what Law 16 requires him to do; West knows that 3♣ has not been alerted and therefore knows that North's actions have been constrained by the UI.

 

As West, we therefore infer that North has no logical alternative to pulling 5♣x so he must have a freak hand with a lot of playing strength such as

♠none ♥KQJ10xxx ♦AJ10xxx ♣none.

In that case, doubling 5♥ would be a very poor idea. Competing to 5♠ might be a better option, but (i) we can expect bad breaks in the black suits too and (ii) who is to say that bidding 5♠ won't push them into a making 6♥?

 

In summary, West's Pass is nowhere close to being either wild or gambling. If North had not broken the Law, E/W would probably have been writing down +2300 after an enjoyable defence. They've already been denied their enjoyable defence, so the least the TD can do is to give them back their +2300.

[campboy]

Right, so you don't need to be worried about partner waking up, as the TD will put him to sleep again. Redoubling actively pursues the largest possible minus (-5200) and still locks in the safe -2600 that we have banked.

You can't have it both ways. There must be a legal call for North to make, so what is it? If it is redouble then the TD can't adjust after a redouble which wakes South up; if it is pass then the TD can't adjust on the basis that he should have redoubled. Redoubling only "locks in the safe -2600" on the assumption that it is illegal, and if you are assuming that then you shouldn't be redoubling.

[lamford]

You can't have it both ways. There must be a legal call for North to make, so what is it? If it is redouble then the TD can't adjust after a redouble which wakes South up; if it is pass then the TD can't adjust on the basis that he should have redoubled. Redoubling only "locks in the safe -2600" on the assumption that it is illegal, and if you are assuming that then you shouldn't be redoubling.

All North can do is carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. He should redouble, because that is the bid that he might have made if South has said "Ghestem, at least 5-5 in the reds". If he had heard that there would be no question of waking South up. If he redoubles, with the intention of waking his partner up, that would be an infraction using the UI, but that should not prevent him making the bid.

[lamford]

I agree with the rectification adjustment to 5♣x by North; you are right that the contract would probably make two tricks rather than three.

<snip>

3. High level competitive bidding decisions are rarely easy. To illustrate the point, we need look no further than the people consulted by the TD: two out of the three said they would double 5♥, despite holding a trump void and probably at most one defensive trick.

<snip>

Certainly a percentage of one trick on a trump lead, and two tricks on a top spade lead.

 

And I agree that double of 5 hearts is ridiculous. Partner's 4S bid also seems a poor bid, surely East can show a good raise in some way!

[bluejak]

No doubt. But a poor bid before the UI infraction is not going to be SEWoG.

 

I agree with Jeffrey's comments. One point is that "continuing to play bridge" was an official ACBL interpretation under an earlier Law book. Whether it still is is arguable, and it has no real force outside the ACBL.

[mfa1010]

1. As a matter of Law, the TD can only deny redress to East/West if either of their Passes over 5♥ is deemed to be "wild" and/or "gambling". It is not sufficient for either of the Passes to be deemed to be a "serious error" as the opportunity to make these calls is clearly related to the infraction of the 5♥ bid.

Why is that clear?

Wouldn't that logic exclude any serious error after any illegal bid, since we can always say that the opponent only got the opportunity to err because the illegal bid put him in the actual position?

That can hardly be the true intention of it.

[mfa1010]

All North can do is carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. He should redouble, because that is the bid that he might have made if South has said "Ghestem, at least 5-5 in the reds". If he had heard that there would be no question of waking South up. If he redoubles, with the intention of waking his partner up, that would be an infraction using the UI, but that should not prevent him making the bid.

I don't understand.

 

If north passes, he is basing his bid on UI, so TD adjusts to 5♣R.

If north redoubles and south runs, then north has chosen a LA suggested by UI, so TD adjusts to 5♣D.

 

So north will be breaking the law regardless of his action. Never heard of this. Or? :huh:

[jallerton]

Why is that clear?

Wouldn't that logic exclude any serious error after any illegal bid, since we can always say that the opponent only got the opportunity to err because the illegal bid put him in the actual position?

That can hardly be the true intention of it.

 

I understand the point you are making, but the fact is that the lawmakers chose to include in Law 12C1 the wording "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". If a non-offender's first opportunity to call or play after the infraction is "unrelated to the infraction" it is hard to see what actions would be deemd to be related.

 

In my opinion, it is rarely appropriate for Law 12C1 to be invoked, but let me give you a theoertical example of where it might be appropriate.

 

N/S "use UI" to arrive in 6♠, whereas had complied with Law 16/Law73, they would have stopped in 4♠. West has the same obvious opening lead against both contracts and is normal for South to adopt the same line of play. The 6♠ contract reached at the table is destined to go off until East revokes. With the revoke trick transferred, 6♠ now makes. As there is not much of a link between the revoke (which might equally have happened had East been defending 4♠) and the N/S infraction during the auction, the two incidents may be considered to be unrelated.

[jallerton]

Certainly a percentage of one trick on a trump lead, and two tricks on a top spade lead.

 

And I agree that double of 5 hearts is ridiculous. Partner's 4S bid also seems a poor bid, surely East can show a good raise in some way!

 

If you were to give a weighting to one trick, it should be a fairly low percentage! Whilst the TD should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders in close cases, this does not mean he should assume that they will defend double dummy. Even if East finds a small trump lead, why is it obvious that West will put in the 7 if dummy plays low (or the 10 if dummy plays the 8 or 9)? An opening lead of the club jack might make the defence easier, but even you did not seem to be proposing that.

[mfa1010]

I understand the point you are making, but the fact is that the lawmakers chose to include in Law 12C1 the wording "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". If a non-offender's first opportunity to call or play after the infraction is "unrelated to the infraction" it is hard to see what actions would be deemd to be related.

In a recent appeal from a national tournament it was decided that a serious error was related to the infraction.

E was told that the 1NT overcall after his artificial 1♣ showed two "odd" suits, but it was indeed natural. NS stumbled into 4♠ with ♠xx in dummy after S had taken partner's 2♥ as transfer, and declarer (S) played ♠A, ♠K, ♠x. E won T from ♠QTxx and promptly drew partner's ♠J with the queen...

RHO (2nd division) felt damaged by the explanation. AC decided that he was damaged, that drawing the last trump was a serious error as the position was, but that the error was related to the infraction and therefore free of charge.

 

In my opinion, it is rarely appropriate for Law 12C1 to be invoked, but let me give you a theoertical example of where it might be appropriate.

 

N/S "use UI" to arrive in 6♠, whereas had complied with Law 16/Law73, they would have stopped in 4♠. West has the same obvious opening lead against both contracts and is normal for South to adopt the same line of play. The 6♠ contract reached at the table is destined to go off until East revokes. With the revoke trick transferred, 6♠ now makes. As there is not much of a link between the revoke (which might equally have happened had East been defending 4♠) and the N/S infraction during the auction, the two incidents may be considered to be unrelated.

Yes, I agree with that example. But it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant if the error occurs immediately after the infraction or later in play. But I don't know. It is not clear to me what the law text means here.

[lamford]

If you were to give a weighting to one trick, it should be a fairly low percentage! Whilst the TD should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders in close cases, this does not mean he should assume that they will defend double dummy. Even if East finds a small trump lead, why is it obvious that West will put in the 7 if dummy plays low (or the 10 if dummy plays the 8 or 9)? An opening lead of the club jack might make the defence easier, but even you did not seem to be proposing that.

I disagree, and surveyed ten reasonable players on OKBridge and nine of them led a trump. Given that North could easily have a spade void and two trumps, the top spade - the only (barely) sensible alternative - is just ridiculous, isn't it? Probably not quite a SEWoG, but close. I agree that the TD should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders, so this does not mean defending misère. I did not consider which trump to lead, but it does not matter much, although the jack looks much better as North might easily have a singleton nine or ten. On a low trump lead, if North has J(x) in trumps it will not cost for West to put in the seven, and when partner has the jack, which the lead of the two would suggest, then it is obviously better.

 

But by far the more important issue is not to decide what percentage of one trick North-South should have - it should be much nearer 90% than your ludicrous "fairly low percentage" - is to decide what percentage of -4600 or -5200 to give. I must admit that I would be surprised if any TD gave any amount of redouble - they just don't do they?

[dburn]

If North-South "use UI" to bid 5♥ over 4♠ by East-West, and East lets through 5♥ by revoking, can he claim that this serious error was "related to the infraction" because if the opponents hadn't cheated he would have been dummy at 4♠ and thus not had a chance to revoke?

[nige1]

If North-South "use UI" to bid 5♥ over 4♠ by East-West, and East lets through 5♥ by revoking, can he claim that this serious error was "related to the infraction" because if the opponents hadn't cheated he would have been dummy at 4♠ and thus not had a chance to revoke?

:) :) :) Seriously though, SEWOG legislation is hard to implement, sensibly and consistently :( :( :(