piratepete Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 EBU, teams-of-eight match in a local league. [hv=pc=n&s=sq65haj8dt7caqt94&w=st92hqt7d532cj875&n=sk843h6542daqck63&e=saj7hk93dkj9864c2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d(11-15%2C%201+%21d)2d(%60Explained%27)d(11-13%2C%20nothing%20in%20particular%20to%20show)2h(E%20makes%20gesture%20of%20panic)p3dd(takeout-oriented, though opener is expected to pass with%20genuine%20%21d%20opposite)ppp]399|300[/hv] 1♦ is 11-15, 1+♦. Possible shapes are:- Real suit- 4414- topless 6+♣- 11-13 flat1♦ was alerted, asked, and explained. Upon 2♦ , W announced without prompting `I'm taking that as Michaels'First double alerted, asked, and explained.Second double asked and explained. EW's system card contain the entries `Cue of natural one of a suit: Michaels' and `Defence to Short 1♣/♦: Natural', though these are the defaults for this EBU card. Adjustment? If so, to what? I know what I'd be inclined to rule, but I'll leave that for now (I was S). Thanks, all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 This auction does not make sense, I have a 12 count, opps are likely to be both 11+ and partner has made a presumably free nat F 2♥ bid. I do think I should be bidding either pass (playing opps for 11/10 and partner having dredged 2♥ up on 7) or 3♥ rather than 3♦. Is it 100% clear that at this vul, with correct info S doubles 2♥ ? It's also very unclear how many tricks are made in hearts, it's not difficult to horribly misdefend this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 If it's not out of place for me to ask this question: Adjustment FROM what? Did East pick up your jack of hearts? East needs three entries to dummy to take all the finesses he needs to make 3♦X, and I see two there at the most... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratepete Posted March 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Table result was 3♦X-1, NS +100. I think we scored ♠KQ ♥A ♦A ♣Q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 In addition to cyberyeti's questions, I'm curious about what happens if the auction continues: 1♦-2♦-X-2♥P-P-X-PP-3♦-X-PP-P If East "ethically" passes 2♥ and south doubles, then can East run to 3♦ and now reveal the misbid to his partner? Are we allowed to consider this when deciding if a correction needs to be made. It should be noted that I know virtually nothing of ACBL laws, and actually nothing of EBU laws...I'm just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Seems to me 3♥X is a possible adjustment. The only real difference between ACBL and EBU laws here is that in the EBU, you weight the possible outcomes, while in the ACBL you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Interesting that n/s have agreements about the 2nd double, of an illegal bid. Alerted, explained, and then not followed ---since North passed without diamonds. My guess is they won the board anyway, but deserve whatever 3H doubled reaps Edited March 31, 2011 by aguahombre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 In addition to cyberyeti's questions, I'm curious about what happens if the auction continues: 1♦-2♦-X-2♥P-P-X-PP-3♦-X-PP-P If East "ethically" passes 2♥ and south doubles, then can East run to 3♦ and now reveal the misbid to his partner? Are we allowed to consider this when deciding if a correction needs to be made. It should be noted that I know virtually nothing of ACBL laws, and actually nothing of EBU laws...I'm just curious.I don't think east can run (I made my mind up about this before I framed my questions), as far as he's concerned without the UI, partner has at least 5 hearts, and possibly no diamonds, so hearts should play at least as well. I am curious as to why N passed the double as the way it was explained, he shouldn't, but also, was there any indication from E that a wheel had come off when his partner made his announcement ? I would have thought that 3♦ is suggestive of a good hand (possibly 5530) and a game try in hearts. If there was no extraneous info, W was free to do as he liked, but if there was, he should put his partner back into 3♥. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) The original post tells us that the first double was alerted and explained, but doesn't tell us for what reason.[edit: I now see it's in the diagram, not the text]. If East "ethically" passes 2♥ I don't think the ethical thing to do is to pass 2♥ - a raise of hearts seems more appropriate. Edited March 31, 2011 by gordontd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I am curious as to why N passed the double as the way it was explained, he shouldn't Actually when I said this was "interesting", I didn't mean it was wrong. If North and South did in fact catch that East had bid naturally, and then bid illegally ---which they apparently have an agreement to handle---then North properly applied the LOTT, in this case 17, and did the right thing. Clearly North played Bridge after the infraction to achieve par. They have earned the full benefit of an adjustment to 3HX, which would probably be down only 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Duplicate post - sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative. Edit: on reflection, getting all of those tricks requires quite good defence, so we should give declarer six tricks some of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative. Edit: but we should probably give declarer 6 tricks some of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I think 3♥x-4 is enough. OK he might bid 4 some of the time but then again he might make six tricks. I am too lazy to compute a weighted score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Duplicate post - sorry.Triplicate originally, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Triplicate originally, surely? This is a bit weird. Each time I thought I was editing my post, it created a new post. Maybe they're using Bridgemates to manage the site? Edit: anyway, it's stopped doing it now. Unless this produces a duplicate post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative. Edit: on reflection, getting all of those tricks requires quite good defence, so we should give declarer six tricks some of the time.I am quite happy to allow E/W to play in 3[HE)x and I think you should have written "on reflection, we should give declarer only four tricks most of the time, as the defence to beat it five is pretty trivial". Perhaps the triplicate entry was caused by repeated reflection? North will surely lead a trump, as he knows East does not have a Michaels Cue Bid (the director assumes MI rather than misbid, as the CC is essentially silent on a defence to a precision diamond). Now declarer can force South to defend well by putting in the king (when South must duck) but he will normally play low and South should win and play a second heart to cut down on ruffs. West does best to lead a diamond up, and North should win to play a spade through. South can win and push a medium club through, and then the defence exits with a trump and declarer is five off. Given that the event is multiple teams - possibly scored with two comparisons - the weighted score if there is one could be quite important, and I think that 80% of 3HX - 5 and 20% of 3Hx - 4 is about right. We are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders and your "six tricks" forces them to defend misère. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The ACBL rule that no cuebid is alertable would come in handy here :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 The ACBL rule that no cuebid is alertable would come in handy here :)Not really; West's comment "I'm taking that as Michaels" might have been construed as UI by a perceptive TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Aside from that, the rule is that most cuebids do not require an alert, not all. And then we get into the "highly unusual" maze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [hv=pc=n&e=saj7hk93dkj9864c2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d(11-15%2C%201+D)2d(Asked)d(11-13)2hp]133|200[/hv] Teams of eight. When West was asked what 2♦ showed he said "Natural, a normal overcall". What do you bid? 4♥ seems obvious, but for one thing, namely the double showing "11-13". On the other hand, whom do you trust, opponents or partner? Perhaps you only bid 3♥? Suppose you bid 3♥ or 4♥ and it is doubled, what do you do? Nothing, of course. You are fairly happy. People seem happy to give declarer five or six tricks. "I am too lazy to compute a weighted score". If you are too lazy to give a correct ruling, why not just give each side Average? So how about.. 30% of NS +300+ 50% of NS +500+ 20% of NS +800 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I am quite happy to allow E/W to play in 3[HE)x and I think you should have written "on reflection, we should give declarer only four tricks most of the time, as the defence to beat it five is pretty trivial". Perhaps the triplicate entry was caused by repeated reflection? North will surely lead a trump, as he knows East does not have a Michaels Cue Bid (the director assumes MI rather than misbid, as the CC is essentially silent on a defence to a precision diamond). Now declarer can force South to defend well by putting in the king (when South must duck) but he will normally play low and South should win and play a second heart to cut down on ruffs. West does best to lead a diamond up, and North should win to play a spade through. South can win and push a medium club through, and then the defence exits with a trump and declarer is five off.Yes, you're right. I thought that in this position declarer was getting two spade tricks, but I see that the defence can cunningly play the cash-winners-throw-losers coup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 Double post sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative.The ACBL rule that no cuebid is alertable would come in handy here :)Not really; West's comment "I'm taking that as Michaels" might have been construed as UI by a perceptive TD. :) In such contexts, a putative offender often argues that opponents' bidding makes it plain that his partner doesn't have his bid. That is plausible if the partner is a notorious over-bidder, ignoramus, amnesiac, idiot, or lunatic. Exceptionally, however, the director may establish that he is fairly trustworthy. Then it is about 2-1 that the misbidder is an opponent rather than partner and the director may judge 4♥XX-5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [hv=pc=n&e=saj7hk93dkj9864c2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d(11-15%2C%201+D)2d(Asked)d(11-13)2hp]133|200[/hv]"I am too lazy to compute a weighted score". If you are too lazy to give a correct ruling, why not just give each side Average? So how about.. 30% of NS +300+ 50% of NS +500+ 20% of NS +800Indeed. People who live in glasshouses ... The correct procedure is to decide, by polling or consulting, how often East bids 3H and how often he bids 4H and then to find normal, not double-dummy, declarer play and defence in each. I was happy to agree with gnasher that East would not bid 4H, but if you think he might do that, say 20% of the time, then the above scores are not in the ball-park. North-South will, I think, make 9 tricks at least half the time, I estimated 80%, and never fewer than 8. Best defence is as in my earlier thread, and defensive slips will normally only cost one trick. So, how about: 16% of N/S +80068% of N/S +110016% of N/S +1400 That is much nearer the mark, and I agree that East will not redouble, as mooted by nigel1, but will be content (if that is what makes one happy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.