Jump to content

A good shot


RMB1

Recommended Posts

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&s=sk852hkj92dkjcaqj&w=st76h8763dt52c754&n=sa43ha4dq963ct962&e=sqj9hqt5da874ck83&a=p1nx2cxppp]399|300|[/hv]

[Added board number/dealer/vulnerability and approximate auction.]

 

West plays in 2 doubled on a club lead. On sight of dummy West suggests "-1100" and one defender accepts. The other defender is not so happy and says so, but allows the score to be entered and plays the next board. A few rounds later both sides are discussing the hand and call me, the player who was not happy is still not happy and wants a ruling.

 

I decided that because I was not called at the time, agreement was established (Law 69A) and has now been withdrawn (Law 69B). So how many more tricks are likely for the defence? Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transfering more than one trick?

 

It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?

 

There are match-points at stake here: without this result the frequencies are 1700 x 2, 1400 x 6, 1100 x 7, 490 x 1, 460 x 6, 430 x 2. This is the land of the weak NT, and at many tables the auction will have started 1NT-X, and NS continuing to double.

Edited by RMB1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience of playing and defending contracts like this over the years is that you chuck tricks in defence at an alarming rate, and I think -1100 perfectly likely. Of course -1400 is possible, but no more likely, and I hardly believe the defence will do much better. Still judgement does not interest me very much.

 

Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transferring more than one trick?

Not in my view. Consider if the TD thinks there are two tricks that would likely have gone the other way: now look at the wording.

 

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C .... if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

Consider the first trick: according to this it gets transferred. Now consider the second trick. Surely the same applies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hv=pc=n&s=sk852hkj92dkjcaqj&w=st76h8763dt52c754&n=sa43ha4dq963ct962&e=sqj9hqt5da874ck83]399|300|[/hv]

 

West plays in 2 doubled on a club lead. On sight of dummy West suggests "-1100" and one defender accepts. The other defender is not so happy and says so, but allows the score to be entered and plays the next board. A few rounds later both sides are discussing the hand and call me, the player who was not happy is still not happy and wants a ruling.

 

I decided that because I was not called at the time, agreement was established (Law 69A) and has now been withdrawn (Law 69B). So how many more tricks are likely for the defence? Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transfering more than one trick?

 

It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?

 

There are match-points at stake here: without this result the frequencies are 1700 x 2, 1400 x 6, 1100 x 7, 490 x 1, 460 x 6, 430 x 2. This is the land of the weak NT, and at many tables the auction will have started 1NT-X, and NS continuing to double.

 

Was the hand played in 2x by West at any of the other tables? If so, that will give you an indication of what might have happened at this table, had play continued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer my own question, 2x was declared at two other tables.

 

Played by East, on a low spade lead, declarer was held to 2 tricks.

 

Played by West, on the inferior lead of A, declarer managed to scramble 3 tricks.

 

At this table, a trump was led through dummy. South will win, put partner in with a major suit ace and North will play another trump, followed by a 3rd round of trumps. Now the only likely results are down 6 (-1700 as E/W are vulnerable) and down 7 (-2000) depending on whether declarer makes a spade trick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transferring more than one trick?

 

Not in my view. Consider if the TD thinks there are two tricks that would likely have gone the other way: now look at the wording.

 

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C .... if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

 

Consider the first trick: according to this it gets transferred. Now consider the second trick. Surely the same applies?

 

After the board has been "rescored" for the transfer of the first trick, does the Law allow for the board to be "rescored" again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer a question that hasn't yet been asked, EW were vulnerable.

A possible reason it wasn't asked is that people worked it out from:

"It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A possible reason it wasn't asked is that people worked it out from:

"It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?"

I would have asked had Frances not mentioned it, since it wasn't clear to me whether the hand diagram or the numbers were wrong. Anyway, I would think two tricks for declarer the most likely outcome after that start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... , since it wasn't clear to me whether the hand diagram or the numbers were wrong.

 

When I decided not to enter the bidding, the hand generator did not ask for vulnerability, and the default colouring looks like "love all". If I can I will edit the original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...