Is there a joker?

[gnasher]

Noted, but East may well have a seventh spade. Indeed I would tend to expect it for the 3♠ bid.

Maybe you would. I, on the other hand, would expect something different.

 

Both of those expectations are of little relevance, however: what matters is what this East has shown and what this West expects. This West has, in fact, told us what she expects, and she seems to have made no mention of a seventh spade.

[lamford]

Maybe you would. I, on the other hand, would expect something different.

 

Both of those expectations are of little relevance, however: what matters is what this East has shown and what this West expects. This West has, in fact, told us what she expects, and she seems to have made no mention of a seventh spade.

She only stated that she expected a minimum hand. She was certainly right about that! She also judged impeccably that she was getting a better score against 3NT undoubled than she would have against 4C doubled. We have to assume that partner has not psyched, but we still do not expect 4C to go down. Partner may have a completely normal S KQJ10xx H xx D Axx C xx. Now they will certainly run to 4C as North misbid with 3NT.

[gnasher]

We seem to disagree by about two tricks on the evaluation here. I think that most likely is 11. You think the most likely is 9. How many do they make on the actual hand? 11. I was not advocating a double. Indeed I was indicating that I would expect it to concede 510. I think that was a typo and -610 is more likely.

Sorry, but you've lost me. Earlier in this thread, you seemed to suggest that a reason for passing out 3NT was the risk of conceding 510 against 4♣x. You wouldn't double 4♣, I wouldn't double 4♣, and it seems unlikely that the actual West player would double 4♣. If East doubled 4♣, I expect that even you would be looking forward to the defence with some confidence. So, why did you suggest that there was a risk of defending 4♣x? Or didn't you?

[lamford]

Sorry, but you've lost me. Earlier in this thread, you seemed to suggest that a reason for passing out 3NT was the risk of conceding 510 against 4♣x. You wouldn't double 4♣, I wouldn't double 4♣, and it seems unlikely that the actual West player would double 4♣. If East doubled 4♣, I expect that even you would be looking forward to the defence with some confidence. So, why did you suggest that there was a risk of defending 4♣x? Or didn't you?

There seems to be a risk of using sarcasm on here. Read this again:

 

"If they end up in 4♣, and we double that, we expect it to make, so at best we might convert -550 into -510, possibly nicking an IMP."

 

How on earth would someone in their right mind double it when they expect it to make? But I have learnt my lesson and will avoid sarcasm in future.

[gnasher]

Paul, is there any chance that you could go through your posts from no 13 onwards, indicating which bits were intended as sarcasm, parody, or the like, and which were intended to be taken at face value? You could use a colour-coding scheme such as

yellow = humour

brown = seriously held opinion

[lamford]

Paul, is there any chance that you could go through your posts from no 13 onwards, indicating which bits were intended as sarcasm, parody, or the like, and which were intended to be taken at face value? You could use a colour-coding scheme such as

yellow = humour

brown = seriously held opinion

I think that was the only one, but I do not know how to use the colour-coding and do not want to learn; I shall stick with black and white in all senses. I presume all yours are yellow? They certainly made me laugh. As did the view that this could be classified as a red fielded psyche. More importantly it worries me that budding County Directors are being taught that it is.

[aguahombre]

Any color is a joke.

 

My understand of the EBU system ( http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48518-ebu-psyche-classifications/ ) is that every psyche gets assigned a color. This includes "n the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche".

Assuming the TD was even called; but I was referring to the colors with consequences.

 

I am coming round more to the belief that this is green rather than amber.

Careful, you might even get to the point of reconsidering the "nonsense".

 

Others have already shown West's actions to be at least reasonable, not fielding. The psyche itself (yes it is one --even though it is a 7-loser hand) is what caused N/S to go off-track; but South also ignored West's accurate calls during the play, and buried the 6-2 heart fit with Michaels to start with. I know the ruling did not include a score adjustment, but nevertheless it seems to have been brought on by a fit of picque over N/S' own inadequate ability to deal with the competition and the play of the hand.

[olegru]

Could I advise rule of thumb?

If after some strange bidding opponents bid contract you expect to go down, but you are not ready to take any actions (bid own contract or double) if opponents will run to another contract and you are not expect your partner to be able to make any actions too - do not double opponents in the bad contract.

[lamford]

I know the ruling did not include a score adjustment

I was advised it was adjusted by the award of an artifical adjusted score of +3 IMPs N/S and -3 IMPs E/W. I don't know if there was a 0.5 VP penalty for E/W in addition (WB 90.4.2). I am not aware whether there was any appeal.

[bluejak]

I am surprised at the view that West's hand is minimum for the first double.

 

My view is for Amber: it just does not smell right.

[bluejak]

"If they end up in 4♣, and we double that, we expect it to make, so at best we might convert -550 into -510, possibly nicking an IMP."

I have been thinking about the word "we". If I double it with ♣Qx then, yes, there is a good chance it will make.

 

But if partner doubles it I certainly do not expect it to make.

[lamford]

I have been thinking about the word "we". If I double it with ♣Qx then, yes, there is a good chance it will make.

But if partner doubles it I certainly do not expect it to make.

I was assuming that gnasher was using the "authorial we" or "editorial we". Knowing that his English is well-above average, I would not otherwise expect him to write: "We have a defensive 11-count <snip>".

 

I merely changed his "we expect it go down" to "we expect it to make".

[Bbradley62]

I know it falls short of the stringent standards for a 1[sp} opener at YC on a Friday...

That could be an awfully large game :P

[lamford]

Your carefully constructed layout doesn't leave partner a 1♠ opener.

OK, let us come up with another layout where everyone has their bids and 3NT is cold, as I agree partner is more likely to open 3♠ on the earlier example.[hv=pc=n&s=sqjt975h85dak52c7&w=s64hqj976dcakj865&n=sa2hkt32dq9843cq9&e=sk83ha4djt76ct432&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s2s(Michaels)d(Penalty-oriented)2n(Minor%3F)3sdp3nppp]399|300[/hv]

I trust you are happy with the 1♠ opener here. Or is this another carefully-constructed layout?

 

Sorry about the rotation of the diagram.

[gordontd]

Or is this another carefully-constructed layout?

Was it not carefully-constructed?

[lamford]

Was it not carefully-constructed?

No, I made small errors with the pips and also rotated the diagram accidentally. And I discovered that there were around a million similar hands where 3NT was cold. Essentially whenever there are six club tricks and two heart tricks, and the opponents cannot take four diamonds and the ace of spades. As with monkeys and typewriters, a tiny amount of thought was needed. No doubt there are a lot more hands that fit the bill.

 

I would almost go so far as to say that doubling 3NT would be SeWoG. It would be amusing if doubling was SeWoG and not doubling was a red fielded psyche. Almost like VixTD's imposition of a SeWoG 3♠ on one hand, after polling half a dozen drunken revellers in the bar. In his defence, they were there for a wedding, not for the bridge.

[Trinidad]

No, I made small errors with the pips and also rotated the diagram accidentally. And I discovered that there were arouund a million similar hands where 3NT was cold. Essentially whenever there are six club tricks and two heart tricks, and the opponents cannot take four diamonds and the ace of spades. As with monkeys and typewriters, a tiny amount of thought was needed. No doubt there are a lot more hands that fit the bill.

 

I would almost go so far as to say that doubling 3NT would be SeWoG. It would be amusing if doubling was SeWoG and not doubling was a red fielded psyche. Almost like VixTDs imposition of a SeWoG 3S on one hand, after interviewing half a dozen drunken revellers in the bar. In his defence, they were there for a wedding, not for the bridge.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that doubling 3NT would be a SEWoG. But if I would be West, I would consider it a Fredin double, which means that for a player of the level of Peter Fredin, it would be a SEWoG.

 

Rik

[Bbradley62]

Or is this another carefully-constructed layout?

Right back to smart-ass attitude after being outvoted 11-2. Nice.

[cretinous]

Amber

[lamford]

Right back to smart-ass attitude after being outvoted 11-2. Nice.

No, I acknowledged that the earlier hand was more likely to open 3♠:

 

"I agree partner is more likely to open 3♠ on the earlier example."

Are you suggesting that this one (South in #49) would open anything other than 1♠?

[lamford]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that doubling 3NT would be a SEWoG. But if I would be West, I would consider it a Fredin double, which means that for a player of the level of Peter Fredin, it would be a SEWoG.

I thought for a Fredin double the opponents were supposed to jump to 7♣ and make it. Here the double might only push them from a no-play 3NT into a cold 5♣.

[Bbradley62]

Are you suggesting that this one (South in #49) would open anything other than 1♠?

No; I am suggesting that most posters would have dropped the attitude after being outvoted so clearly.

[Finch]

I was advised it was adjusted by the award of an artifical adjusted score of +3 IMPs N/S and -3 IMPs E/W. I don't know if there was a 0.5 VP penalty for E/W in addition (WB 90.4.2). I am not aware whether there was any appeal.

 

When the hand was played at the table it was in a private match and there was no TD call, no 'real life' ruling and no appeal.

That doesn't stop it being used as an example in a training course.

[lamford]

No; I am suggesting that most posters would have dropped the attitude after being outvoted so clearly.

I did, and substituted a hand that would definitely open 1♠ for one that the majority thought would open 3♠. Exactly as you suggest I should have done. And especially so as everyone now seems to have their bid.

[lamford]

When the hand was played at the table it was in a private match and there was no TD call, no 'real life' ruling and no appeal.

That doesn't stop it being used as an example in a training course.

I asked Mike Amos whether the ruling at the table was that it was a fielded red psyche, and he confirmed that it was, so it seems he is misinformed. In the training course my entry was as follows (exactly quoted):

 

"I would agree with West that doubling 3NT is wrong; 4♣ is sure to be better and may make. West will place her partner with a minimum with six spades - maybe ♠KQJxxx and the ♦A for example. Amber - no adjustment. Record."

 

I received 3 out of 5 for that ruling, with "Red not amber" written on my paper, and the EBU is therefore instructing its directors that this example should be classified as red. Do you think this is the correct instruction, and if not should the L&E advise the EBU training team accordingly? Or is that not in their ambit?