A nice pickle

[dburn]

Don't mind 3♣ - quite an intelligent bid, really. Provided of course that partner is supposed to select his rebid on the basis that I can have a hand that might make slam opposite a suitable maximum. If the partnership in the actual case can supply evidence to this effect, then I don't have a problem with the notion that there is no LA to bidding game (and this was "a high level of play", so such evidence may well be forthcoming).

 

It seems to me that many comments are along the lines of "the player who bid 3♣ was or could have been a bean-counter who re-evaluated on the basis of the UI that partner nearly bid game". Well, it may be so, but the original poster's question was along these lines: "the player bid 3♣ fully intending to carry a minimum response to game, and to try for slam over certain maximum responses; may he now bid game over a slow 3♠?" Of course he may, and he should not expect to be ruled against if he does.

 

To put this into sharper perspective: I once had an auction behind screens where my partnership had agreed hearts, and the opponents had competed in spades to the point where our side could not conduct the scientific auction we would have liked. I cue-bid five of some minor, and before I shoved the tray under wrote a note to my screen-mate saying that I was going to bid six however slowly my partner bid five. My screen-mate (a world champion) added the words "quite right" underneath. I learned later with astonishment bordering on incredulity that some people would have objected to this procedure (as it happened, my partner bid six anyway, so there was no issue).

[Trinidad]

In essence, responder has a Bergen 4♦ bid: A mixed raise to the 4 level (typically with 5 card support, but I guess 4 + void also qualifies). The Bergen 4♦ bid is "the taller brother" of the Bergen 3♣ bid. It has the same values, but more distribution, and therefore wants to play in game. Unfortunately, responder didn't have the Bergen 4♦ bid in his tool box. He decided to use the smaller brother (3♣) and then bid 4♠ anyway to describe his hand.

 

I am not saying that I would have chosen that route, but it is certainly reasonable. After all, the alternatives also have some drawbacks. The alternatives are:

 

- He could splinter

- He could bid a Jacoby 2NT

- He could bid 2♥ and bid spades

- He could bid 3♦ and convert to 4♠

- He could bid 3♣ and convert to 4♠

 

All of these methods have specific characteristics. One characteristic of the first three is that they show some slam interest, which responder doesn't really have. Another is that they set up a forcing pass if the opponents would enter the auction. I don't think you want that. (If East would have bid 2NT then NS might be upset by West's explanation of "GF spade raise". NS would imagine a hand with considerable more high card strength. See the discussions about explanations of "GF" 2♣ openers.)

 

The poll is clear about two things:

- No one would stop bidding below 4♠.

- Two of the polled players actually followed the same idea, but took it even further: They bid 3♦ and converted to 4♠. In other words, they were always going to go to game even if they knew for sure that declarer had a balanced minimum. (A 3♠ rebid by opener after a 3♣ response has a higher upper limit than a ♠ rebid by opener after a 3♦ response.) Those who think that East shouldn't be allowed to convert to 4♠ would certainly need to think that the 3♦ bidders wouldn't be allowed to do that. When passing 3♠ was not an LA for the 3♦ bidders, it certainly cannot be an LA for a 3♣ bidder.

 

Therefore, the 4♠ bid should be allowed.

 

Rik

[olegru]

You polled the wrong people.

 

The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

 

I believe it is not correct.

Every method has holes. Everyone sometimes masterminds his bids in awkward for his system positions, because he thinks in that particular situation non-systemic bid gives him the better chance to extract useful information from the partner and made the final decision compare to the systemic bid.

Player told it was that kind of situation for him.

 

Director does not need to find the group of people who will made the same unsystemic decision, it is hardly possible.

 

He needs to find peers and ask the correct questions.

“By some reason you decided to bid like that. Your partner bid 3 spades in a perfect tempo. What is you bid? What other bids you were thinking about?”

 

By the way, pass is not LA for me.

[aguahombre]

Every method has holes. Everyone sometimes masterminds his bids in awkward for his system positions, because he thinks in that particular situation non-systemic bid gives him the better chance to extract useful information from the partner and made the final decision compare to the systemic bid.

Player told it was that kind of situation for him.

 

And if we do mastermind, and there is a B.I.T by partner, we politely accept being ruled against. It is the price one pays for being "clever".

[olegru]

And if we do mastermind, and there is a B.I.T by partner, we politely accept being ruled against. It is the price one pays for being "clever".

Absolutl agree. if there is LA suggested by partners hesitation - rule it. But if there is no LA - no punishment. what I want to say is - director should no assign the bad decission as aLA only. Because he does not like "clever" bid.

[blackshoe]

Why is it that when a player commits an infraction which damages the opponents, he considers rectification of that damage as "punishment"? Seems to me "punishment" would require something more than just redressing the damage. But I suppose if you consider the redress "punishment" you can argue against ever getting a procedural penalty, calling that "cruel and unusual". :( :( :o

[Trinidad]

And if we do mastermind, and there is a B.I.T by partner, we politely accept being ruled against. It is the price one pays for being "clever".

Bridge is a brain game. One is supposed to be clever. This includes finding a bid on hands for which there is no systemic bid.

 

If there was a B.I.T. by partner, we do politely accept being ruled against and we politely ask for an appeal form. A TD is not supposed to rule against us because there was a BIT. There are a few other conditions that need to be met before he can rule against us. In this case, the condition that pass (or any other call) is an LA has not been met. Therefore, there should not be an AS.

 

Fortunately, the TD who handled the case made the correct ruling straight away by not adjusting the score. I may have missed something, but it seems that the players politely accepted this ruling.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Why is it that when a player commits an infraction which damages the opponents, he considers rectification of that damage as "punishment"? Seems to me "punishment" would require something more than just redressing the damage. But I suppose if you consider the redress "punishment" you can argue against ever getting a procedural penalty, calling that "cruel and unusual". :( :( :o

I understand that you want to battle against the use of the word "punishment" when "rectification" is supposed to be used. And, of course, you are correct. It is important to state every now and then that there is a big difference between rectification and punishment. Olegru chose the wrong word, maybe the fact that he isn't a native speaker might have had something to do with that.

 

Maybe you could also take up a battle against the idea that a BIT is an infraction, as suggested by aguahombre (and implied by you by using the word "infraction" in this thread)? After all, it is important to state every now and then that a BIT is not an infraction. And since you both are native speakers...

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Maybe you could also take up a battle against the idea that a BIT is an infraction, as suggested by aguahombre (and implied by you by using the word "infraction" in this thread)? After all, it is important to state every now and then that a BIT is not an infraction. And since you both are native speakers...

Good job at diversion. We both know and skipped over the obvious; that it is the use of the B.I.T which is an infraction. In the future I will try to use more words, so that you can follow cause to effect.

[Trinidad]

Good job at diversion. We both know and skipped over the obvious; that it is the use of the B.I.T which is an infraction. In the future I will try to use more words, so that you can follow cause to effect.

Thank you for the compliment.

 

You may think that you skipped over the obvious, but what you think obviously existed, simply didn't exist. By that I mean: there obviously wasn't any use of UI. If you would have looked at the results of the poll* and the contributions of e.g. Frances and David Burn, it would have become clear that there was no use of a BIT and hence there was no infraction.

 

Rik

 

*The poll of 8 people shows that all of them would drive to 4♠. This included 2 that took the even extremer approach than this player by bidding 4♠ through 3♦ (thereby knowing for sure that their opener has a bare minimum). Then that shows pretty clearly that pass is not an LA.

[campboy]

Absolutl agree. if there is LA suggested by partners hesitation - rule it. But if there is no LA - no punishment. what I want to say is - director should no assign the bad decission as aLA only. Because he does not like "clever" bid.

It has nothing to do with not liking a "clever" bid. The point is that we cannot tell whether 3♣ was a "clever" bid made by a player who always intended to bid game or a stupid bid made by a player who does not think his hand is as good as other people do. We have only the player's word for what he intended, and I do not see why this is different to any other situation where a player says he was always intending to bid on.

[mjj29]

It has nothing to do with not liking a "clever" bid. The point is that we cannot tell whether 3♣ was a "clever" bid made by a player who always intended to bid game or a stupid bid made by a player who does not think his hand is as good as other people do. We have only the player's word for what he intended, and I do not see why this is different to any other situation where a player says he was always intending to bid on.

If you found some people who with that hand after the 1S opening would consider any sequence not finishing in at least 4S, then I would agree with you. However, given everyone polled is saying "I'd never pass below game", then it seems more likely this player was going to game via 3C (for whatever reason) than he was bidding 3C because he wasn't sure about going to game. In this way I think the poll may still be useful.

[aguahombre]

Well, what confuses me about all this logic is:

 

Since this player's 3C bid would not be chosen by anyone polled, thus making his thought processes at odds with everyone else ---why should we all-of-a-sudden believe that he is in agreement with everyone else that the hand belongs in game?

 

Why is it not just as reasonable to believe that, for him, passing or bidding game are logical alternatives even though it might not be the case for those polled?

[campboy]

If you found some people who with that hand after the 1S opening would consider any sequence not finishing in at least 4S, then I would agree with you. However, given everyone polled is saying "I'd never pass below game", then it seems more likely this player was going to game via 3C (for whatever reason) than he was bidding 3C because he wasn't sure about going to game. In this way I think the poll may still be useful.

Only 8 people were polled. I am sure a sufficiently large poll would include some votes for 3♣, and I suspect that some of those would be from people who subsequently pass 3♠.

[olegru]

Well, what confuses me about all this logic is:

 

Since this player's 3C bid would not be chosen by anyone polled, thus making his thought processes at odds with everyone else ---why should we all-of-a-sudden believe that he is in agreement with everyone else that the hand belongs in game?

Because:

a. He said so;

b. All other people of his abilities judged this hand as gameforcing.

[blackshoe]

I understand that you want to battle against the use of the word "punishment" when "rectification" is supposed to be used.

 

No. I want to battle against the idea that rectification is punishment. "Rectify" means "to put something right"; "punish" means "to inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense". And I know Olegru is not a native English speaker. I wasn't trying to pick on him, or any other non-native speaker. Or anyone else, for that matter.

 

Maybe you could also take up a battle against the idea that a BIT is an infraction, as suggested by aguahombre (and implied by you by using the word "infraction" in this thread)? After all, it is important to state every now and then that a BIT is not an infraction. And since you both are native speakers...

 

No where in this thread (or anywhere else) did I imply that a BIT is an infraction.

[axman]

Because:

a. He said so;

b. All other people of his abilities judged this hand as gameforcing.

 

 

As so far the notion that the value of one’s hand necessarily feeds off the partner’s hand has escaped notice, here are a few thoughts on valuation.

 

For instance, there are a large number that believe that [and I have long since gotten past being amazed at the number that insist] Kxxxx-QJx-KQ-JTx is a sound minimum starting hand for 1S. and such a hand opposite the subject hand [which is evaluated as GF] suggests that GF means ‘not to make’ but ‘to sacrifice’.

 

Even for fuddy-duddies like me that have never opened such a hand 1S, would be quite comfortable opening xxxxx-QJx-AKx-Kx and would expect to go down in 4S opposite the subject hand over 60% of the time [against a part score.]

 

Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.

[Mbodell]

As so far the notion that the value of one’s hand necessarily feeds off the partner’s hand has escaped notice, here are a few thoughts on valuation.

 

For instance, there are a large number that believe that [and I have long since gotten past being amazed at the number that insist] Kxxxx-QJx-KQ-JTx is a sound minimum starting hand for 1S. and such a hand opposite the subject hand [which is evaluated as GF] suggests that GF means ‘not to make’ but ‘to sacrifice’.

 

Even for fuddy-duddies like me that have never opened such a hand 1S, would be quite comfortable opening xxxxx-QJx-AKx-Kx and would expect to go down in 4S opposite the subject hand over 60% of the time [against a part score.]

 

Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.

 

I wouldn't expect to go down with the OP opposite your constructed hands. I'd expect there would be a misdeal for a duplicated ♥Q. I expect 4♠ to make a very high percentage of the time. I'd expect at the table that 6♠ makes as or more often than 4♠ goes down (given just the 1♠ opening). There are a lot of people who want to say "his partner hesitated, he made some bid which if we take the literal meaning described - even though it would show gross misjudgement and undervaluation of the hand in the format and circumstances most punishing to this - shows he's misjudged the hand, I'm not creative enough to make a bid like this (or I haven't seen people do this a lot), therefore clearly he's an unethical person using the UI, let's shoot him" but I think that is clearly the wrong answer. Making an ostensible game try with a hand that will investigate/drive to slam if partner accepts and signs off in game if partner doesn't is not an unheard of move. Good bridge players (I.e., "high level of play") know to play at least game when they have a 6 LTC hand with 4 card support for partners opening 1M hand red at teams! I think the TD did the right thing. The poll helps show what is common sense: pass isn't a LA. You could ask people too you've subbed into a tournament and the bidding has gone 1♠-3♣!-3♠ in the same circumstances and meaning as the OP and then ask what are your calls and what do you consider? I don't think a poll of high level of play people will make pass an LA. I'd believe 4♦ might be an LA and 4♠, but not pass.

[Fluffy]

I saw recently a case very similar, but what actually happened is not that the player with the UI used the UI to make the clear bid he should had bid the previous round, what he used mostly is the time partner took hesitating, to realice that his previous bid was stupid to say the least and rectify his error.

 

I supose the extra time partner takes to think that makes you realice something is not ilegal, however I can´t think of any way in wich this time wonñt be related to an UI so it wonñt matter.

[Trinidad]

Teams, high level of play

Andre,

 

Maybe you could indicate what the level of the players was in Dutch terms (Meesterklasse/1st division/2nd division/hoofdklasse...)?

 

That would give some people (at least me) an idea of the level of the players.

 

Rik

[c_corgi]

Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.

 

I think this is because most people feel that it is not worth trying to find out if opener's hand is so unsuitable as make game a poor proposition, but are happy to punt facing the slenderest of 1♠ openings. But most people also do not feel 3♣ is a wise choice. Those who do, such as

 

He just wanted partner to know roughly his HCP strength either because he was worred about defending 5D or whatever reason...

 

present an argument that was not put forward by East and should therefore be discounted.

 

Or that essentially East was trying to play 3C as something along the lines of '2-way: a mixed raise OR a second tier splinter', the advocates of which, such as

 

We think we can play this without UI problems for a number of reasons:

 

and

 

Provided of course that partner is supposed to select his rebid on the basis that I can have a hand that might make slam opposite a suitable maximum.

 

warn against trying to introduce it without partnership agreement and the methods to procede accurately. The fact that OP does not mention such methods suggests that they don't exist, as does West's lack of wariness about making a slow signoff.

 

Yet OP speaks of a high level of play, so we must determine whether East has made a surprisingly negative evaluation or chosen what seems like a misguided masterminding strategy. Knowledge of East's habits might help resolve this, but it feels as though if in doubt the director should rule against East, who may be successful in appeal.

[Trinidad]

but it feels as though if in doubt the director should rule against East, who may be successful in appeal.

This is something from the past. The current position is that a TD should try to make the correct ruling and not "when in doubt let the (alleged) offenders appeal".

 

For this case, it means that if the TD wants to rule against East, he will need some kind of evidence that Pass is an LA (otherwise there is no infraction). He looked for that evidence and couldn't find it. Therefore, he correctly ruled "no infraction".

 

Rik