Shropshire Congress 1 (EBU)

[AlexJonson]

You (and others) are imposing your own views on the EW system. I agree completely with PeterAlan: you cannot do a sensible poll on whether 3D is a LA without knowing, in detail, what a minimum hand is for West to enter the auction. I play something resembling these methods (1NT = hearts & clubs, dbl = diamonds and spades) and I wouldn't dream of bidding 3D after a natural 2NT bid on my right, but that's based on what I think partner needs to come in over 1C.

 

There are plenty of opinions about the 'best' way to defend against a strong 1C opening. They don't belong in this forum. Laws & Rulings are about applying the Laws. What we need to rule is to understand the EW agreements, not decide if they are a good idea or not.

 

Does it remain obvious that bidding on in diamonds is an LA? Otherwise I don't see how LAs work at all, and we are just talking about TDs notions about the game.

[bluejak]

This is your personal opinion. However, eventhough i disagree with you totally, i respect your opinion.

 

What i want to ask is, if i may, would you see bidding 3♦ as an L.A or not ?

 

 

I think we may be slightly at cross purposes. My point is, and always has been, that in order to determine whether 3♦ is a LA we need to know what methods E/W are playing - most of the posters seem happy to provide an answer to the LA question without ever considering this, and I think that's a mistaken approach. On the assumption that they're playing a fairly standard form of Truscott, my view is that 3♦ is not a LA, for the reasons I've given. You don't agree, and that's fine.

 

But we know from the original post not only that E said ♦ & ♠ but also that W actually made a 1NT overcall (probably the wrong one) on the hand she actually held, so it's not wholly speculative to make the reasonable assumption that, whatever their methods may be, they are methods that allow for overcalls to be made on that sort of hand.

 

 

Does it remain obvious that bidding on in diamonds is an LA? Otherwise I don't see how LAs work at all, and we are just talking about TDs notions about the game.

 

 

Some of us got distracted by the suggestion that 3♦ was obvious, or not.

 

As far as whether 3♦ is an LA it depends on whether a significant proportion, say one in five, of the player's peers would consider it, of whom a number would actually choose it, playing the same system and style. To decide this, and to take a meaningful poll to help decide this, we need to know what this pair woud overcall with. Not what readers of IBLF would overcall with.

 

Similarly to another thread, where someone thinks it is weird and leads to complications in his mind if players open different minors from him, we do not need to discuss what is best. We really do not need to convince others. But the reason I have got sucked in on both threads is the presumption of some posters that if they play something then so does everyone else - and both times this presumption has been on something I personally do not play.

 

So, having made my point badly in both threads, I shall now state it directly:

 

To rule on what a player should do, might do, has done or may do in the bidding we need to know his agreements with his partner, not substitute our own presumptions.

[AlexJonson]

So If you don't have full info about the players system, which I suppose you very rarely do in a case of any difficulty, you just make it up because a poll doesn't work?

[bluejak]

What do you mean by you do?

 

If you mean here on the forum, it is difficult, sure, and some things are unanswerable.

 

If you mean in real life you ask them to describe their system, read their SCs and their notes.

[c_corgi]

If, in the E/W methods, Bluejak's balanced 6 count was likely, has adequate disclosure been given?

[nige1]

If EW had any more understanding of 1N than "♦ & ♠" then

• East should disclose that understanding when asked.
• If more details were available, the director would report them, since such information is central to the ruling.

[Trinidad]

I like Rik's theory, too - that with the hands he overcalls on, this is more like a 4♦ overcall than 3; that's very much a playable system. You don't give away as much with the overcalls (because you pass a lot); and partner can trust that when they do push hard, it's safe. But you let them play their nice, finely tuned strong club system a lot. I think that's too much to pay.

I would hardly say that we pass a lot. We pass with 4333's, 4432's, 4441's and about half of the 5332's. On the rest we bid with the philosophy "Points, schmoints". (You may also call it Kamikaze style.) That means that we bid on about 55-60% of the hands. Only red vs white this percentage is a little lower (hard to say, maybe 45-50%). And out of the hands that we bid with, 75% will be bid at the two level (or higher). I wouldn't call that "letting them play their nice, finely tuned strong club system a lot".

 

Rik

[mycroft]

So, with some random 5=2=4=2, you're bidding (the equivalent of) 1NT? And after hearing you are limited to 16 high (so, partner overcalled on *at most 8*) in your partnership, knowing that the automatic trump lead is coming through partner and into the stoppers, you're thinking about bidding 4, and are sure of bidding 3? I note that this hand is exactly what you said you'd bid...5422, most of your "schmoints" are in your suits, you're white on red,...

 

I stand by my earlier statement. Given only what the opponents have told me about the auction, especially if I'm going to be declarer, 3♦ is 800 *minimum*, and I don't see them making a slam. Okay, I'll pay off if partner was 6=0=6=1 this time - but then isn't 4♥ by opener automatic (I have 3, partner has zero, RHO almost certainly doesn't have 5...) even if I do bid 4♦?

 

2NT has told opener what to do on any call by me. I'm passing. And yes, I've seen the poll results; and I guess I'd pretty much have to award 3♦x-4 or 5. But I would expect it to get appealed, and expect the argument I'm making at the appeal.

[WellSpyder]

I submit that there is no where this is considered normal bridge.

You submission was proved wrong even before you made it since the evidence shows clearly that it is considered normal bridge at Bluejak's table even if you think it must be a different game than bridge. FWIW, my experience playing a strong 1♣ also suggests this is considered quite normal at favourable vulnerability in several other places.

 

[Edit: Sorry, I posted this immediately on seeing Phil's post. I see this issue has been adequately addressed in subsequent discussion!]