Sectional A/X Swiss hand 2

[Mbodell]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat3h983dj9876ct4&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d(could%20be%20as%20few%20as%201%2C%20limited%20opener)d1hp2h3d(original%202d%20would%20have%20been%20nat%20overcall)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Teams favorable. You and your partner play that 2♦ is natural over a short 1♦, so this sounds like a power double with diamonds. How do you evaluate your hand now and what's your call?

[mike777]

3h as usual with tough hands I will x or cue.

 

later in the bar I willexplain how my bid perfectly shows my hand :)

[rmnka447]

4 ♦ - I'll show pard the fit, but with everyone bidding and holding a rather flat hand, I'm not so sure how many tricks we can take.

Partner needs an unusual hand for game to make.

[mike777]

dont see why pard cant have:

 

 

xxx...A.......AKxxxx...Axx or more

[rogerclee]

3H, I will pass 3N and bid 5D otherwise.

[gszes]

our 5 diamonds makes me rule out the possiblity of p having a strong

hand with diamonds. There are two basic hand types that generally

fit this bidding one is a super strong black suit 2 suiter and the other

is a hand with running clubs a dia stopper a spade stopper but no

heart stopper. The second type of hand wants to play 3n. We cannot

do that and IMO a 3h bid would show a partial stopper. We have

2 problems 1 we are not broke and 2 we have no good fit. We would love

to play 4s if p has the strong 2 suiter but if we bid 4s there is no guarantee

p looking at the long clubs might play US for long spades. If we were broke

I would consider 3s but as it is i will hazard a

 

4h

 

bid hoping p realizes I am not broke and have no strong opinions about trumps (and

no semblance of a heart stopper).

 

 

If p bids 4s I can pass happily and if they bid 5c I will do the same. This would be

a much more irritating problem if i were not long in dia.

[Mbodell]

So this is paired with hand 5. I was curious if people would get to game. At the table the opponents did not announce the short diamond until the end of the auction (us passing out the 2♥ bid). When they announced it the director was called, and before any hand was revealed, my partner with the 17 point hand with diamonds said to the director he would have X and then bid 3♦ over 2♥ and explained that an immediate 2♦ would have been natural overcall strength (but that he prefered the X and then bid 3♦). The opponents proceeded to make 2♥ exactly. When the director came back he ruled that we would have ended up playing 3♦ making 5 for +150 but did not think we would bid game. It looks like a majority of folks don't think 3♦ would have ended the auction, even if they don't really agree with the X and then bid action of partner.

[Statto]

Can't see why we wouldn't end up in 5♦ had North began as indicated. If 5♦ was not making and it was ruled to 3♦+1, I wouldn't complain, but it appears there has been insufficient redress for the damaged side here - assuming 5♦ was making with a reasonable line.

[Zelandakh]

When they announced it the director was called, and before any hand was revealed, my partner with the 17 point hand with diamonds said to the director he would have X and then bid 3♦ over 2♥ and explained that an immediate 2♦ would have been natural overcall strength (but that he prefered the X and then bid 3♦).

I did not think that this was not allowed since it is clearly passing information about the hand to others at the table. When I have been faced with this situation I have always waited until after the hand before calling the director. Am interested what others think is the correct procedure here.

 

It sounds a little like the director was fudging - changing the score in your favour but not to the top spot. Do you know if he ran a poll at all? As usual, a weighted ruling would make the director's life much simpler here but that is not available in ACBLland.

[Mbodell]

I did not think that this was not allowed since it is clearly passing information about the hand to others at the table. When I have been faced with this situation I have always waited until after the hand before calling the director. Am interested what others think is the correct procedure here.

 

It sounds a little like the director was fudging - changing the score in your favour but not to the top spot. Do you know if he ran a poll at all? As usual, a weighted ruling would make the director's life much simpler here but that is not available in ACBLland.

 

Note the director talked to partner away from the table and only repeated what he'd been told to the table after the hand was done. When there had been a failure to alert the opponents correctly called the director to the table before the opening lead to tell about the missed alert (the proper procedure, albeit rarely actually practiced). The director talked to my partner away from the table. He should have, likely, talked to me away from the table and also asked me if I wanted to act in the pass out seat with the correct information, but I obviously wouldn't with my 5 point hand and only a X but no further X or bid from partner.

 

I don't know if there was a poll, but he did talk to another director. It was swiss teams and the last board in only a minute or two left on the clock (with the clock being the time to report scores, not the time to start the last board), so things were rushed. Our team was also not having a good day so we were not going to be in contention even if we got a 5♦= ruling (and the play was obvious, lose a club and a heart and the rest are yours).

[ggwhiz]

Yeah, not a good job by the Director except for getting your partners take away from the table before the cards are known.

 

Under the stated possible auction I would be going directly to 5♦ assuming no trump losers (even on a double finesse) and a stiff ♥, especially if pards diamonds are not that good.

 

A Black Ace and doubleton make game a favorite and you should have won this one. A poll of other players towards at least game tries would have sealed the deal.