Would you Move?

[lamford]

+

As that seems to be a confirm, are you also able to clarify the NS methods, in particular what 1NT-2C-2D-3D would mean and whether the chosen sequence was a slam-try?

[aguahombre]

It is much better to just ask NS what North has shown in the auction.

 

If NS answer that it implies slam interest, then consider it as such and throw out all the votes of people who think that North has merely shown game going values. You will be stuck with my vote. ;)

If NS answer that it merely shows game going values, then consider it as such and throw out all the votes of people who think that North has implied slam interest. Please discard my opinion and don't misuse it for a purpose that it wasn't intended for.

 

Rik

Upon further reflection, this is the correct way of looking at it. On even further reflection, if we have implied slam interest partner has taken extra time to come up with a bad bid ---I am not used to this happening, and would have to pass 3NT.

 

If the auction merely has shown game going values, partner still has taken extra time to come up with a bad bid..JXX in an off-suit might suggest NT is not the right spot; but, suitability for slam in diamonds is still in the picture from responder's standpoint even if opener has something like XX KXX KQXX KJX (possible, if the auction wasn't slammish up to this point and opener will expect responder to bid again if interested).

[RMB1]

... , are you also able to clarify the NS methods, in particular what 1NT-2C-2D-3D would mean and whether the chosen sequence was a slam-try?

 

I was not the TD. I do not think the TD or AC asked about sequences starting with 1NT-2♣. I do not know whether the chosen sequence was a slam-try - I made assumptions at the time but (in hindsight) these were based on my own understandings.

[gordontd]

although with sadly dwindling numbers that is being damned with faint praise.

Actually the numbers were very slightly up this year, and last year they were significantly up on the previous year.

[lamford]

Actually the numbers were very slightly up this year, and last year they were significantly up on the previous year.

I stand corrected. They should be, as the Holiday Inn, Stratford, is much nicer (and cheaper) than the NEC Hilton, if that is what it is still called.

[gnasher]

The difference is that I now know (or believe) Pass to be an LA, and have to select it regardless of whether I think it is the best bid. I am answering the question with extra information.

There are two different questions:

(1) What would you do or consider doing in an unpolluted auction?

(2) What would you do when constrained by UI?

When conducting a poll in order to determine what is an LA, we are interested in the answer to (1), not (2).

 

As I understand it, your answers would be (1) 4♥ and (2) Pass. In your earlier post (no 43), you seemed to imply that this met the condition "would actually choose [Pass]". It doesn't - all it tells us is that you think Pass is an LA.

[lamford]

There are two different questions:

(1) What would you do or consider doing in an unpolluted auction?

(2) What would you do when constrained by UI?

When conducting a poll in order to determine what is an LA, we are interested in the answer to (1), not (2).

 

As I understand it, your answers would be (1) 4♥ and (2) Pass. In your earlier post (no 43), you seemed to imply that this met the condition "would actually choose [Pass]". It doesn't - all it tells us is that you think Pass is an LA.

Yes to the answers. But no, I was not arguing that the fact that I would pass now contributed to making it an LA in any way. And I would have thought the word "now" made that clear. As both you and gordontd have misinterpreted what I wrote, it was clearly badly written, and I should have written "Originally when given it as a problem without UI, or with UI, I would have bid on". "Now I would bid on without UI and pass with UI, as I now think that Pass is an LA as a result of talking to, and polling, some very strong players". I do not know who the "offenders" were, so I cannot tell whether Pass would be an LA for them. And I do not know the methods of the pair, nor what other sequences or subsequent sequences would mean, so I am partly guessing.

 

The overriding consideration for me is that I know any noise gets a Six Diamond bid, and that is surely a breach of 73C.

 

Bad writing is more than a matter of ***** syntax and faulty observation - Stephen King

 

And I like the censor program!

[gwnn]

No, you don't *know* that. Perhaps 3S was not a slam invite, perhaps partner was thinking of 4-3 spade fit or perhaps he has a hand that is very bad for diamonds and will still sign off in 5D. It is yhe likeliest case that he will accept a slam try now but not by as much as you are implying.

[lamford]

No, you don't *know* that. Perhaps 3S was not a slam invite, perhaps partner was thinking of 4-3 spade fit or perhaps he has a hand that is very bad for diamonds and will still sign off in 5D. It is yhe likeliest case that he will accept a slam try now but not by as much as you are implying.

So what else was he thinking of bidding? The auction is already at Three Spades. And even his thinking about playing the Moysian makes your hand better as he will have less in the rounded suits.

[gwnn]

The probability rising and the probability being 100% are two different things.

[lamford]

The probability rising and the probability being 100% are two different things.

That's why I put know in italics. I clearly should have used "strongly suspect".

[gwnn]

OK well usually using italics puts emphasis, not doubt on a word, but thanks for clearing that up.

[lamford]

I'm not convinced partner will value the right hands as I know he's aceless.

I'm not convinced partner will value the right hands if I move on as I know he's aceless.

[gnasher]

OK well usually using italics puts emphasis, not doubt on a word, but thanks for clearing that up.

People sometimes incorreclty use quotation marks for emphasis. There's an attractive symmetry about Lamford's use of italics to indicate inexactitude.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm not convinced partner will value the right hands if I move on as I know he's aceless.

Agreed, which is why I'm going to ask the questions I want the answer to.

[lamford]

Agreed, which is why I'm going to ask the questions I want the answer to.

I don't even know how the auction went after 4D by North, but it is not clear that you will be able to ask the questions let alone get a meaningful response. It seems that there is not much point discussing this thread further until we get more information from the TD or AC on North-South's methods.

[bluejak]

Why do I not remember the hand? When was it?

[lamford]

Why do I not remember the hand? When was it?

It was an appeal from the Pairs qualifier at the Autumn Congress in Stratford. It was board 10 of the first session and was bid to 6♦ by your opponents when you played it, giving you 18 out of 92 MPs.

 

I cannot answer why you do not remember the hand. Perhaps because it was more than 48 hours ago, perhaps because it did not seem interesting at the time, or perhaps because the hands given were dummy and declarer.

[gordontd]

It seems that there is not much point discussing this thread further until we get more information from the TD or AC on North-South's methods.

I doubt if you'll get any more information. The TD at the table is not here, and as far as I know nor are any of the AC members. One of the players is but is choosing not to get involved, as is his right.

[gordontd]

I am told that both winners of the A final at Stratford would choose Pass.

I am told by the appellant that this is not correct. The appeals advisors said that they thought pass was a logical alternative, not that they would choose to pass.

[PeterAlan]

[hv=pc=n&n=sa764haq6da9754ca&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1n(12-14)p2n(diamonds)p3d(DHxx%5Bx%5D%20or%20better)p3s(natural%2C%20FG)p3np]133|200[/hv]

Matchpoints

a) What calls would you seriously consider?

b) What call would you make?

Coming late to this, but I would bid on by whatever relevant methods we happened to be playing, at MPs as well as IMPs. But I think Pass is a LA, as evidenced by what happened at our table, where our opponents did just that after what was, I think, an identical sequence. +660.

 

Mind you, they may have thought they were just consolidating the round, because we'd just converted what should have been an outright bottom for them on the previous board into an outright top by misplaying it. N had doubled 4H, which wasn't made, but his opening HA lead crashed his partner's K (giving an opportunity for +1), and it was clear to them that the contract was always there on a better line, so he may have been feeling a bit more cautious on this next hand. Just speculation on my part, and obviously not a factor in a judgment ruling on this hand, but nevertheless what can happen in real life.

[blackshoe]

That one pair, who may or may not be peers of the pair in question for this ruling, chose to pass in a situation where there are considerations which we will not apply here, does not make pass a logical alternative.

[PeterAlan]

That one pair, who may or may not be peers of the pair in question for this ruling, chose to pass in a situation where there are considerations which we will not apply here, does not make pass a logical alternative.

Bit snappy, blackshoe. The substance of my post was (a) that in my view Pass is an LA, and (b) this was bid at at least one other table after an identical sequence with identical methods. If I then tried to leaven the post with an anecdote to go with it, I'm certainly regretting that now.

 

Since I don't know the identity of the pair in question, I can't say whether or not you would regard our opponents as their peers, but they were at least (a) playing in the same event and (b) playing the same methods, which seems like a reasonable start to be going on with - certainly no evidence to the contrary. At least I was actually there, so have probably a better idea than you of the nature of the field. Oh, and by the way the contract was exactly 3NT by S at 21 out of 47 tables which suggests that, whatever methods they're playing, plenty of N/Ss thought it wasn't worth going further.

 

Will that do?

[blackshoe]

Snappy? I don't think so.

 

It seems to me the anecdote was in support of your conclusion that pass is an LA. That's fine, but the circumstances in the anecdote are different to what happened at the table in question, so in my view it isn't relevant.

 

I don't know any of the people involved, so I don't know who does or does not fit the "peers" category. I said so. wtp? No, I wasn't there. Should I just defer to you, then, and assume that you must be right because you were?

 

I try to judge cases on the evidence presented. Others make assumptions, and judge the case on their assumptions. Either way, new evidence often comes to light. In such case, my judgement on the case may certainly change. You present, in effect, the state of the traveller. New evidence to me, and evidence of a kind I was taught not to rely on in making this kind of ruling. So again, if 21 of 47 tables played in 3NT, I say "so what"? I don't see it changing my view.

 

All I'm trying to do is respond to what's posted in the thread. Take offense if you must, but I assure you none was intended.

[gnasher]

You present, in effect, the state of the traveller. New evidence to me, and evidence of a kind I was taught not to rely on in making this kind of ruling.

 

I agree that directors shouldn't rely on the evidence of other results, but they shouldn't reject it out of hand either. If you knew that most of the field was playing the same methods, the traveller would be very informative. That's probably not true of this particular sequence in this particular event, but in some English fields it would be.