Money Forfeited

[Cyberyeti]

According to GIB, it is one down on most leads.

It's one down double dummy, but heart lead to the A, spade taken with the A, small diamond you might well take the chance that the diamond honours are reversed and play the K which can make if you're right, always down if the A is over the K, but if S has Ax he needs to try this.

[barmar]

According to the actual agreement 3C is good clubs, 2NT is bad clucbs.Yes the 3C bid is alertable in Indian National Championship.

I meant what is their agreement about the 2♠ bid?

[barmar]

Yes, agree it is one down. I foolishly presumed that NS were appealing as 4SX had made. Actually I have changed my view on reading the second point made by kaustabh. 3D, a game try in spades, is clearly an LA for East. Signing off is as well, but that is demonstrably suggested by the UI. I would guess that they will reach 5D now, but I am not sure that either North or South has a double. Some weighting of 5D*-2 and 5D-2 looks sensible, but some polling would be needed.

 

Whether that would be better for NS than the table result, we do not know, as we are not given the table result. I have also changed my mind and think the deposit should definitely have been returned.

We've been told that the table result was down 2, -300. So I don't understand why NS are appealing -- there doesn't seem to be any way they could do better.

[gordontd]

Then you fall into the same category as a bridge friend of ours, otherwise a strong player, who passed an obvious Exclusion Blackwood, "because I don't play Exclusion Blackwood."

You've got it the wrong way round. If my partner had said he didn't play EKCB, I would indeed pass a jump to 5♣, because it obviously would be natural.

 

So too, if my partner said he doesn't play transfer breaks and then made one, I certainly wouldn't assume my partner was doing what he said he doesn't do.

[gordontd]

Lamford's post works for me.

Sounds like it doesn't work for him any more.

[blackshoe]

And FWIW, one never rules because there is "unauthorised panic".

And who, pray tell, said we did?

[barmar]

I think it was just a proactive reminder.

[billw55]

What was the table result?

 

down 2 i.e. +300 for NS

So how are NS claiming to be damaged? What are they trying to get, 3NTx? Is that any better?

 

edit: ah ok, I think I see, NS want to force west to bid 5♣ and get doubled. Seems pretty pushy.

[aguahombre]

Sounds like it doesn't work for him any more.

Well, if he had stopped with post #13....

[lamford]

Sounds like it doesn't work for him any more.

That's right. In another thread where a pair were allowed to bid on to a slam after a slow 3NT, I was not swayed by the weight of argument that the player always had a move. In this one, I am swayed by kaustabh's argument, in particular, that 3D is an LA and that it will then be impossible to stop in 4S. So much so, in fact, that I now think that the failure to adjust and the retention of the deposit were hopeless decisions. I am ashamed to say that I originally concurred with the AC, and the person who upvoted my post should be equally ashamed.

[lamford]

You've got it the wrong way round. If my partner had said he didn't play EKCB, I would indeed pass a jump to 5♣, because it obviously would be natural.

Good for you. You will run out of partners when you bid, uncontested, 1S-2NT(Jacoby)-3S-5C-Pass. If my partner said they didn't play ERKCB, I would attach some other meaning to the bid, a void in clubs, slam try, for example. The person in question, like you, passed the jump to 5C because it was 'obviously' natural. Similarly if it went, uncontested, 1S-2NT(Jacoby)-5C-Pass, I would not expect any partner to think it was natural, showing long clubs and that I had psyched 1S.

[aguahombre]

That's right. In another thread where a pair were allowed to bid on to a slam after a slow 3NT, I was not swayed by the weight of argument that the player always had a move. In this one, I am swayed by kaustabh's argument, in particular, that 3D is an LA and that it will then be impossible to stop in 4S. So much so, in fact, that I now think that the failure to adjust and the retention of the deposit were hopeless decisions. I am ashamed to say that I originally concurred with the AC, and the person who upvoted my post should be equally ashamed.

I definitely regret upvoting your post :rolleyes:

[lamford]

So how are NS claiming to be damaged? What are they trying to get, 3NTx? Is that any better?

 

edit: ah ok, I think I see, NS want to force west to bid 5♣ and get doubled. Seems pretty pushy.

I think East will bid 5D over that. However, that may not end the auction. Say that it goes 1NT - (X) - 2S - (P) - 3C - (P) - 3D, treated by West as a game try with both minors and longer clubs. West jumps to 5C, and East corrects to 5D. Now East is unlimited (North just showed lots of one suit) so this must be a grand-slam try, with something like none x AQxxx QJxxxxx. West will sign off in 6C with the wrong major-suit holdings. I guess West will pass the correction to Six Diamonds, however. 3 off doubled on a heart or ace of spades lead.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps we need a law or regulation that all pairs must have a "meta agreement" about strange bids. For example they can agree "all strange bids are forcing" as many pairs do or they can agree "all strange bids are natural and non-forcing" as recommended by Roy Hughes in his recent book. I suppose there might be more options, but if those are the only two it would at least restrict, if not eliminate, arrguments on IBLF about what a pair might do in situations like this one. B-)

 

More seriously, if this pair had the "natural and non-forcing" meta agreement, a jump to 5♣ in the auctions we're discussing would be passed. I will admit though that in my limited experience "forcing" in more likely, and "no meta-agreement" or more precisely "what the heck is a meta-agreement?" is most likely. :D

[aguahombre]

It's one down double dummy, but heart lead to the A, spade taken with the A, small diamond you might well take the chance that the diamond honours are reversed and play the K which can make if you're right, always down if the A is over the K, but if S has Ax he needs to try this.

South is allowed to pitch his only other diamond on one of partner's two heart tricks and simply trump a diamond for down two? 2H, 1D, trump ace, diamond rough.

[bluejak]

It is important that unauthorised panic is not allowed without penalty. Should there be an adjustment? Well, people have discussed that fairly well. But if you do not adjust then you must penalise East for that 3♠ bid. Let's give him 10% of a top if he is slightly better than novice, 20% if he is experienced but not particularly good, and 50% of a top if he really can play the game.

 

Since no-one seems to have worried too much about this 3♠ bid in the original ruling, the appeal has merit.

[aguahombre]

Since no-one seems to have worried too much about this 3♠ bid in the original ruling, the appeal has merit.

Since the appellants don't seem to have mentioned it either, and since they offered nothing other than "we don't understand" as part of their appeal (as I read the OP), I guess I don't see any relevance of their appeal.

[Vampyr]

Since the appellants don't seem to have mentioned it either, and since they offered nothing other than "we don't understand" as part of their appeal (as I read the OP), I guess I don't see any relevance of their appeal.

 

Well, they felt that they were damaged and weren't really sure how; it is not their job to figure out whether they were; it is the job of the director and the AC. Should non-expert players really be discouraged from appealing when they think they may need protection?

[aguahombre]

Hmm. I want to appeal. And what is the reason? I don't know; just because. O.K., no problem. Here's your money back.

[Trinidad]

Hmm. I want to appeal. And what is the reason? I don't know; just because. O.K., no problem. Here's your money back.

The reason could be: "I wanted an explanation from the TD why he ruled like he did and didn't get one." I think that is wasting the AC's time, but it may be the TD who was responsible for that, not the appealing side.

 

To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says that the TD must explain his decisions so that the players understand why he decided as he did. But if I am on an AC and the players tell me that the TD refused to explain the basis for his ruling, despite the fact that they asked for one in a polite manner, I will rule that the appeal had merit, no matter how obvious it was that the TD's decision was correct.

 

Rik

[lamford]

And FWIW, one never rules because there is "unauthorised panic". We just decide on the LAs, and "impose" the worst one that is demonstrably suggested.

And who, pray tell, said we did?

It is important that unauthorised panic is not allowed without penalty.

[lamford]

But if you do not adjust then you must penalise East for that 3♠ bid.

You would only penalise East for the 3♠ bid if you decided that virtually noone would select it, according to the EBU's own guidelines, which I presume will be similar in other countries. That is clearly not the case here, as signing off is one option when partner shows a spade transfer break with club values. I think making a game try is an LA, but I think bidding 3♠ is way off meriting a PP.

[barmar]

GIB says it's down 3 on a ♥ lead. Anyone see how to get the 6th defensive trick? I thought putting declarer in dummy after ruffing the ♦ would do it, since he would have to shorten his trumps to get back to hand. But since South has also shortened his trumps by ruffing the ♦, he can afford to do that.

[lamford]

GIB says it's down 3 on a ♥ lead. Anyone see how to get the 6th defensive trick? I thought putting declarer in dummy after ruffing the ♦ would do it, since he would have to shorten his trumps to get back to hand. But since South has also shortened his trumps by ruffing the ♦, he can afford to do that.

Yes, just exiting with a club after cashing the heart winners is down 3. As long as you don't let declarer get a diamond trick, you restrict him to four trumps, one heart and two clubs.

[barmar]

How counterintuitive! Letting declarer pitch his ♥ losers actually gains defensive tricks. Once you realize that the goal is to force declarer, it makes sense, but I wouldn't fault anyone below the top echelons for not finding it.