St Louis Appeal No 2

[PhilKing]

When a player passes what any reasonable player would consider a forcing bid (if the auction were natural), he is not carefully avoiding anything except a worse disaster he knows is coming because of the UI.

 

Remember the auction has gone 1D-2D-2S (the uncontested version seen by responder with only AI). What player above beginner passes that? What beginner only bids 3D with every quack a working card? Having already denied 4 spades, I vote for 3S.

 

Anyone for 4♦?

[aguahombre]

Anyone for 4♦?

Good choice, actually. But with allegedly 9 tricks is the 4-3 spade fit, possibly ten if pard is 4-6 in the pointed suits, I want to explore for magic.

 

However, that puts you in the adjustment and PP for passing group.

[blackshoe]

When a player passes what any reasonable player would consider a forcing bid (if the auction were natural), he is not carefully avoiding anything except a worse disaster he knows is coming because of the UI.

 

Remember the auction has gone 1D-2D-2S (the uncontested version seen by responder with only AI). What player above beginner passes that? What beginner only bids 3D with every quack a working card? Having already denied 4 spades, I vote for 3S.

I guess I spend too much time amongst beginners, because I apparently see a lot more "unreasonable" players than you do.

[gnasher]

Good choice, actually. But with allegedly 9 tricks is the 4-3 spade fit, possibly ten if pard is 4-6 in the pointed suits, I want to explore for magic.

 

However, that puts you in the adjustment and PP for passing group.

It's possible to believe that 2[PS] was illegal and merits an adjusted score, without believing that a procedural penalty is appropriate.

 

Law 16 requires players to think clearly and use their judgement. Some people are better at that than others. It would be quite wrong to issue a procedural penalty for muddled thinking or for an innocent misjudgement.

[lamford]

It's possible to believe that 2[PS] was illegal

Indeed it might be a breach of Law 1. Whether pears or plums. Assuming you mean 2♠, that is not the bid being questioned. It is the pass in response which is.

[lamford]

When a player passes what any reasonable player would consider a forcing bid (if the auction were natural), he is not carefully avoiding anything except a worse disaster he knows is coming because of the UI.

I do not see how he could tell that bidding 3D would lead to a worse result than passing. And for Pass not to be allowed, it would have to be demonstrably suggested over other bids.

[Vampyr]

I guess I spend too much time amongst beginners, because I apparently see a lot more "unreasonable" players than you do.

 

I think that if the player in the OP were a beginner, we would have been told. Given that he bothered to travel to St. Louis to play in the Nationals, chances are he is not.

[GreenMan]

I think that if the player in the OP were a beginner, we would have been told. Given that he bothered to travel to St. Louis to play in the Nationals, chances are he is not.

 

Especially considering the event was the Platinum Pairs.

[PhilKing]

Especially considering the event was the Platinum Pairs.

 

I'm leaning towards a PPPP - Platinum-Plated Procedural Penalty.

[aguahombre]

I do not see how he could tell that bidding 3D would lead to a worse result than passing. And for Pass not to be allowed, it would have to be demonstrably suggested over other bids.

You are ignoring the implications of the convention North believes South was using. 3D would not be passed unless North fielded the 2D misbid. North should expect some excellent hand with the majors and a diamond fragment unless HE fields.

 

Pass is demonstrably suggested to not send this auction to the moon.

[ArtK78]

You are ignoring the implications of the convention North believes South was using. 3D would not be passed unless North fielded the 2D misbid. North should expect some excellent hand with the majors and a diamond fragment unless HE fields.

 

Pass is demonstrably suggested to not send this auction to the moon.

Why would he be expecting some excellent hand with the majors? His RHO overcalled a strong 1NT. I would think that North would expect South to have a fairly weak hand with the majors.

[Trinidad]

Why would he be expecting some excellent hand with the majors? His RHO overcalled a strong 1NT. I would think that North would expect South to have a fairly weak hand with the majors.

Whatever his RHO did doesn't mean much to me. Opponents are opponents. I will trust my partner.

 

This partner, though, has passed orginally. I don't think that is consistent with an "excellent hand with the majors".

 

Rik

[gnasher]

For ...-2♦(majors);2♠-3♦, I'd expect something like a 4441 or 4540 9-count. Or, depending on who my partner was, I might expect a hand that had misbid with 2♦.

[aguahombre]

For ...-2♦(majors);2♠-3♦, I'd expect something like a 4441 or 4540 9-count. Or, depending on who my partner was, I might expect a hand that had misbid with 2♦.

Yes, exactly the hedge I was talking about, and bidding 3D instead of 3S or 4D with the OP hand is certainly suggested by the UI.

 

AKXX

XX

AKXXX

XX (a minimum for North's AI bidding)

 

QXXX

AXXXX

QXXX

-- (typical for 2D then 3D using the convention)

 

North would be launching over 3D, unless he fields the misbid. So, South knows 3D will not end the auction when partner doesn't pick up on his tells; and the result will likely be worse than the illegal pass of 2S.

[barmar]

I think that if the player in the OP were a beginner, we would have been told. Given that he bothered to travel to St. Louis to play in the Nationals, chances are he is not.

Pretty much all appeals that are reported in the daily bulletins at nationals involve expert players in national events. 90% of the time there's at least one well known player in each appeal, and often several.

[lamford]

You are ignoring the implications of the convention North believes South was using.

Intentionally. LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership. Not the methods North believes they were. Nor the methods North believes South thinks they are.

[Vampyr]

Intentionally. LAs are decided using the methods of the partnership. Not the methods North believes they were. Nor the methods North believes South thinks they are.

 

This is an example of a law that does not say what it means. A person who has got the methods wrong must continue to get the methods wrong, and his LAs must be based on what he thought the auction, to date, meant.

[aguahombre]

Sorry, Vamp. The site won't let me double plus.

[lamford]

This is an example of a law that does not say what it means. A person who has got the methods wrong must continue to get the methods wrong, and his LAs must be based on what he thought the auction, to date, meant.

The Law seems unambiguous to me. I agree that it is wrong, but unless the WBFLC sees fit to change it, we should follow it as it clearly states. To give an analogy, I think the practice of taking the ball to the corner flag in football and standing on it is timewasting, and should result in a yellow card. However, the laws of football only provide for timewasting when the ball is not in play, and the referees correctly apply the Law and allow the practice. All directors should do the same with the lamentable 16B.

[RMB1]

The empty vessel makes the loudest sound - William Shakespeare

If this works I posted this before the message I reply to.

 

Lamford's computer time is wrong (or whatever server is responsible for timestamping his posts)

which has the effect that for three minutes or so the posts appear to be in the future and software continues to mark them unread, even when read.

[lamford]

Sorry, Vamp. The site won't let me double plus.

The empty vessel makes the loudest sound - William Shakespeare

[lamford]

If this works I posted this before the message I reply to.

 

Lamford's computer time is wrong (or whatever server is responsible for timestamping his posts)

which has the effect that for three minutes or so the posts appear to be in the future and software continues to mark them unread, even when read.

OK, my watch and computer both make it 16.51.45 as I type this. Let us see. Looking at the time stamp here it seems 6 minutes out. I shall try at home later and see if it makes a difference. Interesting! http://time.is/ confirmed my time (within 4 seconds).

 

On reflection, it is obvious that the fault is with BBO, as the true time was indeed 16.51.45, but 11.58 was displayed (presumably Eastern Time).

 

While on this subject, someone in a state with an Eastern coastline in the US was on the phone to a friend in a state with a Western coastline of the US. He asked his friend the time and was surprised to find it was exactly the same as his. How so?

[lamford]

duplicate sorry

[Vampyr]

Lamford's computer time is wrong (or whatever server is responsible for timestamping his posts)

which has the effect that for three minutes or so the posts appear to be in the future and software continues to mark them unread, even when read.

 

Lamford is clearly ahead of his time.

[Vampyr]

The Law seems unambiguous to me. I agree that it is wrong, but unless the WBFLC sees fit to change it, we should follow it as it clearly states. To give an analogy, I think the practice of taking the ball to the corner flag in football and standing on it is timewasting, and should result in a yellow card. However, the laws of football only provide for timewasting when the ball is not in play, and the referees correctly apply the Law and allow the practice. All directors should do the same with the lamentable 16B.

 

I am sure you like the quote dburn uses as his signature:

 

When Senators have had their sport

And sealed the Law by vote,

It little matters what they thought -

We hang for what they wrote.

 

However, the more important consideration is that we have, by ignoring this Law, played a sensible game of bridge these past six years (at least when insufficient bids are not involved!)