you;re one of the best players in the world

[wank]

a member of one the top 5 pairs in the world had this hand against me. any comments on his 3♦ call? i tried calling the director and appealing, but it was like talking to a brick wall. fwiw he was playing with a punter.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s652ht43dakqt3c72&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1n2hp(slow%20pass)p3d]133|200|[/hv]

[gwnn]

Was 1NT intending to "right-side" the contract or systemic (the only bid for minimum* hands without a major and a club fit)? In the latter case maybe letting CHO let through another partscore was not a LA for this South.

 

*I know this is not a minimum but it is also not clearly an invite

[wank]

Was 1NT intending to "right-side" the contract or systemic (the only bid for minimum* hands without a major and a club fit)? In the latter case maybe letting CHO let through another partscore was not a LA for this South.

 

*I know this is not a minimum but it is also not clearly an invite

 

1nt wasn't systemic, just a hand-hogging attempt.

[gnasher]

Did the director and appeals committee say that there was no logical alternative to 3♦, or that the slow pass didn't suggest 3♦ over other actions?

[wank]

Did the director and appeals committee say that there was no logical alternative to 3♦, or that the slow pass didn't suggest 3♦ over other actions?

 

well, they said that 3d 'was normal'. the only person who ever used the phrase 'logical alternative' was me. but yes de facto their argument/conclusion was there wasn't an LA to 3d.

[aguahombre]

Sounds like they were more concerned with kissing butt than considering the case. When he respond 1NT to 1C showing some semblance of a balanced hand within a certain strength, passing later after Opener hasn't done anything is always a L.A. Doing something else could have been suggested by the break in tempo.

[Fluffy]

Thanks for the compliment on the title.

off topic, but what is a punter?

 

LA's to 3♦ would be double, 2NT, but I am not sure pass is one at MPs, I know I would never pass with a hand similar to that one without the hesitation, doesn't that mean that pass is not a LA for me?

[wank]

Thanks for the compliment on the title.

off topic, but what is a punter?

 

LA's to 3♦ would be double, 2NT, but I am not sure pass is one at MPs, I know I would never pass with a hand similar to that one without the hesitation, doesn't that mean that pass is not a LA for me?

 

punter = sponsor in this context. in a more general sense it means customer. street hookers in england normally call their clients punters.

 

LAs are determined based on what your peers would do. Ideally all your peers would be clones of yourself, but obviously that's not possible, so in reality a logical alternative for you is a bid that about 10%+ of similar players to you would make.

[gnasher]

LA's to 3♦ would be double, 2NT, but I am not sure pass is one at MPs, I know I would never pass with a hand similar to that one without the hesitation, doesn't that mean that pass is not a LA for me?

Is that 2NT natural, or showing the minors? I'm not sure that we have either.

[gnasher]

Do we know what a double would have meant by either hand?

[wank]

Do we know what a double would have meant by either hand?

 

any doubling would be t/o

[gnasher]

For his pause, partner may have been considering double, 2♠, 2NT (minors), or 3♣. Or he might have a penalty double and the pause was whilst he worked out that he wasn't allowed to make one.

 

If the LAs are double and 3♦ (but not pass), then double is suggested over 3♦, because double caters for the penalty double and the black-suit bids, whereas 3♦ doesn't. Hence 3♦ is legal.

 

If pass is an LA too, I think 3♦ and double are both suggested over pass, so pass is the only legal action.

 

Is pass an LA? Probably, but we should poll South's peers to find out. I assume that the director didn't do that?

Edited September 6, 2013 by gnasher

[sfi]

It can't really be argued that the hesitation suggests 3D specifically, but it pretty clearly shows some interest in further action in general. So I would be inclined to rule against a double by South since it caters to most reasons to hesitate.

 

Here South has taken the least flexible option available. It seems like pass would have to be a logical alternative before adjusting, and that's what I would be looking for from a poll. My first inclination is that passing is a poor option (hence no adjustment), but a poll of experts may suggest otherwise.

[gnasher]

It's not relevant to the ruling, but personally I can't see why anyone would bid 3♦ instead of double. If partner leaves it in you're delighted, and if he takes it out to a black suit you can convert to 3♦ if you want to.

 

I say it's not relevant because the fact that South chose 3[di[ makes it a logical alternative for the purpose of the ruling.

[gwnn]

It's not relevant to the ruling, but personally I can't see why anyone would bid 3♦ instead of double. If partner leaves it in you're delighted, and if he takes it out to a black suit you can convert to 3♦ if you want to.

Because partner sucks at defence and declarer play alike (let alone gauging pass vs pull!), in case he was going to pass or bid 3D over x. We want to declare something and certainly 3♦ seems to be the best contract to declare at this point. This is just a hypothesis, based partly on the 1st round 1NT.

[sfi]

It's not relevant to the ruling, but personally I can't see why anyone would bid 3♦ instead of double.

 

Because it reduces the decisions partner gets to make. Depending on who partner is that may be the most important factor.

[wank]

ignore this post. i reexamined the results sheet and found more good players than i thought.

[wank]

 

 

Is pass an LA? Probably, but we should poll South's peers to find out. I assume that the director didn't do that?

 

no. and there were probably 4 people in the room who've played bermuda bowl (and 1 venice cup winner) so they should have been able to find a few not-too-absurd-to-poll in peer terms.

[Fluffy]

lol, your multipersonality is amazing me, you answer your own questions and now this. Have you visited a doctor?

[aguahombre]

I don't find Wank to have answered his own questions; just ours.

 

The "no"'s referred to whether the TD did a poll, not whether pass was a LA.

[ggwhiz]

I don't think pass is a logical alternative at mp's unless you ALWAYS look both ways before you cross the street.

 

3♦ is the least flexible option and may not work but double allowing partner to express exactly what their hesitation was about would be terrible. Sure it took the plodder out of the action but it's the kind of all eggs in one basket bid that is called for IF you agree that pass is not a LA for a player of this caliber at mp's.

 

Bidding 1nt instead of 1♦ is irrelevant and a reasonable tactic to shut out a major suit overcall or TO double anyway.

[Fluffy]

I don't find Wank to have answered his own questions; just ours.

 

The "no"'s referred to whether the TD did a poll, not whether pass was a LA.

 

It was wanoff on the other thread.

[gszes]

While i am not overly happy with the "1N" bid--once I survive

that bid a 3d rebid over lho 2h is clearly indicated. The TD

did well not "penalizing" a clearly normal action. The funny part

about this to me is that if for some reason a pass (ick) instead

of a 3d call were made no TD is called and we never see this

hand. May the best lawyer win:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s652ht43dakqt3c72&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp1n2hp(slow%20pass)p3d]133|200| a member of one the top 5 pairs in the world had this hand against me. any comments on his 3♦ call? i tried calling the director and appealing, but it was like talking to a brick wall. fwiw he was playing with a punter. [/hv]

Perhaps Wank should post this to a law-forum. Logical alternatives probably include Pass, Double and 3♦. I don't like the 3♦ bid because, IMO, a tank by an inexperienced player almost always suggests action. But I'm afraid this is often a minority view in law-discussions.

[dake50]

Because partner sucks at defence and declarer play alike (let alone gauging pass vs pull!), in case he was going to pass or bid 3D over x. We want to declare something and certainly 3♦ seems to be the best contract to declare at this point. This is just a hypothesis, based partly on the 1st round 1NT. __ gwnn

*** I think this nails this case. "With this "punter",

I shall declare any reasonable contract.

I shall leave no chance for partner to misjudge double.

A discerning TD knows this. It is normal *with-a-"punter"* strategy.

No UI used, he was going to bid 3D whatever mannerism he saw as his best chance.