Judgement check

[whereagles]

Pardon my audacity in having the gall to post in this high church.

 

Thou shalt refer to thy house properly: High Church

 

 

 

[aguahombre]

I'm going to pass - we showed lots of encouragement already, confirmed controls in all suits, and yet partner still signed off. So perhaps he's looking for general values rather than anything in particular - and we have a flat shape, only three diamonds, no trick source.

 

This is a really good problem though - the forum seems almost split down the middle.

 

ahydra

It is a good problem. Even us strong NT'rs can simply visualize an auction which started:

 

1C-2D (ala Mike Lawrence)

2N-3D...etc.

 

We can still hate the agreement that 3S might have been based on QJXX and thus we had to bid the suit twice to show one control. But, tell me how we have already "confirmed controls in all suits?" Who showed a club control and when?

[jddons]

He already knows we don't have values in hearts: our 3♠ call showed values there, and by bypassing hearts (I assume) denied values in that suit. I assume that with majors and diamond interest, we would bid hearts first.

 

If I am correct in that inference, then the one thing he doesn't have is a heart void.

 

As for your example hand, why wouldn't he look for slam with Kxx void AKJxxxx Kxx opposite a 12-14 hand that showed relative weakness in hearts and some interest in diamonds? AQxx xxx xxxx Ax makes grand laydown and that is only 10 hcp. AQxx Qxxx xxx Ax is still only 12 hcp and bad diamonds and yet grand is extremely good. And so on. Anyone who fears that 5♦ may be too high is spending way too much time as a pessimist.

 

I started the hand as a pessimist and became optimistic whereas I imagine you did the reverse. I agree with your inference but not the interpretation. Surely the fact we have bypassed 3H has encouraged partner with his H void? - My question is why has partner cued in H and then over 4S has backed off with 5D. He knows we have values in S so a cue there can not be a disappointment to him otherwise he would have signed off earlier. My take on this is that the sequence is intended to draw our attention to the critical importance of our club holding. Is ATx good enough? surely partner can't be worse than xx - AKxxxxx KJxx? Incidentally, a very sound player from Yorkshire, Alan Martindale, had a favourite saying - "I've never won a match by bidding a slam, but I've lost plenty." Wonder where this one figured in the final analysis?

[helene_t]

Maybe partner couldn't keycard because he was afraid of two without the queen. If he needed three kcs he might not have tried for slam at all.

[The_Badger]

Pass! You have misled partner not once, but twice. I can understand the 3♠ bid but technically it is "on the edge", even incorrect: you are not maximum, you do not have 4 trumps or 3 trumps with 2 honours, and you are completely balanced. As for the 4♠ bid: that is just an error. 1NT as an opening bid is one of the most definitive bids in bridge. It shows a specific point count and shape. It partner wanted a slam, why did he bid 5♦?

[gnasher]

Who showed a club control and when?

Partner did, when he bid 4♣.

[lamford]

I'd be much more confident in this analysis if he could have bid 4♥ as key-card over 3♠. And although I think it's clear, it would take me some time to do it at the table.

If I were playing kickback, it would take me no time at all to bid it, but I would not do it with a void. Could partner have bid exclusion with a void? I think 5C instead of 5D from partner would be last train, so I would pass now. If 5C from partner would have been reverse last train, then I would bid slam now.

[whereagles]

"I've never won a match by bidding a slam, but I've lost plenty."

 

A few years ago Zia's team was playing a semifinal of a major championship and they were trailing for like 20 imps.

 

In 12 boards they bid 5 slams, of which 4 went down, and missed another cold one. They ended up losing the match by 40 imps or so, whereas they'd have won it by 10 had they bid no slam at all.

 

 

Zia later confessed that was food for thought.

[WesleyC]

I don't really understand whats going on in your auction, but I would already have bid slam over 4H.

[jallerton]

Thanks for the replies. The passers form the majority.

 

I'd be surprised if partner had a void anywhere. She could have started with 2NT transfer to diamonds, and presumably using that followed by a jump would be an autosplinter. This route is not so attractive with a club void, but if she chose to start with 3♦ holding a club void, wouldn't she have bid 5♣, either over 4♠ or directly over 3♠?

 

Partner's actual hand was Q10x AJx AKJ10xx x. Opposite this, 6♦ is a good contract, essentially requiring one of two finesses. However, if you change partner's ♠10 to a small one then now slam is some way below 50%.

 

This suggests to me that the decision is quite close, but make the spades more chunky: AJ108 (or AQJx without ♥Q) for example and now raising to slam looks a lot more tempting.

 

As Opener, I would have passed 5♦ at the table, not least because partner's 5♦ bid was made after an agreed break-in-tempo. I was surprised when my expert opponent who held the hand bid 6♦ holding AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x. I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

[rhm]

I think it's automatic to pass. I have only three diamonds, I don't have a doubleton, I have five points in queens and jacks, I have poor spots in my four-card suit, and partner didn't bid Keycard.

Interesting how one can see the same hand in different light.

Responder has bypassed 3NT, so should have a strong slam try.

For a weak notrump I have 2 aces and the queen of trumps. 4 controls for a weak notrump is certainly above average.

The only dubious value I got is the queen of hearts and it might be working too.

If this is not sufficient what business did responder have to bypass 3NT?

And if responders hand was unsuitable for 3NT responder could have shown a poor slam try by bidding 5♦ directly over 3♠.

What else do you want for slam?

 

Why didn't partner use blackwood? is it because he is down opposite a 5♥ response?

 

No, it is not, because we have promised some diamond support, so at worst we will be on a 2-2 break.

This logic looks flawed to me.

Just because a slam is not completely hopeless is not a good justification to bid it.

Without the queen we have more than a 50% chance to lose one trick in the trump suit.

This alone must have a big impact whether we should be in slam or not.

 

Responder did not keycard because 2 aces without the queen would not have been sufficient.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Thanks for the replies. The passers form the majority.

 

I'd be surprised if partner had a void anywhere. She could have started with 2NT transfer to diamonds, and presumably using that followed by a jump would be an autosplinter. This route is not so attractive with a club void, but if she chose to start with 3♦ holding a club void, wouldn't she have bid 5♣, either over 4♠ or directly over 3♠?

 

Partner's actual hand was Q10x AJx AKJ10xx x. Opposite this, 6♦ is a good contract, essentially requiring one of two finesses. However, if you change partner's ♠10 to a small one then now slam is some way below 50%.

 

This suggests to me that the decision is quite close, but make the spades more chunky: AJ108 (or AQJx without ♥Q) for example and now raising to slam looks a lot more tempting.

 

As Opener, I would have passed 5♦ at the table, not least because partner's 5♦ bid was made after an agreed break-in-tempo. I was surprised when my expert opponent who held the hand bid 6♦ holding AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x. I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

It is always hard to say what to do over a break in tempo. The reaction here clearly demonstrates that 6♦ is not obvious.

But without that I do not share your analysis, mainly because responder overbid already in my opinion.

Responder needs an ideal hand for slam to be good and apparently had no way of showing his club shortage, which is key to the good slam.

What responder thought about before bidding 5♦ escapes me completely.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

 

It sounds like the TD recognized that pass was a logical alternative, but after asking players (of the appropriate skill level) found that an insignificant number of them would actually choose to pass. The laws state that in this case the 6D bid is allowed. What else can the director possibly do?

[Fluffy]

As Opener, I would have passed 5♦ at the table, not least because partner's 5♦ bid was made after an agreed break-in-tempo. I was surprised when my expert opponent who held the hand bid 6♦ holding AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x. I was even more surprised when the TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 6♦! The TD reported that he had consulted with a number of players: they all chose 6♦, and although some of them told the TD they thought pass was a logical alternative, the TD concluded that nobody actually would pass in practice.

 

Consulted players knew the full hand, right? this is so typical and I don't understand why rules do not address this common issue, human beigns are unable to draw logic conclusions ignoring data that they do know.

[Fluffy]

Why didn't partner use blackwood? is it because he is down opposite a 5♥ response?

 

No, it is not, because we have promised some diamond support, so at worst we will be on a 2-2 break.

This logic looks flawed to me.

Just because a slam is not completely hopeless is not a good justification to bid it.

Without the queen we have more than a 50% chance to lose one trick in the trump suit.

This alone must have a big impact whether we should be in slam or not.

 

Responder did not keycard because 2 aces without the queen would not have been sufficient.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Let me explain this, partner is not scared of the 5♥ response because for the 5♥ response to be bad this things have to apply:

 

We colaboraed with slam try with 3 small diamonds (can't calculate, but around 20-30%)

We have a diamond loser (depending on the presence fo the Jack, but around 50% overall)

We have exactly 2 keycards (60-80% or so)

 

Combine all of them and you have 6-12% I think. So partner is not going to give up blackwood and lose the meaning of the 5 level bids because of an event that happens only 6-12% of the time.

[Phil]

Partner's 5♣ would have been last train?

 

This one's just too close and I wouldn't blame anyone for missing slam or getting to slam off the ♠T which is a big card. It also seems random to discover that our ♣A is facing a singleton.

 

I can't say I'm fond of the methods. It seems important for responder to be able to show shortness at a lower level, or (gasp) ask for key cards sooner.

[Fluffy]

Partner's 5♣ would have been last train?

 

This one's just too close and I wouldn't blame anyone for missing slam or getting to slam off the ♠T which is a big card. It also seems random to discover that our ♣A is facing a singleton.

 

I can't say I'm fond of the methods. It seems important for responder to be able to show shortness at a lower level, or (gasp) ask for key cards sooner.

 

I agree, I would start 1NT-3♣-3♦-3NT showing club short not forcing with diamonds, I am a bit heavy, but partner obviously will like it very much and slam will be reached. What do people use minor transfer + 3NT for these days?

[jallerton]

It sounds like the TD recognized that pass was a logical alternative, but after asking players (of the appropriate skill level) found that an insignificant number of them would actually choose to pass. The laws state that in this case the 6D bid is allowed. What else can the director possibly do?

 

No. If the TD (who has a very good understanding of the Laws) recognised that pass was a logical alternative, he would have adjusted the score!

 

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

I think the TD was saying to me that although pass might have been seriously considered by a significant proportion, nobody would actually pass, in his opinion. If Opener had been dealt a complete maximum, covering all bases, hand such as AKJx xx Qxx A10xx then I would have agreed with him. But in the context of a hand which has already co-operated, AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x is a considerably worse hand than that, in my view.

[WesleyC]

I think the TD was saying to me that although pass might have been seriously considered by a significant proportion, nobody would actually pass, in his opinion. If Opener had been dealt a complete maximum, covering all bases, hand such as AKJx xx Qxx A10xx then I would have agreed with him. But in the context of a hand which has already co-operated, AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x is a considerably worse hand than that, in my view.

 

I've think I've got my language mixed up. The point I was trying to make is exactly what you've typed in the first line here. Except that you've added 'in his opinion'. If the TD actually asked several peers what action they would take and none of them passed, surely it stops being just his opinion? However Fluffy's point is valid: consulting players who already know the full hand will bias the results.

 

Because slam bidding style and methods vary so much, there aren't many situations where you will get unanimous support for one action. If you wanted to exploit this, you could call the director on every hesitation (or fast signoff) and force the opponents to make the opposite choice. However I honestly believe that most players make a conscious effort to avoid cheating in situations like this, so I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[PhilKing]

However Fluffy's point is valid: consulting players who already know the full hand will bias the results.

 

 

FWIW I think on this occasion players who did not know the hand were consulted. There were plenty of apparently suitable people playing in the second division on this occasion. Unfortunately they all chose this moment for some rampant overbidding.

[WesleyC]

FWIW I think on this occasion players who did not know the hand were consulted. There were plenty of apparently suitable people playing in the second division on this occasion. Unfortunately they all chose this moment for some rampant overbidding.

 

Given the system limitations, I'm fine with every bid in their auction even 6D. See you in second division? :(

[jallerton]

I've think I've got my language mixed up. The point I was trying to make is exactly what you've typed in the first line here. Except that you've added 'in his opinion'. If the TD actually asked several peers what action they would take and none of them passed, surely it stops being just his opinion?

 

I wrote "in his opinion" because that is what the Law I quoted above says: "of whom it is judged some might select it".

 

Suppose the TD has the luxury of polling 100 people, 40 of the 100 seriously consider action A, but none of the 40 would actually choose action A. A slightly unlikely scenario, I admit, but if it were to occur, the the TD would presumably judge that not even "some" would select action A so it is not a logical alternative.

 

Now take the more common scenario whereby the TD polls (say) 5 people, 2 (so still 40% of the sample) seriously consider action A, but neither of these two people would select action A. Now, in my opinion, the sample size of 2 is nowhere near big enough for the TD to determine whether "some" of the population of serious considerers would choose action A or not. So the TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not action A might be found in practice by "some".

[PhilKing]

Given the system limitations, I'm fine with every bid in their auction even 6D. See you in second division? :(

 

Well, there is no third division yet, I suppose.

[lamford]

I wrote "in his opinion" because that is what the Law I quoted above says: "of whom it is judged some might select it".

 

Suppose the TD has the luxury of polling 100 people, 40 of the 100 seriously consider action A, but none of the 40 would actually choose action A. A slightly unlikely scenario, I admit, but if it were to occur, the the TD would presumably judge that not even "some" would select action A so it is not a logical alternative.

 

Now take the more common scenario whereby the TD polls (say) 5 people, 2 (so still 40% of the sample) seriously consider action A, but neither of these two people would select action A. Now, in my opinion, the sample size of 2 is nowhere near big enough for the TD to determine whether "some" of the population of serious considerers would choose action A or not. So the TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not action A might be found in practice by "some".

I think the benchmarks for an LA (maybe in the WB) are 20% seriously considering it, and 10% of them selecting it. In practice the sample size is often single figures and, in my experience, ACs are only told how many players actually select it. If one of out five selects it that gets classed as an LA, if none out of five does it is not. If the TD polls more than five he is being unusually diligent.

 

Did your side appeal the decision?

[jdeegan]

I dunno Beavis? Why did I bid 4♠? How can anyone make sense of a nonsense auction? Now, if I had somehow managed to bid 5♣ over 4♥, then 5♦ would have been a signoff.

 

Partner knows your hand - knows its shape and its high cards within a queen. He/she is in control. Tell your story properly and leave the decisions where they belong.