lamford Posted October 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 As a Monday morning quarterback it seems possible that hearts are wide open (hasn't opener's 2N promised a balanced hand? without identifying holding heart control?) so eleven tricks may well be an embarrassing limit. And that just might suggest that it was 'contra-indicated' for responder to use KC.I don't buy that. If West did not have a heart control, why was he thinking about bidding RKCB himself? East concluded that West must have a heart control, but partly or mainly, it matters not, from the UI that West did not bid 4D immediately, as West would have done if he wanted to hear a heart cue. And 2NT was not necessarily balanced, but it was GF, but limited by West's failure to open a strong club. And there are two auctions that could be less successful after 4D: 4S-Pass and 5D-Pass. In addition, I think a PP should be awarded to East for the 4NT bid, as suggested by someone on Bridgewinners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shyams Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 The official write-up in the Daily Bulletin will reveal all. Oh wait! I'm wrong to expect miracles. The official write-up is nothing but a "cover your ***" document -- it stops just short of accusing England of bullying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 The Bulletin write-up is here.. It is a shame that it doesn't give more details about the inferences available to the players from the auction. It seems incredible that a director at this level did not follow the "correct procedure". If the director had a "severe cold", why couldn't the ruling have been handled by another director? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 I think you are missing the point. I now know that they play it as forcing, as described by Dburn, and West would not have bid a NF 2NT on the hand he had. In addition, the hand was described as g13+, FG to David. But it did not show extra values, just denying a bare minimum opener. Ok I understand your point now, sorry. But 13+ with a 6-card suit _is_ extra values. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Ok I understand your point now, sorry. But 13+ with a 6-card suit _is_ extra values.Yes, as David said, it showed a non-minimum - most hands between a NF 2S rebid and an initial strong club. Maybe something like AKJxxx Jx Ax JTx ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 The Bulletin write-up is here.. It is a shame that it doesn't give more details about the inferences available to the players from the auction. It seems incredible that a director at this level did not follow the "correct procedure". If the director had a "severe cold", why couldn't the ruling have been handled by another director?That bulletin appears to have been withdrawn. Curiouser and Curiouser ... It has been reinstated with the correction to the auction which was originally given to some players, and maybe even the later players, as beginning with a strong club! Even then, the TD reports: "Most of the consulted players would have continued to slam". It appears that only four players were consulted, one of whose names the director did not know! (although obviously still of world-class level, just someone who hides his light under a bushel). The expression "most" therefore presumably meant that three of them continued to slam, or the TD would have used "half" or "all", if the number had been different. If that is the case, then there is an LA to 4NT, which presumably would be either 4S or 5D. It is not clear that the later players were given the correct auction, or the correct inferences from the auction, in particularly that 2S would have been non-forcing, and therefore 2NT showed any hand between a NF 2S and a strong club, balanced or otherwise. If the TD had done her job in the first instance, and she should have reported back to the players long before the end of the stanza, then there would have been no need for the review to take place so late at night. In addition, this looks like a routine PP for 4NT even if you don't adjust the score (flagrant use of UI), and that PP would have put England through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 If the TD had done her job in the first instance, and she should have reported back to the players long before the end of the stanza, then there would have been no need for the review to take place so late at night. In addition, this looks like a routine PP for 4NT even if you don't adjust the score (flagrant use of UI), and that PP would have put England through.Generally, I try to put "what effect will this ruling have on the final standings?" questions in a box, tape it securely shut, and stick it in a back corner of the closet. Other than that, I agree with the above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 That bulletin appears to have been withdrawn. Curiouser and Curiouser ... It has been reinstated with the correction to the auction which was originally given to some players, and maybe even the later players, as beginning with a strong club! Does this pair play strong ♣, not Polish ♣ then? The bulletin I read 24 hours ago showed an opening bid of 1♣. At the time I assumed this was just a typo as it looks like a 1♠ opener it most systems, and a 2♦ response to 1♣ would surely have been game forcing. My assumption was correct: there is a correction in Bulletin 14: "In the printed version of the Friday Daily Bulletin, there were two significant errors. On page 4 in the report on the review from the Poland-England Bermuda Bowl match, West’s opening bid in the diagram should have been 1♠.........."(The second correction was regarding a score in the Transnationals) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted October 9, 2015 Report Share Posted October 9, 2015 Their CC confirms that they play Polish club http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/2015-Chennai/OpenTeams/Poland/gawrys-klukowski.pdf So the maximum for a 1♠ opener is somewhat stronger than in most strong club systems. 1♠ is up to 17HCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 Their CC confirms that they play Polish club http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/2015-Chennai/OpenTeams/Poland/gawrys-klukowski.pdf So the maximum for a 1♠ opener is somewhat stronger than in most strong club systems. 1♠ is up to 17HCP.Yes, 1S is shown as 12-17, although I think that many Polish club players open 1C with 17. The main difference from most top Polish players is that 1M-2m-2M is NF, which even caused some to change their mind about the ruling on bridge winners. "It is na lttle bit hard to believe that Gawrys could be that old-fashioned". Therefore 2NT would be from any hand too good for 2S, and could include 6 spades and 4 clubs, because 3C would be 5-5. Axxxxx Jxx xx AK was found by Michael Clark on bridgewinners as a 2NT rebid by Klukowski in another match, and most would rebid 2S here. I thought Eric Rodwell's summary on bridgewinners pretty much said it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.