Three Card Raise

[eagles123]

Matchpoints: X is just normal takeout double. unknown husband and wife opps

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s965hajt976d2cj86&w=skq72h43daqt4caq2&n=sj83hk82d876c9743&e=sat4hq5dkj953ckt5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2hdp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

 

I seldom if ever call director but I was tempted here just because of how suspicious I found east's leap to 4S.

 

 

what are opinions on the bid - maybe my radar is just totally off or I'm irritated because we played crap throughout the session and I was stuck in traffic for an age afterwards, but I couldn't believe anyone could bid 4S here directly without some kind of wire!!

 

 

Thanks

 

Eagles

 

ps I might have bid 3N as east but have no problem with 4S as a final contract maybe through 3H 3S 4S, it's just the leap I find hard to believe!!

[StevenG]

I suspect they don't have any methods to cope with the situation. I wouldn't expect weaker pairs to have 3♥ available. So East, with 13 points, has to be in game but has no idea which. He won't bid 3NT without a stop, so 4♠, while a punt, may be the only choice, especially if the double guarantees four or more spades.

[FelicityR]

Moysian (4-3 game fits) are not common, especially bid like this. It sounds like you had one of those evenings that I occasionally have at the club, where the opponents bid strangely, but their strange bids get the best matchpoints :(

 

If the opponents had found a 3-3 or even a 3-2 ♠ fit there would be nothing to report, but they have no way of knowing that your and your partner's ♠s are going to split 3-3 either. Maximum matchpoints to them when everyone else is in 5♦.

 

As my son says (rather too frequently for my liking): S*** H******

[helene_t]

Hanlon's Razor applies.

 

I have probably had the first 100 boards against GIBs where I got a top by making a misclick that worked out miracolously.

[johnu]

If the opponents had found a 3-3 or even a 3-2 ♠ fit there would be nothing to report, but they have no way of knowing that your and your partner's ♠s are going to split 3-3 either. Maximum matchpoints to them when everyone else is in 5♦.

4♠ is so good that you don't need trumps to be 3-3. You can play 3 rounds of trump and then minor suit winners if spades are 4-2.

[pescetom]

what are opinions on the bid - maybe my radar is just totally off or I'm irritated because we played crap throughout the session and I was stuck in traffic for an age afterwards, but I couldn't believe anyone could bid 4S here directly without some kind of wire!!

ps I might have bid 3N as east but have no problem with 4S as a final contract maybe through 3H 3S 4S, it's just the leap I find hard to believe!!

 

Know the feeling of both playing crap (it's difficult for one partner not to drag the other down, if there is any kind of empathy) but in this case maybe North was at fault - his pass suggests he was either elsewhere or suffering from severe cold boots, see my coincidental post about a not too dissimilar situation (although the total tricks aspect is very different).

 

Yes 3♥ might be more eloquent than double, but in either case East should leap in the circumstances: I would risk 5♦ rather than a moysian 4♠, but I doubt you would be happier with that either B-)

[sanst]

Looks like a lucky bid to me. How on earth could E know that the spades would split 3-3 and the diamonds and clubs run? You’re lucky that you didn’t call the TD. You actually would more or less have accused this pair of some form of cheating without any proof. That deserves a serious PP.

We all have these days that everything goes wrong, but don’t let that get on your nerves. This Tuesday my RHO passes with 12HCP and the LHO did the same with 13HCP... She had a king hidden somewhere. Usually this results in a bad result but not now, all EW pairs were down -1 or -2 :angry: :angry: .

[pescetom]

This Tuesday we had a hand which was passed out at two consecutive tables, even though the dealer had 14 hcp including 2 Aces. Both told me "I didn't see a card". Still trying to figure that one out.

[Winstonm]

I think 4S is an inspired and intelligent bid. That it may not occur to me to make that bid is no reason for me to suspect hanky panky.

[wank]

this sort of thing isn't that odd. after 3S x p or 2S x 3S (more the former as you don't have a responsive double available) it can easily be right to bid 4H on 3 with a doubleton spade, planning to take the force in your hand.

[lamford]

this sort of thing isn't that odd. after 3S x p or 2S x 3S (more the former as you don't have a responsive double available) it can easily be right to bid 4H on 3 with a doubleton spade, planning to take the force in your hand.

Indeed, on the combined East-West hands, game in spades is around 80%. Did RR suggest 3NT? He would no doubt find KJT opposite A9xxxx in hearts with them blocked. Of course 5D is the best contract, but that could easily have three top losers.

[barmar]

Know the feeling of both playing crap (it's difficult for one partner not to drag the other down, if there is any kind of empathy) but in this case maybe North was at fault - his pass suggests he was either elsewhere or suffering from severe cold boots

4333 shape is the worst hand to boost the preempt with. 3!H is down 3, not a good sacrifice against their game.

[nige1]

You're lucky that you didn't call the TD. You actually would more or less have accused this pair of some form of cheating without any proof. That deserves a serious PP.

IMO,,,

 

Players should be encouraged to call the director when they suspect an infraction has occurred.

They shouldn't be penalized for so-doing, when mistaken in their surmise

• When the TD asks the reason for the call, they should confine themselves to relating relevant facts, without impugning opponents' ethics, explicitly.
• If the TD asks how they've been damaged, they should ask the TD to decide whether and how they might have been damaged. They should refuse to volunteer speculative slanderous accusations.

In this instance, there appears to be no case to answer. In slightly different circumstances, however, the TD might want to take note of behavior patterns.

 

The simple act of calling the director shouldn't be construed as an accusation of cheating.

.

[pran]

IMO,,,

 

Players should be encouraged to call the director when they suspect an infraction has occurred.

They shouldn't be penalized for so-doing, when mistaken in their surmise

• When the TD asks the reason for the call, they should confine themselves to relating relevant facts, without impugning opponents' ethics, explicitly.
• If the TD asks how they've been damaged, they should ask the TD to decide whether and how they might have been damaged. They should refuse to volunteer speculative slanderous accusations.

In this instance, there appears to be no case to answer. In slightly different circumstances, however, the TD might want to take note of behavior patterns.

 

The simple act of calling the director shouldn't be construed as an accusation of cheating.

.

Very well, but the Director should never be engaged in finding a line of play. His job is to consider possible line(s) of play suggested by the player(s).

If a player cannot indicate how he feels damaged then the Director should rule that there is no damage.

(But there might of course still be some irregularity which needs the Director's attention.)

[nige1]

If a player cannot indicate how he feels damaged then the Director should rule that there is no damage.

I accept that Sven is a legal eagle and many other top directors seem to agree with him but I still find this hard to believe. If this is Bridge law, then it's yet another example of it's craziness.:(

[pran]

I accept that Sven is a legal eagle and many other top directors seem to agree with him but I still find this hard to believe. If this is Bridge law, then it's yet another example of it's craziness.:(

Can you imagine a player requesting the Director to show him how to play his cards in the most favourable way and then claim damage because he did not see that line of play himself?

[blackshoe]

"Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." -- Law 12B1, in part.

 

This determination is up to the director, not the players. I suppose if a director doesn't see how a player may have been damaged, he might ask the player to enlighten him, especially if he knows the player is better at the game than he is. But in general, the director should not need to ask that question, nor should he ask it.

[cherdano]

4S is completely standard in husband-wife bridge. What can you do, bid 3H and let the wife play 4S??

[pescetom]

"Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." -- Law 12B1, in part.

 

I wasn't in a hurry to say it, I'm glad someone more experienced than me did.

[cherdano]

On a more serious note, it's quite remarkable how good of a bid 4♠ is once you think about it a little bit. The key is North's silence - are you really surprised North is 3=3 in the majors? 4♠ would be a much worse bid if North had jumped to 4♥ - makes it both more likely that partner has a singleton heart (helps 5m, makes no big difference in 4♠ as you would be planning to refuse the ruff in dummy anyway), and the spades are breaking badly.

If you partner would almost never double without 4 spades (as is quite common around here), I think 4S is quite a good bid at matchpoints.

[pescetom]

If you partner would almost never double without 4 spades (as is quite common around here), I think 4S is quite a good bid at matchpoints.

 

In my case you can delete the almost, and partner knows that. It's a close call between spades and diamonds all the same, but those are the choices I think.

[axman]

I accept that Sven is a legal eagle and many other top directors seem to agree with him but I still find this hard to believe. If this is Bridge law, then it's yet another example of it's craziness.:(

 

A couple decades ago south summoned claiming damage. It seems that EW were bidding spades and NS were bidding hearts and that NS were given MI. After seeing that the information was corrected I consulted with north then south away from the table. I asked,'what would you have done differently?' she started, 'I might have ….' At which point I corrected, 'What would you have done?' She (wanted a double shot at 5H is what she wanted) hemmed and hawed for over four minutes and confessed she would not have done differently.

 

My view was that the damage from the MI was S was misled into not bidding 5H- which was why I wanted to know what she would have done differently. Actually, I was looking forward to the warm feeling from adjusting the score to 5HX. Lo, except for south delaying the game 5 minutes Solomon successfully split the baby and south didn't get the score she richly deserved.

[nige1]

I asked,'what would you have done differently?' she started, 'I might have ….' At which point I corrected, 'What would you have done?' She (wanted a double shot at 5H is what she wanted) hemmed and hawed for over four minutes and confessed she would not have done differently.My view was that the damage from the MI was S was misled into not bidding 5H- which was why I wanted to know what she would have done differently. Actually, I was looking forward to the warm feeling from adjusting the score to 5HX. Lo, except for south delaying the game 5 minutes Solomon successfully split the baby and south didn't get the score she richly deserved.

It's a pity so few ordinary players understand how legal experts like pran and axman treat cases like these. In axman's example, the South player might be reluctant to advance self-serving hypothetical speculation. A street-wise player, aware of the likely director mind-set, might be less equivocal.