[Poky]

wank, on 2011-February-14, 08:01, said:

clear adjustment and PP for north. if i entered a sweepstake on where the bidding should end, i'd go for 6NT, doubled obviously.

north should interpret 3♠ as a splinter and cue 4♣ (I don't believe about 3S not being a splinter after a natural 1H. Assuming they play transfers in other situations, ask how they play this sequence: 1C - (1D) - x (showing hearts) - 3S which is a very similar auction.

south should sign off in 4♠. what north should do now depends on their cuebidding style, but if you assume they cuebid 1st and 2nd round controls, he should sign-off in 5♥ knowing south has no diamond control. if they play kickback, 4S could even be RKCB.

i don't think this is sufficiently surprising even from a passed hand to wake up south to north's misbid. south should perforce interpret this as a particularly distributional hand. maybe something like 6520 which was wanting pass as dealer and make a 2-suited overcall. south having made an invitational raise and having signed off once can jump to 6S. This however would be sufficiently unexpected to wake north up to his error, so I think he should be allowed to convert to 6NT which should be sufficient shock for south to pass.

i would happily deny east-west a very small part of their redress though. i think the penalty double belongs under 'wild and gambling' so the extra -150 between 3NT= and 3NTX= they deserve to keep.

Yeah right, maybe in Wonderland, and even there, only if people turn their brains off during the bidding.

The first thing that should be clear is that West doubleshoted with a bizzare double - so his side cannot get any redress in any way.

And what about NS? Well, the whole sequence looks very suspicious. Righty has shown the range of 11+, lefty say 4+, I have 9 and partner with maximum 16 honors left bids 3♠. Ok, that's borderline but possible. But, assuming a spade splinter and opponents that didn't bid spades, well, that's almost impossible. Moreover, righty has shown heart length by doubling 1♦ which reduces drammatically the chanches od 3♠ being a legitimate splinter.
So, what else is possible, partner maybe found a creative way to bid a 5x6x hand? Hmmm... Who knows.

Anyway, if the range of opener's action is {spade splinter, 6-5 two suiter, something crazy} with appropriate weight factors, the 3NT bid is the ONLY LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE (to be honest, supposing the bidder has an IQ above 45). Why? It is very easy to see:
- in case a] it should be seen as a waiting bid hoping to hear about the club control (no much sense in playing a natural 3NT by a limited hand in a thin spot where you have a major superfit)
- in case b] bidding 3NT shouldn't look much worse than 4♦, after all, the diamonds may be running + AQ clubs + spade A = 9;
- in case c] 3NT offers most flexibility.

And I didn't even notice the possibility that the responder would/could remember he (maybe) plays transfers and take this into account. Be honest, how would you weigh the odds about the possibility responder would remember in this strange spot the agreement he had (or hear about it) at least once in his bridge career, without any UI? I would say something about 97% of occurences. Maybe even more.

Therefore, 6NTx has nothing to do neither with restoring equity nor with bridge nor with justice, but very easily it could be read as a little piece of sadistic director's behavior in a spot where the "damaged side" nailed themselves to -750 (or -550, dunno) anyway.

Sorry for disagreeing with you.

[lamford]

Poky, on 2011-February-15, 10:29, said:

<snip> The first thing that should be clear is that West doubleshoted with a bizzare double - so his side cannot get any redress in any way. <snip>

<snip> But, assuming a spade splinter and opponents that didn't bid spades, well, that's almost impossible. <snip> So, what else is possible, partner maybe found a creative way to bid a 5x6x hand? Hmmm... Who knows. <snip>

You can only deny redress for a WoG action for that portion of the loss subsequent to the infraction, and I agree that some reduction in their gain is appropriate. So your first sentence is wrong in law. And several posters have indicated why your argument in the second sentence has no validity - both opponents have bid spades naturally - why on earth should East-West do so - in fact it would be difficult for most pairs to bid spades naturally here? I suggest you read dburn's posts which have summed up the issues well. It worries me that there are a handful of people on here who can condone the North-South actions in any way. "Hmm ... who knows," you add. Well, you certainly do from the UI. I would say that it is almost impossible that partner has bid a spade-diamond two suiter this way. Well over 97% that he has not.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2011-February-15, 11:13, said:

I would say that it is almost impossible that partner has bid a spade-diamond two suiter this way. Well over 97% that he has not.

I think we are getting tangled up, here. Of course it is almost zero that pard has bid a pointed two-suiter this way IF we have the UI from the alert that we have shown spades as responder. But, we can't use that UI, which brings us back to the AI we do have (opps have ten spades, or pard is in fact 5-6 in the pointed suits, or pard is making some bizarre undiscussed bid in support of hearts.)

So, 3NT or 4C or 4H are all possible LA's and all should lead to some gross final contract and a bad result. I do think 3NT is most likely to be fortuitously passed (albeit by accident), and I would not feel comfortable choosing that one. So back to Adam's 4♣ as the most logical/ethical alternative ---and onward to our deserved disaster.

If we don't do that, the committee should do it for us. I don't think WoG should be considered because the opps should not have been put in that situation ---except not defending it very well, which they should keep vs 6NTx if that is the determined final contract.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-February-15, 12:04

[Vampyr]

Poky, on 2011-February-15, 10:29, said:

The first thing that should be clear is that West doubleshoted with a bizzare double - so his side cannot get any redress in any way.

Say what?

Quote

I didn't even notice the possibility that the responder would/could remember he (maybe) plays transfers and take this into account.

Perhaps you didn't notice it because it is actually an impossibility. Once he is in possession of UI, the responder is precluded from remembering.


Your a), b) and c) read like a cheater's manifesto.

[nigel_k]

nigel_k, on 2011-February-14, 20:43, said:

<big snip> I maintain that any reasonable North, when faced with the unusual jump to 3♠ and looking at two small spades and opponents not bidding them, would now realize that his 1♥ had been treated as a transfer even if he didn't think so at the point he bid 1♥.<big snip>

<big snip> we also weren't told in the other thread of the N/S agreement that 2♠ after a natural 1♥ would have been nonforcing.<big snip>>

lamford, on 2011-February-15, 04:45, said:

On the first point, substitute "unethical" for "reasonable" and you are right. On the second point, we weren't told in this thread either that 2S would have been non-forcing after a natural 1H. It would have been 100% forcing by all of the Surrey team, I assure you.

I'm sorry but this is a basic failure of reading comprehension.

On the first point, you snipped my previous sentence where I made it clear I was talking about what North would do with no UI, acting only on the authorised information. So no question of ethics arises.

On the second point, the exact words used in the opening post were: "I think N said that 2♠ by S over 2♣ by E would have been NF so that, a natural, forcing, 3♠ bid (putting the UI to one side) was a logical alternative." This must be referring to a sequence where 1♥ is natural, not a transfer, because otherwise the second part makes no sense.

[lamford]

nigel_k, on 2011-February-15, 12:56, said:

I'm sorry but this is a basic failure of reading comprehension.

On the first point, you snipped my previous sentence where I made it clear I was talking about what North would do with no UI, acting only on the authorised information. So no question of ethics arises.

On the second point, the exact words used in the opening post were: "I think N said that 2♠ by S over 2♣ by E would have been NF so that, a natural, forcing, 3♠ bid (putting the UI to one side) was a logical alternative." This must be referring to a sequence where 1♥ is natural, not a transfer, because otherwise the second part makes no sense.

I think the failure of reading comprehension is yours - in relation to Law 73C. It is not that relevant what a North would guess without UI. He has UI and must carefully avoid taking advantage of it, rather than think of a reason why his 3NT bid might get past the TD.

And how on earth can North-South indicate what methods they would have employed over a sequence that does not exist? Do you discuss with your partner continuations after transfer responses to 1C if you don't play them? The lack of sense is in North's assertion, and in addition it is a self-serving statement. Do you really believe any player, of Tollemache final standard - perhaps equivalent to the Spingold in strength - would play 2S as non-forcing if 1H had been natural. But I shall ask the North in question when I next see him.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-February-15, 11:56, said:

But, we can't use that UI

No, we MUST use that UI, but only in order to select a logical alternative not demonstrably suggested by it.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-February-15, 13:11, said:

Do you really believe any player, of Tollemache final standard - perhaps equivalent to the Spingold in strength - would play 2S as non-forcing if 1H had been natural. But I shall ask the North in question when I next see him.

The only person I've known play this ("reverses in competition show extra but are not forcing") reached the Semi-Final of the Bermuda Bowl, having knocked out the Italian team. But he wouldn't play 3S as natural, because the reason he thought 2S should be non-forcing was because there is a cue-bid available if you want to force.

[gnasher]

I think the best description of this North-South pair would be that they're a fairly irregular partnership who play a lot of stuff and don't bother to discuss it properly. I'd be very surprised to hear them say that they don't play splinters in a sequence of this sort.

I'm also surprised that there's been little discussion of the meaning of 3NT. I would expect that with a major agreed this pair would play 3NT as artificial. Depending on the meaning of 3NT, that might make North's 3NT legal. If you play non-serious 3NT, that looks an obvious action on the North hand, and it's hard to believe that North would bid a serious 4♣ instead. If 3NT would be serious, then I'd make North bid 4♣.

[FrancesHinden]

My ears are burning.

Let's start with a few facts.
1.
The North/South pair are good friends but an irregular partnership. I can't promise they haven't played a few other hands together here or there, but the only 'proper' bridge they have played in last 15 months that I am aware of is the Tolle final last weekend, the Tollemache qualifier last November and before that the 2009/2010 year end pairs. Pretty much every time they play together, they play a different system (Jeffrey says it may not have changed since the qualifier, because they haven't played since then, but it was definitely different eighteen months ago).

I'm not sure how Lamford defines a 'national championship' but I can't think of anything they have won as a partnership. [if you are wondering why they were playing together in such a 'high standard' event, remember it's a county event and Surrey's approach is to pick what they consider to be the best 10 players in the county and then worry about partnerships]

2.
The final double was by East, not West (as Chris said originally might have been the case).

3.
It is currently somewhat fashionable in the circles in which N/S play to play transfers after (1m) - x even if you aren't playing them in an uncontested auction. The card did specifically say that they played transfers in this auction, but it's quite possible they'd never really discussed it properly. Gnasher's description is pretty accurate.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-February-14, 17:14, said:

If I had been asked my opinion on a possible appeal and team-mates had been involved, I would have recused myself. As captain of a team involved in a possible appeal, I would not have put Frances or Jeffery in an awkward position of being asked to offer an opinion

<snip>

I thought that the OP's statement: "NS are a fairly regular partnership and play quite a lot of "stuff" was more accurate than FrancesHinden's statement. "You are playing in a not very regular partnership with a good player.", but readers may wish to Google "A"+"B" for the two players in order to find out if they agree.

<snip>

Get a life, Paul. As Chris L was well aware, the EW pair concerned are close friends of mine (and also of Jeffrey's), and have been for over 20 years. Chris may not have asked me directly for my opinion, but West did.

p.s. yup, googled exactly as you suggest. Can't find anything obvious in the last few years where they have played together seriously as a partnership (I have the advantage over you that I know what the partnerships were in the various teams where they played as team-mates).

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-February-15, 14:24, said:

I'm also surprised that there's been little discussion of the meaning of 3NT. ... If 3NT would be serious, then I'd make North bid 4♣.

I had wondered about this though, specifically the possibility that 3NT was serious or something else artificial, and South passed because he was also in receipt of UI.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-15, 16:15, said:

Get a life, Paul. As Chris L was well aware, the EW pair concerned are close friends of mine (and also of Jeffrey's), and have been for over 20 years. Chris may not have asked me directly for my opinion, but West did.

p.s. yup, googled exactly as you suggest. Can't find anything obvious in the last few years where they have played together seriously as a partnership (I have the advantage over you that I know what the partnerships were in the various teams where they played as team-mates).

I agree that I cannot tell the partnerships in a large number of entries on the Internet, and I accept your statement that they were not partners in the many times they played in the same team. As you say, you have the advantage over me - and, clearly, your friend Chris L, who thought they were a regular partnership. I apologise for agreeing with him.

[FrancesHinden]

Chris L, on 2011-February-14, 09:29, said:

I'm pretty sure there are no material facts missing; no doubt Frances and/or Jeffery can expand on the precise sequences in which NS use splinters and can confirm their stated belief that an appeal had no chance (because whatever 3♠ was it was manifestly not a splinter).

There was a lot of discussion going on at once, not just with me and Jeffrey but with many of the Cambs & Hunts players and another member of the Surrey team who also knew all the players concerned very well so it's not surprising things may have become slightly confused, however I am absolutely certain that I never said that an appeal had no chance. In fact, I never got as far as stating my opinion about how likely it would be to succeed. Jeffrey tells me he doesn't think he said anything like that either. We were certainly discussing what the N/S arguments could be, perhaps that sounded to Chris like a statement of absolute belief in their validity. When I spoke to N/S before the left (and before the original TD's ruling) I had told them that they would be ruled against; when I heard that the table result had been ruled to stand I assumed that I had misunderstood something about the auction.

The only direct opinion I gave on whether there should appeal was that if it was not going to affect the winners, I wouldn't bother. It was clear that E/W - particularly West - did not want to appeal because he wanted to go home, and he also suspected that the AC would prefer to go home. Both teams had had a decent chance of winning before the last match and some people were feeling a bit fed up having finished so badly; the appetite to appeal was from some of the other players rather than those at the table. I was also aware that NS could not attend any appeal.

[FrancesHinden]

Finally, on the 'we don't play splinters' comment: I wasn't there when it was made so I don't know the context. I am certain that they play splinters in some uncontested auctions.

However, a fairly "standard" agreement that many of their "circle" has is that you can't splinter in a competitive auction other than in an opponents' suit. So, for example, 1S x 4C is a fit bid, not a splinter as is 1H 1S 2H 4D. It is also fairly standard for us to play many bids as non-forcing that BBO forums seem to think are forcing (e.g. 1H x P 2C 2S would certainly be strong but non-forcing for me, and 1H x P 2C 3S would be forcing with serious majors). Similarly 1H P 1S (2D) 3C wouldn't be forcing even playing good/bad.

I think I remember telling Chris that I thought I might play 3S as natural and strong here. That was probably wrong and on reflection it's probably a splinter (I was very tired and had the auction slightly wrong in my head when I was thinking about it), however it's a very strange auction and that contradicts our "no splinters in competition" rule. I'm confident I've never had this auction (or rather the equivalent one, because I also play transfers after the double). That's a good argument for the actual 3NT bid, and one of the reasons that EW were not so keen to appeal: they would have bid 3NT because (i) it's step 1 (a big consideration), (ii) it is a fairly weak hand with clubs well stopped. If 3S was natural, it will end the auction; if 3S was some sort of heart fit partner will clarify next round. At the time I thought this was quite convincing, but the poll I did elsewhere shows me that I may be wrong about this.

One good question to ask N/S would be what 1D (x) xx (=hearts) 2C (3S) would mean. That is the closest to the actual "impossible" auction. Unfortunately I am fairly confident that had you asked that at the time, you would have been told 'natural and strong'.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-February-15, 14:24, said:

I think the best description of this North-South pair would be that they're a fairly irregular partnership who play a lot of stuff and don't bother to discuss it properly. I'd be very surprised to hear them say that they don't play splinters in a sequence of this sort.

I'm also surprised that there's been little discussion of the meaning of 3NT. I would expect that with a major agreed this pair would play 3NT as artificial. Depending on the meaning of 3NT, that might make North's 3NT legal. If you play non-serious 3NT, that looks an obvious action on the North hand, and it's hard to believe that North would bid a serious 4♣ instead. If 3NT would be serious, then I'd make North bid 4♣.

I completely agree that a 'non-serious' 3NT would be a perfectably reasonable choice, and I also agree that it is quite likely that the North-South pair in question would play such methods. What I would not allow, however, is for North to bid it and South to pass it, claiming that he does not have any UI. That smacks of a CPU. And what would not be acceptable would be for 3NT to be passable when considering the UI, but forcing without the UI. Again, that would not be carefully avoiding using the UI, and even if the bid were best, it would have to be eschewed.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-15, 16:30, said:

There was a lot of discussion going on at once, not just with me and Jeffrey but with many of the Cambs & Hunts players and another member of the Surrey team who also knew all the players concerned very well so it's not surprising things may have become slightly confused, however I am absolutely certain that I never said that an appeal had no chance. In fact, I never got as far as stating my opinion about how likely it would be to succeed. Jeffrey tells me he doesn't think he said anything like that either. We were certainly discussing what the N/S arguments could be, perhaps that sounded to Chris like a statement of absolute belief in their validity. When I spoke to N/S before the left (and before the original TD's ruling) I had told them that they would be ruled against; when I heard that the table result had been ruled to stand I assumed that I had misunderstood something about the auction.

The only direct opinion I gave on whether there should appeal was that if it was not going to affect the winners, I wouldn't bother. It was clear that E/W - particularly West - did not want to appeal because he wanted to go home, and he also suspected that the AC would prefer to go home. Both teams had had a decent chance of winning before the last match and some people were feeling a bit fed up having finished so badly; the appetite to appeal was from some of the other players rather than those at the table. I was also aware that NS could not attend any appeal.

I fully accept your views which were as I expected. Indeed I believed the original facts to be wrong, and on several occasions I added "provided the facts are as stated" or words to that effect, expecting that there was some error. I think it is very unfair, therefore, for you to preface a post with "Get a Life".

I would be very unhappy to read: " I discussed it with Frances & Jeffery amongst others (even though they weren't strictly impartial, but I thought I could trust them) and I was persuaded that an appeal would fail and that I wouldn't waste everyone's time." If I were Chris L, I would apologise for making this statement, which contains an innuendo. It would be charitable to assume that he was tired and emotional after Cambs and Hunts "poor performance on the Sunday".

I agree entirely with gnasher's additional point, and with dburn, wank and others. But now it is too late to adjust the score. I presume that you agree that the TD must assume 3NT cannot be serious (McEnroe) when his partner passes it.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-February-15, 14:24, said:

I'm also surprised that there's been little discussion of the meaning of 3NT. I would expect that with a major agreed this pair would play 3NT as artificial. Depending on the meaning of 3NT, that might make North's 3NT legal. If you play non-serious 3NT, that looks an obvious action on the North hand, and it's hard to believe that North would bid a serious 4♣ instead. If 3NT would be serious, then I'd make North bid 4♣.

Are you saying that you would allow 3NT if North-South could show that it was a non-serious slam try, and accept the North-South argument (which has not previously been put forward) that this is what it meant, even though it was passed by South, who has no UI?

And is there not some danger that South's pass of 3NT could be "fielding a systemic misbid" (going back to the 1H bid)? This EBU approach is disliked by many of the WBFLC, but the event was indeed under the former's auspices.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-15, 16:50, said:

<big snip> That's a good argument for the actual 3NT bid, and one of the reasons that EW were not so keen to appeal: they would have bid 3NT because (i) it's step 1 (a big consideration), (ii) it is a fairly weak hand with clubs well stopped. If 3S was natural, it will end the auction; if 3S was some sort of heart fit partner will clarify next round. At the time I thought this was quite convincing, but the poll I did elsewhere shows me that I may be wrong about this <snip>.

I think this approach and thinking is wrong. You know that 3NT has a chance to be passed because of the UI. Your duty to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, and your duty not to select a demonstrably suggested logical alternative, forces you to reject the 3NT bid, whatever its merits. It is clear that it is demonstrably suggested over 4C because the latter is going to project the auction into the nether regions. There is indeed a tendency not to bother too much with minor places in events, but the discussion here should assume that the decision is important; otherwise you would be right to tell me to "get a life".

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-February-15, 17:19, said:

Are you saying that you would allow 3NT if North-South could show that it was a non-serious slam try

Yes. Doesn't it look like a routine non-serious try to you?

Quote

, and accept the North-South argument (which has not previously been put forward) that this is what it meant, even though it was passed by South, who has no UI?

If 3NT is the only LA, it's legal to bid it, regardless of North's motives. If I thought that North had bid a legal 3NT believing it to be illegal, I suppose that might merit a PP (if the law allows such a penalty).

As your questions imply, the fact that South passed 3NT suggests that it isn't systemically artificial, so the evidence to the contrary would have to be quite strong.

Quote

And is there not some danger that South's pass of 3NT could be "fielding a systemic misbid" (going back to the 1H bid)? This EBU approach is disliked by many of the WBFLC, but the event was indeed under the former's auspices.

Yes, that might well be a fielded misbid.