[Zelandakh]

VixTD, on 2012-May-23, 06:45, said:

Where do you get this idea? Do we really have to state the obvious? Of course I didn't rule without consultation.

Glad to hear it. The idea came from (a perhaps misreading of) your previous message

VixTD, on 2012-May-22, 06:59, said:

Like David and Peter, I didn't consider 3♦ from East a possible bid, but I later started to have my doubts

The 2 'I's in the sentence suggested to me that you had not polled other players/TDs on the possibility of 3♦ being a LA but only thought about it at a later time.

[phil_20686]

bluejak, on 2012-May-23, 05:56, said:

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

---

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

I submit that there is no where this is considered normal bridge.

Perhaps you should take up poker?

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-23, 07:13, said:

Glad to hear it. The idea came from (a perhaps misreading of) your previous message

Quote

Like David and Peter, I didn't consider 3♦ from East a possible bid, but I later started to have my doubts

The 2 'I's in the sentence suggested to me that you had not polled other players/TDs on the possibility of 3♦ being a LA but only thought about it at a later time.

I think you are confusing consultation and consideration. Good TDs consult to get other views and judgments, then consider before deciding.

phil_20686, on 2012-May-23, 07:55, said:

I submit that there is no where this is considered normal bridge.

Perhaps you should take up poker?

You have led a sheltered life! I am sure strong club players are pleased to play against you.

[nige1]

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-23, 04:12, said:

I think we're given a bit more than that in the OP: in particular, that their methods countenance a two-suited overcall on W's ♠43 ♥A743 ♦Q3 ♣K9876.

Eventually, In the play, it became apparent that the West was 54. During the auction, however, East alerted 1N and explained it as "♠ & ♦". If the EW understanding was more detailed. East could have divulged it at the time. Also the director could have found out later and told us. IMO, whatever their actual agreement, extrapolating beyond the given facts is speculation.Anyway, FWIW, opposite a Truscott 1N, I wouldn't pass at the three-level

[Statto]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-23, 02:46, said:

- They might get "unlucky" and the TD will adjust to the result they would have obtained if they would have taken the ethical action. The unethical action will not have lost.

I would have thought that the TD will only adjust the result if the non-offending side have been damaged. So if the offending side have lost out by taking an unethical action, there will be no adjustment. (I agree with the rest of your post and the sentiment of it.)

The poll seems to strongly suggest 3♦ was a LA.

[MrAce]

bluejak, on 2012-May-23, 05:56, said:

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

---

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

This is your personal opinion. However, eventhough i disagree with you totally, i respect your opinion.

What i want to ask is, if i may, would you see bidding 3♦ as an L.A or not ?

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-May-23, 05:56, said:

You have no playing strength, and your decent suit, clubs, is not opposinte partner's length. The 2NT bid means that you are likely to be doubled and down a lot.

If you give partner a fairly normal overcall at Green [nv v v], say

---

that's 1100, faint possibilities of 800 or 1400, and they have no slam on.

I thought that my partner and I were very aggressive against strong club auctions. We go as far as alerting our passes: They show a 4333, 4432 or 4441 pattern. With all other patterns we will enter the auction. Having said that, this West hand is an obvious pass, also white vs red. Why?

If you bid with balanced hands over 1♣, the advancer will not be able to evaluate his hand. And it is the advancer who is supposed to force the opponents to make their final guess. Since it is artificial, your 1NT overcall hardly preempted the opponents. Yes, they lost 1♦, 1♥, 1♠ and 1NT. But they got Dbl and pass back. They can even pass and bid later (which they can't when you overcall a natural 1♠), because 1NT is virtually forcing, effectively doubling the number of available bids in their bidding box.

So, you haven't achieved any preemption yet. You just have stuck out your neck and you have set up the stage for advancer to do the preempting (when appropriate). Then you should also give him something that he can base his decision on. Since preempts are based on distribution, rather than on high card strength, distribution is what you have to show your partner. And a distribution that is not fit for preempting (such as a 4342) is shown by pass.

So, what you achieve is that the strong clubbers at your table will have to deal with an interference of 1NT many times (which hardly bothers them), but you will not be able to preempt, when you have a hand that warrants it (like this East hand). At the other tables, they will have to deal less with interference, but when they do, they will often have to make a decision after 4♦ or 3♠.

To summarize: There is no way that West can have the hand that you gave. The reason for that is not that it would be too dangerous to bid with it (white vs red). The reason is that it wouldn't achieve anything other than preventing partner to preempt the auction when he should preempt (which is something that you don't want to achieve).

Rik

[PeterAlan]

nige1, on 2012-May-23, 19:38, said:

In the play, it bacame apparent that the West was 54. During the auction East alerted 1N and explained it as "♠ & ♦". If the EW understanding was more detailed. East could have divulged it at the time. Also the director could have found out later and told us. IMO, whatever their actual agreement, extrapolating beyond the given facts is speculation.Anyway, FWIW, opposite a Truscott 1N, I wouldn't pass at the three-level

I think we may be slightly at cross purposes. My point is, and always has been, that in order to determine whether 3♦ is a LA we need to know what methods E/W are playing - most of the posters seem happy to provide an answer to the LA question without ever considering this, and I think that's a mistaken approach. On the assumption that they're playing a fairly standard form of Truscott, my view is that 3♦ is not a LA, for the reasons I've given. You don't agree, and that's fine.

But we know from the original post not only that E said ♦ & ♠ but also that W actually made a 1NT overcall (probably the wrong one) on the hand she actually held, so it's not wholly speculative to make the reasonable assumption that, whatever their methods may be, they are methods that allow for overcalls to be made on that sort of hand.

[mycroft]

Some of the comments I see here baffle me - but I have some strong opinions about overcalling strong clubs (from both sides of the Alert card).

I may not overcall with David's hand, but I sure would with Kxxx x Kxxx xxxx - if I'm playing Truscott.

• 1NT isn't 1H, or 1D for that matter - it takes away actual bids.
  
• white on red? Come on.

I say that "get to 3 of a fit before opener's rebid" is the goal of competing against strong clubs; but:

• that 2NT call has clarified everything for opener, unlike say a "5-8 any" double or a "7+ any 5-card hearts" 2H call
  
• 1NT already did a lot more disruption than, say, 1H

Am I willing to go 800 w/r against a strong club with no slam on? Sure. I won't like it, but if it's not *possible*, then I'm not competing enough. Aren't you willing to go 800 w/r with your preempts with no slam on for them? I'm willing to go 1100 if everything goes wrong, but I expect slam in that case to be down on an unfortunate lie (ace opposite singleton, for instance). So saying "he won't have the hand where 3♦ is 1100 is bad because 2♦ would be 800" is silly;

• They have to find it - and tell me who's good at picking off two-level "fit" hands with 600+ staring them in the face;
  
• it's not likely (given just the 1♣ call) to be 800;
  
• and things have to be a really bad lie.

But 3♦ could be 800, easy, opposite an aggressive (not even "bluejak-quality") overcall, even without the 2NT call; with the 2NT call, it's almost guaranteed.

Ah well. I guess this is one of the reasons I play Precision.

I like Rik's theory, too - that with the hands he overcalls on, this is more like a 4♦ overcall than 3; that's very much a playable system. You don't give away as much with the overcalls (because you pass a lot); and partner can trust that when they do push hard, it's safe. But you let them play their nice, finely tuned strong club system a lot. I think that's too much to pay.

[FrancesHinden]

Trinidad, on 2012-May-24, 01:24, said:

to summarize: There is no way that West can have the hand that you gave. The reason for that is not that it would be too dangerous to bid with it (white vs red). The reason is that it wouldn't achieve anything other than preventing partner to preempt the auction when he should preempt (which is something that you don't want to achieve).Rik

You (and others) are imposing your own views on the EW system. I agree completely with PeterAlan: you cannot do a sensible poll on whether 3D is a LA without knowing, in detail, what a minimum hand is for West to enter the auction. I play something resembling these methods (1NT = hearts & clubs, dbl = diamonds and spades) and I wouldn't dream of bidding 3D after a natural 2NT bid on my right, but that's based on what I think partner needs to come in over 1C.

There are plenty of opinions about the 'best' way to defend against a strong 1C opening. They don't belong in this forum. Laws & Rulings are about applying the Laws. What we need to rule is to understand the EW agreements, not decide if they are a good idea or not.

[AlexJonson]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-24, 13:25, said:

You (and others) are imposing your own views on the EW system. I agree completely with PeterAlan: you cannot do a sensible poll on whether 3D is a LA without knowing, in detail, what a minimum hand is for West to enter the auction. I play something resembling these methods (1NT = hearts & clubs, dbl = diamonds and spades) and I wouldn't dream of bidding 3D after a natural 2NT bid on my right, but that's based on what I think partner needs to come in over 1C.

There are plenty of opinions about the 'best' way to defend against a strong 1C opening. They don't belong in this forum. Laws & Rulings are about applying the Laws. What we need to rule is to understand the EW agreements, not decide if they are a good idea or not.

Does it remain obvious that bidding on in diamonds is an LA? Otherwise I don't see how LAs work at all, and we are just talking about TDs notions about the game.

[bluejak]

MrAce, on 2012-May-23, 22:12, said:

This is your personal opinion. However, eventhough i disagree with you totally, i respect your opinion.

What i want to ask is, if i may, would you see bidding 3♦ as an L.A or not ?

PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 07:06, said:

I think we may be slightly at cross purposes. My point is, and always has been, that in order to determine whether 3♦ is a LA we need to know what methods E/W are playing - most of the posters seem happy to provide an answer to the LA question without ever considering this, and I think that's a mistaken approach. On the assumption that they're playing a fairly standard form of Truscott, my view is that 3♦ is not a LA, for the reasons I've given. You don't agree, and that's fine.

But we know from the original post not only that E said ♦ & ♠ but also that W actually made a 1NT overcall (probably the wrong one) on the hand she actually held, so it's not wholly speculative to make the reasonable assumption that, whatever their methods may be, they are methods that allow for overcalls to be made on that sort of hand.

AlexJonson, on 2012-May-24, 15:02, said:

Does it remain obvious that bidding on in diamonds is an LA? Otherwise I don't see how LAs work at all, and we are just talking about TDs notions about the game.

Some of us got distracted by the suggestion that 3♦ was obvious, or not.

As far as whether 3♦ is an LA it depends on whether a significant proportion, say one in five, of the player's peers would consider it, of whom a number would actually choose it, playing the same system and style. To decide this, and to take a meaningful poll to help decide this, we need to know what this pair woud overcall with. Not what readers of IBLF would overcall with.

Similarly to another thread, where someone thinks it is weird and leads to complications in his mind if players open different minors from him, we do not need to discuss what is best. We really do not need to convince others. But the reason I have got sucked in on both threads is the presumption of some posters that if they play something then so does everyone else - and both times this presumption has been on something I personally do not play.

So, having made my point badly in both threads, I shall now state it directly:

To rule on what a player should do, might do, has done or may do in the bidding we need to know his agreements with his partner, not substitute our own presumptions.

[AlexJonson]

So If you don't have full info about the players system, which I suppose you very rarely do in a case of any difficulty, you just make it up because a poll doesn't work?

[bluejak]

What do you mean by you do?

If you mean here on the forum, it is difficult, sure, and some things are unanswerable.

If you mean in real life you ask them to describe their system, read their SCs and their notes.

[c_corgi]

If, in the E/W methods, Bluejak's balanced 6 count was likely, has adequate disclosure been given?

[nige1]

If EW had any more understanding of 1N than "♦ & ♠" then

• East should disclose that understanding when asked.
• If more details were available, the director would report them, since such information is central to the ruling.

[Trinidad]

mycroft, on 2012-May-24, 10:24, said:

I like Rik's theory, too - that with the hands he overcalls on, this is more like a 4♦ overcall than 3; that's very much a playable system. You don't give away as much with the overcalls (because you pass a lot); and partner can trust that when they do push hard, it's safe. But you let them play their nice, finely tuned strong club system a lot. I think that's too much to pay.

I would hardly say that we pass a lot. We pass with 4333's, 4432's, 4441's and about half of the 5332's. On the rest we bid with the philosophy "Points, schmoints". (You may also call it Kamikaze style.) That means that we bid on about 55-60% of the hands. Only red vs white this percentage is a little lower (hard to say, maybe 45-50%). And out of the hands that we bid with, 75% will be bid at the two level (or higher). I wouldn't call that "letting them play their nice, finely tuned strong club system a lot".

Rik

[mycroft]

So, with some random 5=2=4=2, you're bidding (the equivalent of) 1NT? And after hearing you are limited to 16 high (so, partner overcalled on *at most 8*) in your partnership, knowing that the automatic trump lead is coming through partner and into the stoppers, you're thinking about bidding 4, and are sure of bidding 3? I note that this hand is exactly what you said you'd bid...5422, most of your "schmoints" are in your suits, you're white on red,...

I stand by my earlier statement. Given only what the opponents have told me about the auction, especially if I'm going to be declarer, 3♦ is 800 *minimum*, and I don't see them making a slam. Okay, I'll pay off if partner was 6=0=6=1 this time - but then isn't 4♥ by opener automatic (I have 3, partner has zero, RHO almost certainly doesn't have 5...) even if I do bid 4♦?

2NT has told opener what to do on any call by me. I'm passing. And yes, I've seen the poll results; and I guess I'd pretty much have to award 3♦x-4 or 5. But I would expect it to get appealed, and expect the argument I'm making at the appeal.

[WellSpyder]

phil_20686, on 2012-May-23, 07:55, said:

I submit that there is no where this is considered normal bridge.

You submission was proved wrong even before you made it since the evidence shows clearly that it is considered normal bridge at Bluejak's table even if you think it must be a different game than bridge. FWIW, my experience playing a strong 1♣ also suggests this is considered quite normal at favourable vulnerability in several other places.

[Edit: Sorry, I posted this immediately on seeing Phil's post. I see this issue has been adequately addressed in subsequent discussion!]