[paulg]

I'm not stalking mikeh but he was playing against friends of mine yesterday at the 16th World Bridge Games in Buenos Aires. It was the eighth round of the Seniors round-robin and Canada were playing Scotland, unfortunately not on Vugraph.

But I did see that mikeh made two game contracts, that one of my friends did not, and on a similar lead both times.

---

The first was board 5. I'm guessing Mike opened 1NT, East did not overcall and he reached 4♠ after a Staymanic auction. East led the ♦6 (MUD) and Mike made ten tricks. At the other table, East led ♦5 and declarer went down two.

---

Both Easts led the ♦K and Mike made the contract while Scotland went down, doubled. The key to the hand looks to be winning the first diamond, trying to draw trumps, and then exiting with the ♣Q so that East cannot cash diamonds.

These two boards contributed 26 IMP to Canada as they beat Scotland by 38-32 IMP.

After eight rounds Scotland are fourth with 96.21VP and Canada are 16th with 74.62VP. The top 16 teams will qualify for the knockout stages after the 23 matches in the round-robin.

Good luck to both teams over the next few days.

[mw64ahw]

Looks like Scotland made a real effort to go down.

[paulg]

Scotland Seniors will be on BBO Vugraph this evening at 7pm Edinburgh time, 8pm Copenhagen when they meet Denmark.

[mikeh]

Unfortunately there was bad blood during the match.

On the first hand, my screen mate overcalled 2D, alerted as ‘multi, less than opening values’. Gord bid 2H, a takeout double of hearts, RHO bid 3H and I bid 3S, raised to game.

The diamond was led. I won in dummy to lead a heart, expecting the overcaller to hold 6 hearts. I planned to ruff a heart low, another one high, and play for Jxx of spades onside, hoping for 4 spades, two ruffs and four diamonds. RHO popped the queen and erred (imo) by playing a spade…my 10 held, making it trivial to ruff a heart, come to hand with a spade finesse and ruff another heart…now diamond to hand and pull trump and claim. While it was irrelevant to the play, I was puzzled that the 2D bid, explained as multi, was on a five card suit. I have no problem with someone distorting their hand, if they think it is worth it, but I’d always assumed, possibly erroneously, that ‘multi’, when referring to showing a single suit major, meant 6 cards…indeed, had a trump not been played early by RHO,I was going down because I didn’t expect to be able to ruff low twice. I’d be playing for 3-2 trump and would lose a trick to the actual Jxxx. So I asked whether it was systemic to bid 2D on a 5 card suit. I was told, fairly curtly, that it was. So I suggested that maybe he should describe the meaning of his bid rather than just tell me ‘multi’. To which he took umbrage…got, imo, quite hostile. I said that my understanding was multi promised 6. He told me in no uncertain terms that he didn’t care what I thought.


On the second, I didn’t exit the club queen…on the bidding (not shown) east has shown a decent hand and I was sure he had a club honour…diamond king led, I won (since east had almost surely a six card suit on the auction) and cashed a high trump..ugh…three rounds of spades…then a low club which RHO, after long…long…thought ducked. LHO cashed a top diamond and was trying to cash another but LHO ruffed to inexplicably ‘cash’ a top club…ruff, heart hook,etc. but I was cold then anyway


At the end of the match, my screen mate, the multi bidder, volunteered (as I left the table but clearly intended for my ears) that I was the most unpleasant opponent he’d ever encountered. I suspect this was primarily because he and his partner had just perpetrated the worst defence I’ve ever seen by any expert…arguably the worst defence in the history of international bridge….not either of these hands.


I’m not posting it and I ask that anyone who looks it up refrain from doing so, but it was funny (to us) and excruciating to my screen mate who had no real part in the debacle. However, frustration doesn’t excuse being rude. Hence I’m prepared to mention it.

Fortunately, the great majority of our opps have been very pleasant…we’ve had some very funny exchanges even during very competitive matches.

[nullve]

 mikeh, on 2024-October-26, 19:26, said:

I asked whether it was systemic to bid 2D on a 5 card suit. I was told, fairly curtly, that it was.

This was board 5 against Shenkin-Spears:

http://db.worldbridg...qmatchid=124482

From their CC:

Quote

Vs. NT (vs. Strong/Weak; Reopening;PH)
X: Penalty; 2C = Majors; 2D: weak 6+ M;

So the 2♦ overcall was not systemic for them.

[Cyberyeti]

I will say in the UK, opening multis are COMMONLY 5+ cards, not sure over 1N as I've never played one in these circumstances. I certainly wouldn't think to say that it's 5+

[awm]

There is something of an epidemic of incorrectly filled convention cards in this event. The most extreme was a pair whose front of card said five card majors and back of card said four card majors. We’ve also seen pairs with the wrong point ranges for weak two bids, with no documented opening for hands with 4441 shape (card says one club 2+ and all other openings 5+}. So just because their card says 6+ doesn’t mean they play 6+. I brought this up with the tournament staff early and they generally do not care, but you might still be able to get a director ruling if you can show damage on a specific hand.

Elianna and I play 2♦ “multi” with five card major, but we describe it as “weak 5+ in a major” and our card is pretty clear about the possibility. I think just alerting it as multi would be pretty poor disclosure.

[paulg]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-October-27, 04:41, said:

I will say in the UK, opening multis are COMMONLY 5+ cards, not sure over 1N as I've never played one in these circumstances. I certainly wouldn't think to say that it's 5+

In my experience, it is common in England but rare in Scotland. Which is why full disclosure is important.

[mycroft]

• I am cheering on my 5 teams - including MikeH! Go Other ACBL Nations!
  
  
• Dragging the thread even more off-topic: interesting that cell phone violations (oh, it's just possible that there is C-wording possible! I know, it's 99.99% likely that it's technical incompetence, but what if it isn't!) are harshly penalized (up to and including disqualification from the event! And it's happened 3 times!)
  
  But "something of an epidemic" - frankly, *at least* a 20 year pattern, check my history and others - of *fundamentally incorrect* convention cards, some repeated multiple years in a row; that's just fine (unless the MI affects a result)? Fundamentally misinforming the opponents about one's (especially defensive/preemptive) agreements is okay? I thought "Full Disclosure" is the highest responsibility in the game, and if "cell phone is on, they could be C-wording", why does nobody complain that "they filled out their CC fundamentally wrong, it could be deliberate" - isn't that the C-word, too?
  
  Isn't a world championship important enough that submitting a card that doesn't match your agreements, or that is fundamentally mislabelled (remembering the *decade* where all the Polish cards playing Polish Club were marked "Green"), or is clearly contradictory (5cM on front, 4cM on back) shouldn't have a similar serious, automatic penalty? Isn't the NPC's *job* to ensure that this doesn't happen with your crew, and to check their opponents' preregistered cards and warn their players about "weirdies"? How about someone at the WBF who reviews the cards, spots the clear errors and requires a fix (can't check for "they don't actually play what's on the card", of course)? How about a list of violations from prior years, such that the directors know when something like Mike's thing comes up, that "yeah, they *say* 6 cards, but they did it with 5 more than once before. Is it *still* "judgement" this year, or is it uncorrected misinformation?"
  
  Oh, and remember the stories with "you play X against strong NT on the card." "Yes, but we play 13+ as 'weak', and your 14-16 is commonly 13." "Well, yeah."/ "you say you play 14-16. How many 13s do you open?" as a *basic question*? But we all know that that, and frequent "third-seat 1♦ judgement to upgrade" is just Bridge As It Is Played, but "6-card Multi is sometimes 5" is clear misinformation.
  
  And there's always a few cards that looks like they were written up in 15 minutes and are even less useful than the ACBL card. Sure, they're usually from the dead money teams, but shouldn't the WBF look at the ocean of whitespace and send it back for at least *basic* completeness?
  
  I mean, doesn't this "epidemic" show more disrespect to the players, the event, *and the game*, than a cell phone in silent & airplane mode? Or a couple of minutes late to the table (once), or a couple of minutes overtime (again, once)?
  
  And yes, I know, filling out the WBF card is difficult and time-consuming; and if you're not experienced with it, is very easy to get wrong. But again, this is the World Championships we're talking about, and (most of) the federations have room to train at least *one person* in how to fill one out. I'm quite certain that almost all of these issues are not deliberate or willful, but lazy is just as disrespectful as deliberate, no?

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2024-October-27, 05:57, said:

In my experience, it is common in England but rare in Scotland. Which is why full disclosure is important.

You would be looking for a bloodbath if you failed to disclose this possibility effectively in Italy (and I think also France).

[blackshoe]

If a player is rude to me or to my partner at the table, I will call the director and report the rudeness, and expect the director to handle it according to the laws and regulations in force. And I don't give a damn who the rude player is.