[Al_U_Card]

Jlall, on Jan 19 2006, 11:25 AM, said:

since spades were 3-3 I don't think they'd adjust to 7S making I honestly tried to be as ethical as I could, and I duplicated mikeh's auction

I was thinking more along the lines of 6S making 7. Once the UI is there it is hard to extricate it from the result, as much as you may try.

[Chamaco]

DELETE PLS, I misread the original post

[Al_U_Card]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 19 2006, 12:01 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jan 19 2006, 11:25 AM, said:

since spades were 3-3 I don't think they'd adjust to 7S making I honestly tried to be as ethical as I could, and I duplicated mikeh's auction

I was thinking more along the lines of 6S making 7. Once the UI is there it is hard to extricate it from the result, as much as you may try.

This would also apply to your pard, who bid 7D because he may have thought that you were on a 3-3 fit etc. He is likely the one who should have stopped at the lowest level reasonable (re: your wtf comment when he continued over 6S, the "logical" contract as proposed by most participants of this thread.)and take the consequences of his hesitation rather than putting the burden on you.

[Al_U_Card]

This auction was f2f or online? Since your post replies all went along 6S lines, why wouldn't your pard be aware of your consternation (the wtf comment comes from somewhere) and the fortuitious result leads the way for a grievance to be launched.

[flytoox]

Jlall, on Jan 18 2006, 05:15 PM, said:

I also tried 6S. Over this partner bid 7D... wtf? What's going on, what do you bid?

Easy pass for me. I signed off in 6S. But he corrected it to 7D. I will never ever bid 7S. If that is what pd wants, he should bid it himself.

[inquiry]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 19 2006, 01:31 PM, said:

This auction was f2f or online? Since your post replies all went along 6S lines, why wouldn't your pard be aware of your consternation (the wtf comment comes from somewhere) and the fortuitious result leads the way for a grievance to be launched.

I think any grievance would forfeit deposit.

The hand in quetstion, made a splinter bid (4H) which is perfectly normal, made a first round control showing redouble as everyone and their dog would do, and corrected a curious 6♣ bid to 6♠ which is clearly the normal top choice.

There was no UI or chance for UI here (4H = ihave short hearts), (5Hxx = I have heart void, 6S = ok, you forced to slam, and spades were agreed). All this was fully and accurately disclosed. Thus, no UI, and no chance for UI. Any protest would be silly.

[Al_U_Card]

My question was along those lines. So, any appeal would then be frivolous, unless of course there was further UI at the table....I was just curious as to how he would know that the 3-3 S break slam could also involve an onside D king which if offside means 6S makes but not 7D......

[mikeh]

This auction reveals a common trap into which many players (me included) can fall.

Responder made an error in doubling, but that error was not the main reason for the odd end result.

His real error was in failing to consider how partner was bound (and obliged) to interprete his later bids. He 'wanted' 5♥ to show doubt about strain and he allowed that 'want' to overcome the logic, which was that partner correctly took it as a big slam move in ♠.

He repeated the error with his 6♣ bid: which he 'wanted' to be taken as natural, but which he had to know would be both puzzling and unpassable.

Justin handled himself honorably and the opponents got an undeserved bottom. It is odd to see that the opps held 11 ♥ and there was no raise, but it sounds as if LHO was flat and any bid would have been pointless in at least two senses.

Responder needed to be playing adjective bridge: a form of the game in which you may use a one word (in some, weaker versions, a 2 or 3 word) verbal description of your bid

[000002]

i enjoy Mikeh's commentation:DOUBLE is bad,5♥ is worst,6♣ is crazy.