[hanp]

Josh, I don't think this auction suggests the opponents are light.

[fred]

jdonn, on May 11 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Quote

Suppose partner judges that you are not going to find a heart lead unless he doubles, that 3NT is 50-50 to go down if he gets a heart lead, and that the small chances of a redouble and/or overtricks are offset by the small chances that the opponents will sometimes run from 3NT when it is cold.

Do the math - I think you will see that it is clearly right to double even though there is a good chance that 3NT doubled will make.

- I don't know why you think the chances of overtricks are small. I don't.

On the actual hand you might be right, but my "suppose" had nothing to do with the actual hand (even though I think I probably would double with the actual hand).

My point is that partner should not have to wait until he is even close to a sure set in order to double for a heart lead. If partner is a strong player he will double 3NT when he has a hand that is like what I "supposed" (in addition to those hands with which he knows 3NT is going down if you lead a heart).

Your post that I quoted seemed to imply otherwise - that partner should not be doubling 3NT if he thinks "they might make it". Sorry if I misunderstood.

Given that partner should double 3NT more often than one might think, that significantly reduces the chances of a heart lead being right.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[uday]

The Laws are clear on this stuff. Even Uday understands them.

BIT? Suggested an action or inaction? Can't take advantage of it as long as LAs exist.

Assume the BIT existed. If not, no case.
Assume a club lead is a LA on the auction. Assume a H lead is also a LA, if you like.
Assume the BIT suggested something other than the routine LA.

Leader isn't allowed to do anything that is suggested by the BIT

Thus, if the BIT suggests a H lead, a H lead is verboten.

Whatever the BIT suggests, it isnt "lead a club" , we trust. So the BIT suggests a non-club lead.

i believe that leading a non-club on this auction (with an acknowledged BIT, with a club an LA and a nonclub a LA suggested by the BIT ) is ethically neutral (like a revoke) , but like a revoke, has to be corrected.

[fred]

jdonn, on May 11 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Quote

Not leading partners suit when he had more than one opportunity to suggest a different lead and when you have no real reason to believe that leading partner's suit is wrong qualifies as "trying to be a genius" in my view.

I see one potential opportunity to suggest a heart lead (double 3NT) and one to suggest a club lead (rebid 2♣).

Are you saying your friends would never (or only very rarely) open 1H with a 4-card suit in 3rd seat? If yes, then you are right, but I would respectfully suggest that your friends rethink this approach before next year's Cavendish.

Quote

Again, looking at the actual hand makes it clear the pair wasn't using the opening bid style based on which you personally answer. They opened clubs on Jxxx rather than a major on AKxx or KJxx despite holding a minimum opener.

The actual hand proves nothing about style differences since (as I said) I have no problem with a 1C opening with the actual hand. The actual hand, although minimum in HCP, has a singleton and strong support for both majors. I would be concerned that opening 1H or 1S would make it difficult or impossible to reach a potential major suit game (because the other major might be lost and because I would be terrified to cooperate if partner got excited about the major suit I opened).

But if I had a hand like:

AJx
KQJx
xx
Jxxx

I would certainly open 1H. Wouldn't your friends?

And with something like:

KQxx
AQ109
Jx
xxx

I think it is truly awful to open 1C. Don't you think your friends would agree?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

fred, on May 11 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

Your post that I quoted seemed to imply otherwise - that partner should not be doubling 3NT if he thinks "they might make it". Sorry if I misunderstood.

My partners might confirm I double more often when they have a sure make than when I have a sure set.

fred, on May 11 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

The actual hand proves nothing about style differences since (as I said) I have no problem with a 1C opening with the actual hand.

Perhaps I was simply reading too much into the parts I have bolded of this earlier statement then:

fred, on May 11 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

Maybe it is a school of thought thing. The school I come from believes:
....
- in 3rd seat it is appropriate to open a strong 4-card major in preference to any 3-card minor, a weak 4-card minor, and even perhaps even a strong 4-card minor or some hands with a 5-card minor

That makes no reference to being light or having a particular hand type like 4414, but anyway I understand what you mean now.

Suffice to say in all this,
- I don't blame you for giving your honest bridge opinion, even though I don't completely agree with it.
- I don't blame the directors for their ruling, given the determination of a break in tempo.
- I don't blame Feldman/Zagorin for being upset that the director did determine there was a noticeable break in tempo, given that they feel there wasn't one and that the opponents seem to have been given a great deal of leeway in their handling of the situation. When one time his partner calls from the wrong side of the screen and the director doesn't even want to rule after that, and the next time his (much better known) opponent calls from the wrong side of the screen (after the hand instead of at the time of the potential infraction) and the director not only listens but agrees with his claim, it's hard to have great faith in the fairness of the system.

[Tomi2]

have one qestion:

is there only a black and a white for the TD in this situation?

wouldn't it be possible to find out a P and a (1-P) with
P=finding winning lead and 1-P = not and calculate some kind of mixed score?
P*-100+ (1-p)*600

of course when in doubt how big this P can be, you can decide in favor of the side who had no BIT.

For me first of all the BIT aspcet is not so clear, it was no minutes of thinking, so the delay could have been:
one of the player is writing and explaination of some bid
one of the players drinks some coffee before putting the pass card on the tray
one of the players has dropped his pen and picks it up
south intentionally did not put the tray directly back (it is his right)
one of the players saw a beautiful female kibitzer walking around and did not notice for a moment that it was his turn to pass

all those aspects (that can take 5 seconds extra) don't suggest a heart lead, last one even suggests a club lead


I thnik its unfair, that both questions "was there a BIT?" and "do we allow the lead" can only be answered with 0 or 1



and for the discussion what lead is automatic in that situation I agree with Josh, it's important what your style in opening bids (and your system) is. I like to play system where all bal. hands are opened 1C, even allowing 5 medicore dias and bad 5M holdings. So the fact partner opens 1C is one of the last aspects I think about when I try to find an opening lead. I don't know their style but you have to concider it

[ulven]

If there were a BIT, a heart lead is out. Otherwise I think a heart would be my choice; I don't consider a club automatic in any way. In fact, it's only my third choice for reasons below.

You can pretty much take the fact that declarer has at most one heart "to the bank" (ok, maybe xx once in a blue moon). Overcalling 1D and then jumping to 3NT is a sure indicator as with more tolerance, I'd expect a cuebid first to check on alternative denominations. I'd also expect declarer to have a double stopper in clubs and a non-running suit or a single stopper and a running suit. As I have the K of diamonds, I know the suit isn't solid -> double stopper.

Could still be right to lead a club knowing about the double stopper, but my second choice would in fact probably be a spade. Only with a good 5+card suit and strength in both majors would a club lead have any chance of success (declarer will have at least 5 diamond and 2 club tricks; if partner only stops one M, declarer can take at least 2 in the other). And then partner would have to find a lot of discards and may be subject to an endplay. A heart lead may then break communications for that endplay.

In fact unless partner has both major suit aces, I don't think a club is ever gonna do it - and if he has, he still need that good club suit. There are many more layouts were a major suit lead turns out successful. If declarer has KQx in clubs he may not be able to lead up to the honors twice for one thing (unless we lead one).

FYI, I'm not in the "open good 4-card major in 3rd" category (that school of thought).

[fred]

ulven, on May 11 2009, 08:08 PM, said:

As I have the K of diamonds, I know the suit isn't solid -> double stopper.

I agree with you (and others) who claim that partnership style is important. If you really open 1C in 3rd seat with xxx of clubs and KQ10x of hearts then of course that makes a difference. FWIW this type of problem is one of several reasons why I prefer to open 1H with such hands.

But with respect to the above quote, I think you are way off base. Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

AKx
x
AQJ10xx
QJx

?

To me bidding anything other than 3NT, even though you don't *know* you will take 9 tricks, is at least as bad as only doubling 3NT for a heart lead when you *know* it is going down. Of course you might not make 3NT with this hand, but given that you want to be there facing many terrible hands like:

Qxx
QJ10xx
9x
xxx

(which is hardly a 1H bid) 3NT seems pretty clear to me.

I would think it would be even more clear for you to bid 3NT with a single club stopper since apparently you don't expect your opponents to lead clubs on this auction. In fact, against you I might risk bidding 3NT with some hands don't contain a club stopper at all

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[ulven]

fred, on May 11 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

AKx
x
AQJ10xx
QJx

I don't like 3NT with that hand, I think that's odds against. But we do seem to agree that short hearts is an almost lock. Even if I play against you or someone bidding the same way, I'd still need to find partner with 5+ clubs or AK and the ace of hearts.

A heart lead still wins if dummy hits with something as

Qxx
AJTxx
xx
xxx

Given that dummy is unlikely to have 6 hearts (no weak 2 opening) and that declarer and I have at least 9 diamonds, it seems likely that dummy has at most 2 diamonds and often 3 clubs. On that layout (i.e. declarer has QJx in clubs), a club isn't good enough yet again; I have to many of those buggers for partner to be long.

Give dummy

QJx
KQT9x
xx
xxx

... and a heart is still a winner. And I bet you'd open 1C and never dream of doubling for a heart lead with

xxx
AJxx
xx
AKTx

Bottom line. We have to many minor suit cards for clubs to be a likely winner. Many layouts where a club beats it, a heart will still be alright (partner wins trick 1 and shifts to a low club). It's not that I'd never lead a club on this auction, just not with this shape, holding and auction.

Just my 2 cents.

[fred]

ulven, on May 11 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

fred, on May 11 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

AKx
x
AQJ10xx
QJx

I don't like 3NT with that hand, I think that's odds against. But we do seem to agree that short hearts is an almost lock. Even if I play against you or someone bidding the same way, I'd still need to find partner with 5+ clubs or AK and the ace of hearts.

A heart lead still wins if dummy hits with something as

Qxx
AJTxx
xx
xxx

We are talking about 2 different things.

I was responding to your contention that the presence of the King of diamonds in the actual hand suggests that declarer has a double club stopper.

I completely disagreed with this and showed an example hand with which I think it is clearly right to bid 3NT despite non-solid diamonds and only one club stopper.

You are still talking about the opening lead problem (by showing an example hand opposite my example hand where a heart lead is the winning lead if the opening leader happens to be dealt the hand that real opening leader was dealt).

But my post was not about the opening lead. It was about your statement concerning the double club stopper (that I disagree with).

The point is, you want to be in 3NT with my example hand opposite your example hand, even though it might go down if the King of diamonds is in the hand of the non-opening bidder and if the opponents find the killing opening lead (which will sometimes be a only heart, sometimes be only a club, and sometimes be either a heart or a club).

You also want to be in 3NT with my example hand opposite many other bad hands that are even worse than your example hand (which is why I think it is so obvious to bid 3NT with my example hand).

Meanwhile, you say you would not bid 3NT with my example hand, but you do not offer any better alternatives.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on May 11 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

- I don't blame Feldman/Zagorin for being upset that the director did determine there was a noticeable break in tempo, given that they feel there wasn't one and that the opponents seem to have been given a great deal of leeway in their handling of the situation. When one time his partner calls from the wrong side of the screen and the director doesn't even want to rule after that, and the next time his (much better known) opponent calls from the wrong side of the screen (after the hand instead of at the time of the potential infraction) and the director not only listens but agrees with his claim, it's hard to have great faith in the fairness of the system.

I've seen this type of issue mentioned before in other places. As someone who has yet to play with screens, what is the proper procedure for BIT. Is it a requirement that a director call *MUST* come from the other side of the screen? Or just that it usually should? In the non-screen case I know that some partnerships have one player who is much more likely to comment on a BIT than the other, but I'm not sure how that would translate to the screened world.

[MFA]

Mbodell, on May 11 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 11 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

- I don't blame Feldman/Zagorin for being upset that the director did determine there was a noticeable break in tempo, given that they feel there wasn't one and that the opponents seem to have been given a great deal of leeway in their handling of the situation. When one time his partner calls from the wrong side of the screen and the director doesn't even want to rule after that, and the next time his (much better known) opponent calls from the wrong side of the screen (after the hand instead of at the time of the potential infraction) and the director not only listens but agrees with his claim, it's hard to have great faith in the fairness of the system.

I've seen this type of issue mentioned before in other places. As someone who has yet to play with screens, what is the proper procedure for BIT. Is it a requirement that a director call *MUST* come from the other side of the screen? Or just that it usually should? In the non-screen case I know that some partnerships have one player who is much more likely to comment on a BIT than the other, but I'm not sure how that would translate to the screened world.

'Must' is too strong, but just barely. It's wrong procedure to call from the wrong side of the screen, and the director should be very quick to neglect the claim of a BIT if there is any doubt about it at all. It's the main point of the screen that it 'absorbs' a lot of huddles.

So with screens both players have to look after themselves and the partnership can't appoint a sherif to take care of all the nasty things.

[Cascade]

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to
decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call
attention to the fact."

I am not sure if a regulation with a different intent was in force for the Cavendish.

[debrose]

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to
decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call
attention to the fact."

I have always assumed this prohibition applies only before the hand is over. That makes sense, since a director call can draw attention to a break in tempo, or clarify who was thinking, so is inappropriate when such information can be relevant to the bidding or play. After the hand is over, I can't see what the problem is with any player calling the director. It does seem a disputed contention that there was a noticeable break in tempo should have more weight if the call comes from the other side of the screen. But I don't see any reason to automatically discount the claim just because it came from the same side of the screen.

[ulven]

fred, on May 11 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

ulven, on May 11 2009, 09:39 PM, said:

fred, on May 11 2009, 04:14 PM, said:

Would you really not bid 3NT with a hand like this (which contains only a single club stopper and non-solid diamonds):

AKx
x
AQJ10xx
QJx

I don't like 3NT with that hand, I think that's odds against. But we do seem to agree that short hearts is an almost lock. Even if I play against you or someone bidding the same way, I'd still need to find partner with 5+ clubs or AK and the ace of hearts.

We are talking about 2 different things.

I was responding to your contention that the presence of the King of diamonds in the actual hand suggests that declarer has a double club stopper.

I completely disagreed with this and showed an example hand with which I think it is clearly right to bid 3NT despite non-solid diamonds and only one club stopper.

/snip/

But my post was not about the opening lead. It was about your statement concerning the double club stopper (that I disagree with).

/snip/

Meanwhile, you say you would not bid 3NT with my example hand, but you do not offer any better alternatives.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

OK. I was still on the lead topic and tried to show that even if my claim about double stopper was wrong (as you seem positive about), a club lead is STILL far from automatic, I even suggest that it's the third choice. This was my intent.

Moving on to the topic regarding a hand jumping to 3NT with a single stopper:
A hand without a solid suit lacking a double stopper would always need cooperation from partner to reach a good game. The chosen path suggested here (1D + 3NT) will lead to a fair number of odds-against 3NT contracts.

The alternative I offer, which I clearly omitted from my previous post, was that these hands should start by doubling 1C. I think in fact that should you have your example hand you would yourself start with X and then bid diamonds. It's hard to see how that approach would lead to a missed game that 1D + 3NT would reach AND make.

So I still maintain that any hand that's strong enough to jump to 3NT in this auction has a solid suit or double stopper OR is catching up from misbidding his hand previously. AND, if that is the case, a club lead is still a sub-optimal choice.

[Cascade]

debrose, on May 12 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to
decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call
attention to the fact."

I have always assumed this prohibition applies only before the hand is over. That makes sense, since a director call can draw attention to a break in tempo, or clarify who was thinking, so is inappropriate when such information can be relevant to the bidding or play. After the hand is over, I can't see what the problem is with any player calling the director. It does seem a disputed contention that there was a noticeable break in tempo should have more weight if the call comes from the other side of the screen. But I don't see any reason to automatically discount the claim just because it came from the same side of the screen.

The quoted regulation goes on to say:

"If a player on the side of the screen receiving the
tray considers there may be unauthorized information consequent upon
an abnormally slow return of the tray the procedure in Law 16B2
applies.
In no circumstances will a delay of up to 20 seconds be considered to
have implications."

Which makes it clear that it is the player on the other side of the screen who can call the director.

I think it is clear from this context that the "shall call" prohibition extends beyond the end of the auction.

[paulg]

Cascade, on May 12 2009, 07:16 AM, said:

debrose, on May 12 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

This is what the WBF conditions of contest say:

"D. If a player takes more than a normal amount of time to
decide upon his call neither player on his side of the screen shall call
attention to the fact."

I have always assumed this prohibition applies only before the hand is over.  That makes sense, since a director call can draw attention to a break in tempo, or clarify who was thinking, so is inappropriate when such information can be relevant to the bidding or play.  After the hand is over, I can't see what the problem is with any player calling the director.  It does seem a disputed contention that there was a noticeable break in tempo should have more weight if the call comes from the other side of the screen.   But I don't see any reason to automatically discount the claim just because it came from the same side of the screen.

The quoted regulation goes on to say:

"If a player on the side of the screen receiving the
tray considers there may be unauthorized information consequent upon
an abnormally slow return of the tray the procedure in Law 16B2
applies.
In no circumstances will a delay of up to 20 seconds be considered to
have implications."

Which makes it clear that it is the player on the other side of the screen who can call the director.

I think it is clear from this context that the "shall call" prohibition extends beyond the end of the auction.

When I was the NPC at a European Championships, it was explained that calling a hesitation from the same side of the screen would seriously jeopardise your rights but would not automatically forfeit them.

Essentially, if the other side of the screen has not complained then there is strong probability that there was not a noticeable or relevant hesitation. But the Director can still rule that there was one, but the level of 'proof' required is much higher.

Paul

[OleBerg]

cherdanno, on May 11 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

I don't think there can be a debate about whether a club lead is a logical alternative. (I don't have an opinion on the ruling, though.)

And neither can there be any doubt that any hesitation before passing 3NT, suggests that a heart lead might be better.

So it all depends on one thing:

Was there a hesitation?

(There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

[gnasher]

Tomi2, on May 11 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

is there only a black and a white for the TD in this situation?

wouldn't it be possible to find out a P and a (1-P) with
P=finding winning lead and 1-P = not and calculate some kind of mixed score?
P*-100+ (1-p)*600

If the TD adjusts the score, that means that he thinks that a heart lead is illegal. If a heart lead is illegal, he can't give any percentage of the result for a heart lead.

Suppose that two players faced the same problem with the same unauthorised information; one of them led a club, but the other led a heart anyway. If we gave some percentage of a heart lead to the player who led a heart, we're allowing him to gain from his illegal action.

The director can award a score that is split between legal actions. For example, he can give
  60% of the result for a club lead + 40% of the result for a spade lead

[cicus]

OleBerg, on May 12 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

So it all depends on one thing:

Was there a hesitation?

(There might be something with protocol too, but thats a technicality.)

Watching it on BBO, it was clear that the final pass was preceeded by a significant huddle. I did not notice that the operator said something to that effect, I only noticed the break in tempo. In fact it was not a simple break in tempo, it was quite long (BBO logs, if they have time stamps, may reveal actually how long). When the heart was led I told my wife there might be a TD call here.