[peachy]

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 08:30 PM, said:

What you do as a player is irrelevant: if you are asked to rule, then you rule. If you want to start a thread on how you should act towards beginners, feel free, but we have been asked a problem here.

It is a strange fallacy that applying the rules upsets beginners and novices anyway: they are not surprised that they have gone wrong, it does not upset them, and they learn. It is people who have been ignoring the rules for thirty years who get upset when someone suggests they should follow the rules.

Spot on!

[Mbodell]

lamford, on Oct 26 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

o_fata, on Oct 26 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

I've asked around some players at the same level as North what would they do and 4 out of 5 said they would pass 3♣ now but they would have opened 3♠.

Then they are not both of the same ability as this North AND of the same style, which are the prerequisites for them to be polled.

What happens when you can't find any such player?

At a local sectional this weekend we had a BIT case where the, IMO, right ruling was made provisionally at the table, but the director went to poll.

The case was (us silent) opponents bid P-1♠(10-15 precision)-2♠(constructive)-BIT 2nt!(kokish try)-3♣! (forced) - BIT 3♦! (short suit diamond try) - BIT 3♠ (reject game try) - 4♠ (bid game anyways, and no it wasn't a slam try type hand).

♠ makes 10 tricks routinely on this hand.

Upon not being able to poll because everyone consulted would have bid game directly over 2♠ constructive already; the consensus after consulting with other directors, was to overturn the initial ruling and rule table results of 4♠= stand. Only after discussing this more with the directors (it happened on the last board of the session) and psuedo-appealing did we go back to the original ruling of 3♠+1.

[o_fata]

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

As blackshoe says, rule it 3♦ making whatever.

If he thinks it is a 2♠ bid, then he does not think it a 3♠ opening, and for such players, they would consider passing 3♦ - and some of them would.

..............

Quote

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid S, then 3S, all along.

Be serious! No beginner, opening with a pre-empt, considers the second round of bidding!

Strange statement.

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

Sven

[gordontd]

o_fata, on Oct 27 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

On what basis did you make this ruling?
On what basis did the AC adjust it as they did?

[lamford]

Mbodell, on Oct 27 2009, 01:28 AM, said:

What happens when you can't find any such player?

At a local sectional this weekend we had a BIT case where the, IMO, right ruling was made provisionally at the table, but the director went to poll. 

The case was (us silent) opponents bid P-1♠(10-15 precision)-2♠(constructive)-BIT 2nt!(kokish try)-3♣! (forced) - BIT 3♦! (short suit diamond try) - BIT 3♠ (reject game try) - 4♠ (bid game anyways, and no it wasn't a slam try type hand).

If you can't find such a player, you have to ask people to imagine they are such a player and think what they would bid. Not ideal, but the only solution.

For example, Collings opened 1NT on ♠AKQJxxxx ♥x ♦x ♣Axx against me once and it went 2H on his left, BIT and then pass from partner, and the director ruled that there was no LA to Collings' 4S. He would have been unable to find a player of the same style as Collings (sadly there were none, and haven't been many since) who would open 1NT on that hand.

Your example is different. The person clearly regarded the hand as only worth a game-try (from the facts you present). I presume therefore, without seeing the hand, that passing 3S was an LA for a person of that level and playing those methods.

[gordontd]

pran, on Oct 27 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

As blackshoe says, rule it 3♦ making whatever.

If he thinks it is a 2♠ bid, then he does not think it a 3♠ opening, and for such players, they would consider passing 3♦ - and some of them would.

..............

Quote

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid S, then 3S, all along.

Be serious! No beginner, opening with a pre-empt, considers the second round of bidding!

Strange statement.

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

Sven

And do you think they planned their later action when they were deciding on their first call?

[Cascade]

o_fata, on Oct 27 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

This seems a strange appeal committee ruling.

The table bid to 3♠ and presumably made ten tricks.

But if we are considering whether 3♠ was allowed it either was and 3♠ is the contract or it wasn't and 3♣ was the contract.

There is as far as I am aware no basis in law to allow some fraction of 3♠ (if it was an illegal action) and no basis to take away some fraction of 3♠ (if it was a legal action).

On this case in general it is far from clear to me that a slow PASS from south demonstably suggests bidding on. Particularly if south was an inexperienced players. Inexperienced players can have doubt even when the problem is a "WTP?". In this case the slow PASS could have been contemplating Double or bidding a new suit or raising. On the other hand north has the best part of seven tricks in her hand and a partner who barring an east west accident is bound to have some values. Bidding 3♠ seems very much a "middle of the road" action to me.

[pran]

gordontd, on Oct 27 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 27 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

As blackshoe says, rule it 3♦ making whatever.

If he thinks it is a 2♠ bid, then he does not think it a 3♠ opening, and for such players, they would consider passing 3♦ - and some of them would.

..............

Quote

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid S, then 3S, all along.

Be serious! No beginner, opening with a pre-empt, considers the second round of bidding!

Strange statement.

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

Sven

And do you think they planned their later action when they were deciding on their first call?

Yes, I can tell for sure that at least some of them did with just the logic I referred to.

But is it really material whether they planned it or were just ready to do it when they doscovered that the preempt didn't shut out opponents?

Sven

[campboy]

o_fata, on Oct 27 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

Neither of these make any sense. Either the 3♠ bid is legal, in which case score stands, or it is illegal, in which case the only possible contract if North passes instead is 3♣ -- and it seems obvious that this will make 10 tricks.

Perhaps you meant to say 3♣+1 though, in which case I agree with your ruling (and understand what the AC were thinking, but their ruling is an (illegal) Reveley ruling).

[gordontd]

pran, on Oct 27 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

But is it really material whether they planned it or were just ready to do it when they doscovered that the preempt didn't shut out opponents?

Yes, it's material, because you were taking issue with a statement about beginners not considering the second round of bidding.

[o_fata]

campboy, on Oct 27 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

o_fata, on Oct 27 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

Perhaps you meant to say 3♣+1 though, in which case I agree with your ruling (and understand what the AC were thinking, but their ruling is an (illegal) Reveley ruling).

Yes. Sorry. I ment 3♣+1

[blackshoe]

pran, on Oct 27 2009, 04:34 AM, said:

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

I've seen beginners do this but I think their logic, such as it is, goes more like "I have a preempt", and then, when the opponents compete, "I have a preempt, but maybe I should have preempted higher last time". They do not plan ahead.

[Cascade]

o_fata, on Oct 28 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

campboy, on Oct 27 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

o_fata, on Oct 27 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

Perhaps you meant to say 3♣+1 though, in which case I agree with your ruling (and understand what the AC were thinking, but their ruling is an (illegal) Reveley ruling).

Yes. Sorry. I ment 3♣+1

Do you know on what basis the appeal committee made its ruling?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Oct 28 2009, 04:38 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 27 2009, 04:34 AM, said:

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

I've seen beginners do this but I think their logic, such as it is, goes more like "I have a preempt", and then, when the opponents compete, "I have a preempt, but maybe I should have preempted higher last time". They do not plan ahead.

Isn't irrelevant whether or not they plan ahead.

What is relevant is whether or not at the time of the 3♠ bid PASS is a logical alternative.

The reasoning 'he only bid 2♠ the first time so for this player PASS is a logical alternative' is flawed.

[blackshoe]

How is it flawed?

[Cascade]

Because there is new information from a round of bidding which provides a context in which to determine what is a logical alternative.

I now have AKQ 7th and the auction has died at 3♣ and I have shown a less offensive hand what do I bid now is the question that the player needs to answer. It is far from automatic that because the player underbid on the previous round that he will necessarily underbid on the next round.

[blackshoe]

It's also far from automatic that he will bid on this round.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Oct 27 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

Because there is new information from a round of bidding which provides a context in which to determine what is a logical alternative.

I now have AKQ 7th and the auction has died at 3♣ and I have shown a less offensive hand what do I bid now is the question that the player needs to answer.  It is far from automatic that because the player underbid on the previous round that he will necessarily underbid on the next round.

I have highlighted what I think is the flaw in your line of reasoning in this particular case, and in general in cases like this where someone preempts then bids again when UI points that direction. You haven't shown a less offensive hand than you hold. If you open 2♠ on this hand, then (unless you can demonstrate otherwise) you have shown exactly this offensive of a hand because 2♠ encompasses the hand on which you bid it. You have no extra offense for a player whose agreement is to open 2♠ on this hand.

Your argument suggests the possibility that the player intentionally misbid earlier in the auction (since if it was unintentional he still wouldn't know on the next round that he misbid). It's a tough sell to make, and rightfully so as it's far too easy to lie about if it's not true.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Oct 28 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

It's also far from automatic that he will bid on this round.

That is a different argument.