[billw55]

Pict, on Mar 31 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Mar 31 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

Pict, on Mar 31 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

Of course in bridge as in any game with an element of chance, from time to time the correct choice will fail at the table.

[jdonn]

Pict, on Mar 31 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Mar 31 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

Pict, on Mar 31 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

I think we believe in a broader definition of "right". Btw if my goal had been to get it "right" the way you define it then obviously I would have passed since double was likely to be wrong for the problem to be posted at all, given that double was so obvious.

[Pict]

billw55, on Mar 31 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

Pict, on Mar 31 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Mar 31 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

Pict, on Mar 31 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

It's amusing to be criticised for getting the last one right.

Getting it right???

You believe in a higher bridge reality where scoring less well is optimal?

Of course in bridge as in any game with an element of chance, from time to time the correct choice will fail at the table.

Let's consider the current hand.

If double (my choice) gets a really poor score, do I try to find out who voted for whatever was the winning outcome and pillory them any time they post?
No.

Do I think that double is completely wtp and if it goes wrong it is probably partner? No.

Did I know (and do I care) that there was a difference of opinion between Oleberg and dburn about the last case? No.

Do I think the purpose of a Forum is to agree with a few contributors (albeit they may be very successful players), I hope not.

[Phil]

RMB1, on Mar 31 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

It looks like the OP wants to know if there are logical alternatives to Double.

Kind of.

Sorry - this is drifting over to the Rules area - if you have the powers, go ahead and move the thread.

Phil's argument for pass: If 3♣ really is a limit raise, partner has roughly a five count (we have 13 / RHO has something like a weak NT (12) and LHO holds 10-ish) with no doubt a void club. ♠KJTxxx(x) feels right. LHO is bidding one more the for the road - certainly a void spade feels very likely. LHO certainly has six clubs, or five very good ones for this action (with ostensibly a 0-3-5-5). Our ♣KQ look like they might not take two tricks, and our ♠A isn't cashing. +100 versus +50 gains little equity at MPs, but -550 looks like absolute zero. (recognizing +200 may garner plenty). In either case, passing certainly does not feel like a failure to play bridge. Feel free to disagree, but this isn't really the reason for posting the hand.

At the table, the actual hand passed. She made a face-down lead and her partner asked about 3♣ and was told it was preemptive.

5♣ drifted off four. The TD (not me) was kibitzing (maybe an Orange County thing ) and rules no adjustment, because:

1. West has an 'obvious' double of 5♣, regardless of the meaning (many presume that here). West stated she would have doubled, had she known that 3♣ is preemptive. As a matter of fact the Director said after the ruling, "I feel sorry for you if you can't find a double of 5♣ with that hand".

2. East and West also play inverted minors, as do many in this bridge club. Therefore, they have a duty to ask what the bids mean and protect themselves.

3. East's question about the 3♣ was considered 'inappropriate', since dummy was about to be faced, and was thought to be (some form of) UI to her partner who stated she would double (definitely the wrong thing to say during the play).

So:

MI due to the failure to alert?

or not?

Any mitigating circumstances due to failure to ask or ask 'inappropriate questions'?

Comments appreciated. Thanks.

[Siegmund]

Quote

If I told you 3♣ was limit, are you still cracking?

If responder has values, that makes double obvious. (More obvious than it already is, that is.) Opposite a preempt there is at least some chance of us getting only 500 instead of 650 r/w.

You could convince me 5S was an LA, only at r/w and only if 3C is preemptive. Not sure you could convince me to actually bid it. You could not convince me passing was an LA no matter what the agreements and vulnerability were.

[Jlall]

How can partner have 7 spades and declarer have 3 clubs? If declarer really has 3 clubs then his shape is 3433.

If declarer is 3433 and dummy is 0-6 in the blacks and partner has KJTxxx and out, they ruff the spade lead and do what? cross to their hand and lead a high club. Ok, we split. If they win and drive out our club, we tap them again with a spade. Now what? We have the DA still, if they pull trumps we will simply run our spades. If they run their winners we will ruff in. etc etc.

So even on your proposed layout, they are going to go down on a tap.

I am not sure why partner would bid 3S with KJTxxx and out though after a limit raise, that is just asking to get doubled. Bidding 3S shows something. But even in that incredibly contrived layout, they are still extremely likely to go down.

Not to mention sometimes they bid 5C with a stiff spade. Sometimes the ace of clubs is with the opening bidder. Those things are not impossible.

I hate to say it but I agree with the very blunt director who said ""I feel sorry for you if you can't find a double of 5♣ with that hand"." It is honestly a huge joke to pass with this hand.

We have 1.25 trump tricks plus 2 aces plus a fourth trump with a very likely tap, PLUS a partner who has overcalled freely at the 3 level.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Mar 31 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

.........and rules no adjustment, because:

2. East and West also play inverted minors, as do many in this bridge club. Therefore, they have a duty to ask what the bids mean and protect themselves.

3. East's question about the 3♣ was considered 'inappropriate', since dummy was about to be faced, and was thought to be (some form of) UI to her partner who stated she would double (definitely the wrong thing to say during the play).

I would also rule no adjustment, because of the failure to double.

But these two parts bother me:

2) How can it be right to require self protection in this situation? 3C is clearly alertable if weak/preemptive. Asking about an unalerted call can easily give UI. Can anyone say they always ask about unalerted calls? E/W might play inverted, but how does that put the burden on them to divine that the opps also play inverted and failed to alert?
3)Asking a question about what a player is about to see in dummy is not inappropriate. The answer will tell the defending side what declarer expected to see in dummy --valuable information.

[Jlall]

Isn't this a spot where a split ruling can be applied where the offending side gets 5C X down whatever and other side keeps their score for failing to play bridge after the infraction? BLACKSHOE?!

[RMB1]

If I read the action correctly, the misinformation (failure to alert) came to light before the opening lead was faced. In which case the auction is not over and the last pass of the auction can be changed if it was made as a result of the misinformation. This would give the original hand the chance to correct his Pass to Double; even if Pass was a serious error, he is still more likely to double if 3C is preemptive. There should have been no need for a judgement ruling.

[OleBerg]

RMB1, on Mar 31 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

If I read the action correctly, the misinformation (failure to alert) came to light before the opening lead was faced. In which case the auction is not over and the last pass of the auction can be changed if it was made as a result of the misinformation. This would give the original hand the chance to correct his Pass to Double; even if Pass was a serious error, he is still more likely to double if 3C is preemptive. There should have been no need for a judgement ruling.

This is indeed a correct ruling.

However, had the misinformation been unearthed later, I would still not adjust score.

Not doubling is grievious a mistake, that it counts as a wild or gambling action. (Well, in my opinion, that is.)

[Phil]

RMB1, on Mar 31 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

If I read the action correctly, the misinformation (failure to alert) came to light before the opening lead was faced. In which case the auction is not over and the last pass of the auction can be changed if it was made as a result of the misinformation. This would give the original hand the chance to correct his Pass to Double; even if Pass was a serious error, he is still more likely to double if 3C is preemptive. There should have been no need for a judgement ruling.

Yes, however the Director was not aware that the opening leader could have changed their call.

[gwnn]

who voted for pass???

[jdonn]

I'm confused, why did Phil post "Phil's argument for pass"? Phil are you arguing for pass?

[Phil]

gwnn, on Mar 31 2010, 03:38 PM, said:

who voted for pass???

Look, I was biased, OK? I heard about the hand before the ruling. Spent some time trying to justify a pass - when if fact Double looks risk free. As far as 5♠ vs double - lets not go there

OK, double is obvious......

AND WITH THIS IN MIND....lets concentrate on the ruling. Please!

[OleBerg]

aguahombre, on Mar 31 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

Phil, on Mar 31 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

.........and rules no adjustment, because:

2. East and West also play inverted minors, as do many in this bridge club. Therefore, they have a duty to ask what the bids mean and protect themselves.

3. East's question about the 3♣ was considered 'inappropriate', since dummy was about to be faced, and was thought to be (some form of) UI to her partner who stated she would double (definitely the wrong thing to say during the play).

I would also rule no adjustment, because of the failure to double.

But these two parts bother me:

2) How can it be right to require self protection in this situation? 3C is clearly alertable if weak/preemptive. Asking about an unalerted call can easily give UI. Can anyone say they always ask about unalerted calls? E/W might play inverted, but how does that put the burden on them to divine that the opps also play inverted and failed to alert?
3)Asking a question about what a player is about to see in dummy is not inappropriate. The answer will tell the defending side what declarer expected to see in dummy --valuable information.

I'm with you on 3).

But not on 2). Actually, I might easily say, that if a system declaration is availble, and it hints that 3♣ might be weak, the opponents are supposed to protect themselves.

Whether a call should be alerted or not, is not in itself the factor that determines whether a player is obliged to protect himself by asking. (Being to lazy to look it up, my memory tells me, that it is actually when a call is not alerted, that you are sometimes obliged to protect yourselves.)

The TD must determine whether he thinks it is reasonable to assume, that the player in question should have suspected something. The TD will take various factors into account; How experienced is the player, how well do he know his opponents, is the treatment common in the players circles, and in principle any thing he might think of.

In this, if the North player herself plays inverted minors, and inverted minors (and the use of 3♣ as preemptive) are common in her circles, it is reasonable to say that she should have protected herself by asking.

Make the hand a little weaker (remove whatever you feel appropriate to make the decision to double very close.) Now we dont want to give a Shrewd North a complete free ride, just because the opponents forgot to alert; The option to pass and smile if it is correct, and call for the cops if it goes down.

[aguahombre]

Ok, Ole. Your points are obviously valid.

I just see too many times on-line and at the table, where opponents don't alert their alertable calls because they assume we either know the convention or play it the same way. I don't think that we are required to know that is how they play it; and asking about an unalerted call always feels wrong ---especially when we get the answer: "we didn't alert, did we?" and they feel we have somehow communicated information to partner.

[blackshoe]

There is, I think, a wrong impression some players have that if a call does not require an alert, it does not have a meaning which may require explanation. This goes along with the often heard director error: "which call did you want to ask about?" when a player has asked for an explanation of the entire auction, as the law suggests, and their opponents call the TD because they don't have a clue how they're supposed to answer that question.

Whether a call is alerted or not, opponents have a right to ask for an explanation of its meaning. "We didn't alert, did we?" is not only not an appropriate answer, it's a violation of the proprieties (see Law 74A2). And when a player asks for an explanation of the meaning of an entire auction, that's what he should get (this may, but does not necessarily, mean giving explanations of each individual call).

[Codo]

Why isn't this the clearest case of a splitscore from the last 20 years?

And a refreshing course for the TD seems to be obvious too. How can he not judge that the last call can be changed?

[OleBerg]

Codo, on Apr 1 2010, 08:38 AM, said:

Why isn't this the clearest case of a splitscore from the last 20 years?

I answered above, why NS can't get any redress. And almost the same goes for EW. They should have alerted, but it is not considered enough to adjust the score. The rules are not there to punish people, but to restore equity. If a pair has a lot such instances, (not alertn alertable bids), the TD can give a procedural penalty.

Quote

And a refreshing course for the TD seems to be obvious too. How can he not judge that the last call can be changed?

He might be called to the table later. Or he might have forgot the rule. It is quite new.

[Phil]

OleBerg, on Apr 1 2010, 02:28 AM, said:

They should have alerted, but it is not considered enough to adjust the score.

Its a difficult situation with the director not allowing the undo of the last pass with the knowledge of the MI.

Frankly, I don't think its relevant that West should double 5♣, regardless of the meaning. What is relevant is that she wanted to double a preemptive 3♣ / 5♣ but couldn't.

So a split score makes no sense nor does 'no adjustment'.