[bluejak]

[OleBerg]

bluejak, on Jun 21 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

Quote

A weighted or artificial score (if allowed), just around -100, wouldn't make me raise an eyebrow.

There is no legal basis for an artificial score, and a weighted score means we give weightings to various scores, not that we apply a figure like -100.

I based it on Law 12.C.1.c and 12.C.1.d:

"© In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids
it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities
of a number of potential results.
(d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may
award an artificial adjusted score."

Isn't that legal basis? (Honest question, not trying to be smartass.)

[bluejak]

Yes, but it does not apply to a case like this. Once an auction has developed it is always possible, and usually easy, to weight it without any need for Law 12C1D. I believe the only times you should consider such a Law is when you have to assign from a position like Pass Pass where you have no sensible basis for adjustment. To be honest, I do not know why this Law appeared, but if you forget it with a developed auction you will not go far wrong.

[Fluffy]

4♦ is not a great bid, it is risking defending a ame that doesn't make for -300 against +100.

But what it doesn't risk is going -800 against nothing, if the opponents have fit, and LHO has more clubs than diamonds, and RHO has more hearts than spades it is very hard to construct hands where we are catched at the 4 level for a big penalty.


So IMO, he risked maybe too much because there is a hazzard, but he got a bad result because of another hazzard that was almost impossible. North doesn't deserve such outcome IMO.

[OleBerg]

bluejak, on Jun 21 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

Yes, but it does not apply to a case like this. Once an auction has developed it is always possible, and usually easy, to weight it without any need for Law 12C1D. I believe the only times you should consider such a Law is when you have to assign from a position like Pass Pass where you have no sensible basis for adjustment. To be honest, I do not know why this Law appeared, but if you forget it with a developed auction you will not go far wrong.

Where can I read about this?

[blackshoe]

You just did.

[jallerton]

peachy, on Jun 21 2010, 03:44 AM, said:

It sounds like EW did not have an agreement on what the Dbl meant so there was MI which contributed to North's 4D call and subsequent damage.  Had the Dbl been explained correctly as "no agreement" or even "standard" or something like that, North would have passed 3H and EW would have played in 4H, going off at least 2.  That is what should be the adjusted score for both sides.  West has extras so he is accepting a strong invite.  Besides, 3H might even have been forcing, I don't know EW methods.

The TD should ascertain whether the correct explanation was "no agreement" or something else. Assuming "no agreement" and that support doubles are quite common in this type of Australian event, then it is quite likely (but by no means certain) that this particular North would have bid 4♦ anyway. Although East has UI, he has no logical alternative to doubling 4♦/4♠ and hence a weighted score including a fair percentage of what happened at the table seems indicated.

Quote

I completely understand North's logic in bidding 4D; it is risky but nowhere near the standard of irrational or gambling. 

Exactly. Just because some posters (including me) would not have bid 4♦ or even have "seriously considered" bidding 4♦ themselves, that does not make the call "wild or gambling".

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on Jun 21 2010, 12:11 PM, said:

4♦ is not a great bid, it is risking defending a ame that doesn't make for -300 against +100.

But what it doesn't risk is going -800 against nothing, if the opponents have fit, and LHO has more clubs than diamonds, and RHO has more hearts than spades it is very hard to construct hands where we are catched at the 4 level for a big penalty.


So IMO, he risked maybe too much because there is a hazzard, but he got a bad result because of another hazzard that was almost impossible. North doesn't deserve such outcome IMO.

This was pretty much my view, although I felt in the absolute worst case scenario, there could be a telephone number against nothing going on.

Give partner xx, QJx, xx, xxxxxx with opps having 3334 14 opposite 3631 11 and this is not a pretty sight.

On balance most of the time at this vulnerability, 4D is not going to lose big and has some prospects of gain, so I wouldn't consider it wild or gambling.

Give partner a relatively normal xx, xxx, Kxxx, xxxx and if diamonds break so 4H may not make, then you're only one off in 4D.

[shevek]

bluejak, on Jun 21 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

shevek, on Jun 21 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

I was under time pressure (entering scores from datum sheets) with nobody to refer to. Small likelihood of an appeal.

Anyway, I just threw the board out, though that looks too generous to North's carefree action.

What do people think?

You should not make illegal rulings because you are under time pressure, and throwing the board out is illegal. What you should do is get rid of the time pressure. You score up, announce the result as "subject to ruling", and then you have a week to make your ruling - assuming this was a club event. You can then phone someone else for help [me, if you do not mind paying international call rates!] and take your time.

Thx David,

Then you said

"You should never be giving an immediate ruling in a judgement case. You seem to think an immediate ruling was necessary: it is not, it is poor directing [sorry sad.gif ].
The correct procedure with a judgement ruling always is to put the table score in as the score and adjust later if you make an adjustment. "

Okay I get that now. However, I didn't want to make the final round draw (due in 2 minutes) based on the table result, which I was pretty sure I wouldn't let stand. That would swing 4 VPs. Can I make a ruling of say EW 3H -100, draw based on that, then change that later?

Nick

[bluejak]

Well, you can, but I strongly advise against it. If after you finally consider it and look at it carefully and consider and consult and poll you finally decide there should be no adjustment you have set up a very justifiable complaint.

Follow the accepted method, never adjust quickly in a judgement case, always do the next round on table result, and no-one has a justified complaint. Do it any other way, and they have.

[mink]

Quote Bluejak Posted on Jun 21 2010, 03:51 PM

Quote

From the second, I would judge whether the 4♦ bid was a SEWoG. In my view it is crazy - I thought I was aggressive laugh.gif  - so I would apply Law 12C1B and split the score unless the second poll convinces me otherwise. ...

There was one thing in this thread that really did surprise me: about half of the posters thought that the 4♦ bid was wild or gambling. Therefore I posted the North hand on the German bridge mailing list, asking what North should call given that the double was explained as "support". I got 11 responses. Most of them voted for pass, and most of them stated they would have bid their 2-suiter at once instead of 1♠. One poster considered 4♦, but finally chose pass in as he hoped that opps do not make 4♥ and he wanted to tell them as little as possible about his hand. One thought that something should be done, but the preferred to double which he thought would be slightly better than 4♦.

Now I told them that actually North had bid 4♥ and asked them to decide if this was a serious error, wild or gambling. This time I got 3 responses all saying that the 4♦ was not SEWoG. I assume that if any of the original 11 posters had a different opinion, he would have posted that.

The poll in the German mailing list was different from the presentation here: The Germans did not know that the 4♦ bid resulted in a very bad score for N/S - they only knew the North hand and the bidding up the North's second bid. This way, they were exactly in the same position as the original North and not possibly biased by knowing the other 3 hands and the final score as it happened.

Karl

[axman]

mink, on Jun 24 2010, 04:19 AM, said:

Quote Bluejak Posted on Jun 21 2010, 03:51 PM

Quote

From the second, I would judge whether the 4♦ bid was a SEWoG. In my view it is crazy - I thought I was aggressive laugh.gif  - so I would apply Law 12C1B and split the score unless the second poll convinces me otherwise. ...

There was one thing in this thread that really did surprise me: about half of the posters thought that the 4♦ bid was wild or gambling. Therefore I posted the North hand on the German bridge mailing list, asking what North should call given that the double was explained as "support". I got 11 responses. Most of them voted for pass, and most of them stated they would have bid their 2-suiter at once instead of 1♠. One poster considered 4♦, but finally chose pass in as he hoped that opps do not make 4♥ and he wanted to tell them as little as possible about his hand. One thought that something should be done, but the preferred to double which he thought would be slightly better than 4♦.

Now I told them that actually North had bid 4♥ and asked them to decide if this was a serious error, wild or gambling. This time I got 3 responses all saying that the 4♦ was not SEWoG. I assume that if any of the original 11 posters had a different opinion, he would have posted that.

The poll in the German mailing list was different from the presentation here: The Germans did not know that the 4♦ bid resulted in a very bad score for N/S - they only knew the North hand and the bidding up the North's second bid. This way, they were exactly in the same position as the original North and not possibly biased by knowing the other 3 hands and the final score as it happened.

Karl

Merely because something may work out it does follow that it is prudent to do it.

Merely because a large number actually** do things because they may work out it does follow that it is prudent to do it.

Frequently the hand belongs to the opponents: they suggest it, your hand and partner’s bidding suggests it- and very often at those times it is prudent to act on it.

And sometimes the hand belongs to the opponents: they suggest it, your hand suggests it, but partner’s bidding doesn’t- and it still is best to let sleeping dogs lie.

The point being that 4D in the subject auction is highly unsound.

The N hand in question falls under the former rather than the latter since the opponents have suggested it is their hand, partner has not suggested otherwise, to bid 4D contracts for 10 tricks and N’s cards will support only 5 or 6 unless partner makes a significant contribution [and even still 6 tricks may need some help from pard].

For instance, I held 4 such hands today and because of prudence scored considerably better by staying out rather than taking the push. And on the other side pard held two such hands and by not acting prudently turned two good scores into two zeros. Today, acting prudently would have been batting 1.000


** it is my experience that players that frequently take ‘long shot’ actions like this that are successful coincidently have UI available. And, conversely, players that frequently take long shot actions with UI mostly avoid such long shot actions when they don’t have UI.

[Codo]

I do not understand your approach Axman.

You are non vul. vs. vul.
You have two five card suit.
They have an established fit. (At least they told you so...)

And of course 4 ♦ catters for the cases where the hand belongs to the opponents. You simply hope to drive them a level higher or to find a cheap defence.

How can a bid in your second suit under this conditions be IWOG?
Nobody discusses whether or not 4 ♦ is good or winning bridge. We agree that it is not, but there is a difference between bids we do not choose and IWOG bids.

[gwnn]

My partner also knows about the vulnerability. My opps did not promise more than 8 hearts, notwithstanding everyone's opinions. They are in the middle of an invitational sequence and I have two suits with no high honours except the Ace (these are the worst suits to compete in). Even hoping for a 9 card fit is pushing it and you want to bid on the 4 level, it is complete speculation, it has nothing to do with bridge, it is exactly gambling and perfectly wild.

[olegru]

gwnn, on Jun 24 2010, 07:18 AM, said:

My partner also knows about the vulnerability.

It is correct.
But does he know about 5 cards diamond?

Just change Partners diamond and clubs and 4♦ bid will be a huge winner.

It is not a good bid, sure.
But it is not even close to be wild and gambling in my opinion.
==============================================

I posted problem on the Russian bridge forum, asking to choose the bid after the support double.

http://www.gambler.r...howtopic=492898


The possible answers are:
- clear pass;
- Both pass and 4 d make sense, will choose pass;
- Both pass and 4 d make sense, will choose 4d;
- clear 4d;
- other

Currently I have 19 replies and only 8 people think it is a clear pass.
More than 50% of responders are considering 4d bid and some of them actually choosing it.
Granted I do not know level of majority of my responders, but I do not know level of actual players either.

I believe bid well inside the definition of LA cannot be consider as a wild is it?