[ulven]

This was a really amusing read form todays EC bulletin (p15). You have:

♠6
♥AQ764
♦K96432
♣9

Red/white.

(4♠) - pass - (pass) - X
(pass) - ?

Double is 'optional'. What would you bid?

I'd imagine lots of 4NT, WTP, optional X or not.
Elinescu passed vs Norway for +800!

Wladow had:

♠AKQ74
♥5
♦A875
♣KQ3

Now that's what I call bridge...

[helene_t]

I would be suspicious. But of course, extraneous information does not necessarily come from partner, especially when playing with screens.

Also depends on what "optional" really means.

[hanp]

In the bulletin write-up it does not say that the double was optional, was this the alert given at the table?

[ulven]

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 06:13 AM, said:

In the bulletin write-up it does not say that the double was optional, was this the alert given at the table?

I checked their CC. It says double is optional vs preempts.

[cherdanno]

Btw, it seems quite unusual to play optional doubles against weak twos, but that's what their CC says.

[helene_t]

If it is optional already vs 3♣, maybe it is penalty against 4♠?

[hanp]

ulven, on Jun 30 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 06:13 AM, said:

In the bulletin write-up it does not say that the double was optional, was this the alert given at the table?

I checked their CC. It says double is optional vs preempts.

If your posts weren't so sad I would post LOL.

Maybe you should check your facts before publically accusing a pair of cheating.

[cherdanno]

I wonder when BBO will get a cease-and-desist letter...

[RMB1]

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

In the bulletin write-up it does not say that the double was optional, was this the alert given at the table?

I was commentating: there was no alert of the X by the vugraph operator.
It was later explained as penalties/to play.

[ulven]

Optional or penalty, regardless I find this deal amusing. Finding partner with AKQxx under a 4S-opener is pretty rare. I'd imagine there are many other holdings that constitutes a penalty/optional double that would make slam playable when I have a decent 5-6 in two other suits. X as 'to play' is a rather unusual agreement and even 'penalty' in an auction like this often means partner is allowed to remove with extreme shape.

hanp: Aren't you overreacting? I did check their CC before posting and I have not accused anyone of cheating. What other facts are you refering to? I do find this deal weird and amusing. Aren't we allowed to discuss or share unusual bidding decisions in championship matches? I'm pretty sure passing the double would be a minority choice.

RMB1: Could you judge if Wladow did seem to consider bidding or it was clear to pass?

[Fluffy]

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

ulven, on Jun 30 2010, 06:20 AM, said:

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 06:13 AM, said:

In the bulletin write-up it does not say that the double was optional, was this the alert given at the table?

I checked their CC. It says double is optional vs preempts.

If your posts weren't so sad I would post LOL.

Maybe you should check your facts before publically accusing a pair of cheating.

what are you talking about han?, maybe you should check your facts before publically acusing someone of acusing someone of cheating LOL

[hanp]

What do you mean Fluffy?

[hanp]

Passing an optional double with 5-6 in the unbid suits is very suspicious to say the least, wouldn't you say?

But now we find out that it was explained as penalties, and that Ulven based his comment "double was optional" on the fact that their convention card says "double is optional against preempts". Why didn't he post that instead?

[ulven]

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

But now we find out that it was explained as penalties, and that Ulven based his comment "double was optional" on the fact that their convention card says "double is optional against preempts". Why didn't he post that instead?

Why didn't I post that?

Well, I thought 4S was a preempt and that 'double is optional against preempts' meant that double was optional in this auction. I didn't know their CC was incomplete or that my wording in this regard would make a difference. My mistake.

Still think you are overreacting.

[hanp]

Overreacting in what way? Maybe it would help if you clarified whether you did or you did not mean to suggest that this pair was cheating. I thought you did, Fluffy apparently thought you didn't, so maybe I misinterpreted.

[bid_em_up]

..

[RMB1]

ulven, on Jun 30 2010, 01:06 PM, said:

RMB1: Could you judge if Wladow did seem to consider bidding or it was clear to pass?

The double by Wladow (East) was more-or-less in tempo. The pass of the double by West was out of tempo.

[ulven]

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Overreacting in what way? Maybe it would help if you clarified whether you did or you did not mean to suggest that this pair was cheating. I thought you did, Fluffy apparently thought you didn't, so maybe I misinterpreted.

I didn't - and I thought I clarified that in my third post earlier. I guess I have to spell it out. I'm surprised btw you think (assume?) I would do something like that in a BBO forum post based on a deal in bulletin writeup.

Playing a European championship takes its toll and there are many unsual bidding decisions by even the best players. It must be possible to report or discuss some of these without cheating allegations being thrown around. If I wanted to insinuate something on this deal I would probably have chosen a poll with the 5-6 hand and asked people what they would bid.

Now I wrote it was an amusing read and stated the page in the bulletin it appeared and as it turned out we now got clarification from RMB1 about the actual meaning of double. Great!

Off-topic:
This actually reminds me about the discussion about Fantoni's psychic 2S overcall in the Cavendish the other year, when the opps could make a grand if I remember correctly. When I later ran into Fulvio I asked him about the hand. He said I was the first to ask him in person about it all and was totally fine about discussing it. No problem and a rational explanation (almost grateful of my inquiry). He said everyone else just wrote a lot of stuff and thought this and thought that....

[pooltuna]

ulven, on Jun 30 2010, 05:42 AM, said:

This was a really amusing read form todays EC bulletin (p15). You have:

♠6
♥AQ764
♦K96432
♣9

Red/white.

(4♠) - pass - (pass) - X
(pass) - ?

Double is 'optional'. What would you bid?

I'd imagine lots of 4NT, WTP, optional X or not.
Elinescu passed vs Norway for +800!

Wladow had:

♠AKQ74
♥5
♦A875
♣KQ3

Now that's what I call bridge...

I would probably have called 5♦ as I assume the X has at least 2 places to play and I don't like ♣

[hanp]

ulven, on Jun 30 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

hanp, on Jun 30 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Overreacting in what way? Maybe it would help if you clarified whether you did or you did not mean to suggest that this pair was cheating. I thought you did, Fluffy apparently thought you didn't, so maybe I misinterpreted.

I didn't - and I thought I clarified that in my third post earlier. I guess I have to spell it out. I'm surprised btw you think (assume?) I would do something like that in a BBO forum post based on a deal in bulletin writeup.

Playing a European championship takes its toll and there are many unsual bidding decisions by even the best players. It must be possible to report or discuss some of these without cheating allegations being thrown around. If I wanted to insinuate something on this deal I would probably have chosen a poll with the 5-6 hand and asked people what they would bid.

Now I wrote it was an amusing read and stated the page in the bulletin it appeared and as it turned out we now got clarification from RMB1 about the actual meaning of double. Great!

Off-topic:
This actually reminds me about the discussion about Fantoni's psychic 2S overcall in the Cavendish the other year, when the opps could make a grand if I remember correctly. When I later ran into Fulvio I asked him about the hand. He said I was the first to ask him in person about it all and was totally fine about discussing it. No problem and a rational explanation (almost grateful of my inquiry). He said everyone else just wrote a lot of stuff and thought this and thought that....

In that case I misinterpreted and certainly overreacted.