BBO Discussion Forums: Serious, but extremely so? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Serious, but extremely so?

#1 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2018-January-11, 09:34


This is a case that came up only last week somewhere in Holland. I don't know anything about the players or their systems, but the bidding, especially West's, is painful to see, but that's not the question.
Neither N's 1 nor S's 1 was alerted. Though allowed, these calls are unusual given the strength of the hands and therefore alertable, assuming a (silent) agreement, which I think is probable. I don't believe in accidental deviations when made by both players on the same hand. EW claim to be damaged by the missing alerts.
I think that W is mainly to blame. E's first double makes clear that he has opening values, after a very weak response by W the 2NT by E makes clear that his hand is stronger than 15...17 HCP, because he would otherwise have bid 1NT in the first round, as is their agreement. W didn't believe his partner, but NS instead, assuming that they had far more points than they in reality had. I strongly believe that 'Trust your partner' is the most important rule in bridge, W broke that rule and his bids are seriously idiotic. I consider this to be an extremely serious error and would therefore not adjust, notwithstanding the infractions by NS. Maybe they deserve a score of 3NT+1 for EW, but EW keep their result (2NT+2).
Joost
0

#2 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 18,872
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-January-11, 09:51

As we've been discussing in another thread, extremely serious error doesn't mean bad judgement. It's things like revokes, forgetting your own agreements, not noticing that an opponent has shown out of a suit, etc.

Also, the law says that the error has to be "unrelated to the infraction". In this case, if we assume that there is a partnership understanding regarding these bids, the misinformation was a big contributor to the error.

As for whether there are agreements about the NS bidding, 1 looks like a weak 3rd seat opening, although usually one only does this in a minor if you have a hand that can pass whatever major partner bids. Doing it with a heart void seems ill-advised and unusual. The South bidding seems more suspicious (don't they know about preemptive jump shifts in Holland?).

#3 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,205
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2018-January-11, 09:53

Your description would suggest that any error was not unrelated to the (assumed) infraction.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
1

#4 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,688
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2018-January-11, 09:58

If NS committed an infraction, and EW were damaged thereby, you cannot fail to adjust the score for NS to whatever you think might have happened absent the infraction. If EW committed an extremely serious error that was unrelated to the infraction, or gambled that either they would get a good score or the director would adjust the score in their favor, they don't get redress for whatever part of the damage they caused themselves. In this case, I see no evidence of gambling, and you said yourself that W "believed opps instead of partner" and that's certainly related to the alleged infraction(s). So I would not deny EW redress. As for the alleged infraction(s), they seem to be misinforming EW (2 counts) as to their agreements and, apparently, concealing a partnership understanding.

Maybe I'm crazy, or people in the Netherlands are more conservative than here, but North's hand looks like a fairly normal light third seat opening to me. As for South's 1, it's quite a bit understrength; one might rule it a psych, but the director should investigate why he bid it. Playing WJSs in competition, S might have bid 2.

Here in the ACBL, I don't think NS's failures to alert constitute infractions (neither bid requires an alert), so I wouldn't adjust the score. If they were infractions an assigned adjusted score, possibly weighted, would be appropriate, but absent more evidence indicating a CPU, I wouldn't give NS a PP.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
1

#5 User is offline   steve2005 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,882
  • Joined: 2010-April-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Canada
  • Interests:Bridge duh!

Posted 2018-January-11, 10:25

East has shown a monster hand. How can West not bid game?
How does West fail to bid over first double they can't have a much better hand?
EW cooked their own goose.


Sarcasm is a state of mind
1

#6 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,905
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2018-January-11, 13:32

IMO
  • North's 1 and South's 1 seem normal. It's surprising that they're alertable in Holland. It's doubtful that these bids damaged East-West.
  • East-West bidding is bad but nowhere near an extremely serious error.

1

#7 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,767
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2018-January-11, 13:34

View Poststeve2005, on 2018-January-11, 10:25, said:

East has shown a monster hand. How can West not bid game?
How does West fail to bid over first double they can't have a much better hand?
EW cooked their own goose.

I agree. The appalling bidding is unrelated to the lack of any alert, even if any is due. West should believe East, not the opponents, who are allowed to open on junk if permitted by the RA.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason. - barmar
0

#8 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,873
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2018-January-11, 13:58

NS bidding is fairly normal, except probably for North's 2 rebid (somewhat depending on their system). It's ironic that EW make some completely bizare calls and then demand that NS alert their much more normal auction.

No adjustment. In such a weak field, if we were going to adjust anytime someone made a slightly weird unalerted call, we would rare get any real bridge results.
... most of the new ideas I get are pretty "boring", mostly focusing on constructive methods rather than destructive ones --- Kungsgeten
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users