BBO Discussion Forums: Stopping in Time - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

Stopping in Time SB unhappy again

#1 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2018-October-25, 07:35


Teams; 4H by North; lead J; Table result NS+620

SB was unhappy again on the above board from a North London club this week. RR, North, attempted to open with a weak 2 and had pulled out the stop card when SB, West, pointed out to him that he was not dealer. "DIRECTOOOOOOOR", summoned SB, "I think there may be some UI issues here", he added. OO arrived and clarified that a stop card was not a bid or call and the auction reverted to South who had to carefully avoid taking ANY advantage of the UI. ChCh, South, opened 1S, and the Rabbit vaguely recalled that he was too weak to bid 2H and responded 1NT. ChCh raised to 2NT, which RR thought was 18-19, as a 1NT rebid would have been 15-17, so he closed proceedings with a jump to 4H and even he managed to ruff a club in dummy despite wrongly drawing two rounds of trumps prematurely, after the J was ducked to RR's king.

"I think South's 2NT bid took advantage of the UI that his partner had one of two hand types, either a three level pre-empt or a weak two in hearts or diamonds," SB's tirade began, "and the risk that partner had a balanced 5-count had been eliminated". He paused for breath. "ChCh had an ethical duty to carefully avoid taking ANY advantage of the UI," he continued, "and Pass was a logical alternative which would have been considered and selected by a significant number of South's peers. Not that ChCh knows what ethics means - I am sure he thinks it is one of the home counties. And, finally, RR could have been aware that his infraction of taking out the stop card could damage the non-offending side."

"That's rubbish", responded ChCh, "only an idiot would risk RR bidding 4H or signing off in 3C or 3D over the 2NT rebid". So, he continued, "2NT, which increased the chance of RR playing the hand in game, was the call that had to be chosen".

How do you rule, and this time the hand actually occurred, with some embellishment perhaps?

Extra Information: NS were playing a weak NT and three weak twos and 1NT was non-forcing, 5-9 as they were not playing 2/1FG. 2NT was invitational, not 18-19 as RR mistakenly thought.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2018-October-26, 13:54

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
1

#2 User is offline   Tramticket 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,070
  • Joined: 2009-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent (Near London)

Posted 2018-October-25, 08:42

What strength no trump do they play? Was the 1NT opening avoided due to the five-card major? Or because they play a 12-14 NT? Or because of UI? Also is the 1NT response non-forcing?

For me (playing a non-forcing 6-9 response), passing the 1NT response is a logical alternative and I would probably pass at match points. But playing teams and vulnerable, I would raise to 2NT.
0

#3 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-October-25, 08:47

I assume 1NT was not forcing?

But even if it's not, passing with 16 HCP is a gross underbid. And if he had done so and it worked out well, he'd likely run into the same problem of being accused of taking advantage of the UI that North has a weak hand.

ChCh seems to have been in a no-win situation. But I also think that means he's in a no-lose situation -- whatever he does, he can explain that the UI could also suggest the opposite action. If it can suggest either one, it doesn't demonstrably suggest a specific one.

#4 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,202
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2018-October-25, 09:33

View PostTramticket, on 2018-October-25, 08:42, said:

What strength no trump do they play? Was the 1NT opening avoided due to the five-card major? Or because they play a 12-14 NT? Or because of UI? Also is the 1NT response non-forcing?

Could you also please explain clearly what strength 2NT should show in their system?

For us this hand would be an automatic 1NT opening and then an invitational transfer to hearts, raised to game. If I understand correctly, having no logical alternative to 1NT and no peers being likely to pass the invite we could not be accused of anything.
0

#5 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2018-October-25, 13:40

First of all, I assume ChCh is playing a 'flexible' weak NT i.e. 12-14 points but distribution could vary to reduce the chance that RR could play the hand.

I have no problem with 1 Spade.
1 have no problem with 1NT from RR - he has no UI so can bid what he wants.

I think however, that in most cases ChCh should be forbidden from raising to 2NT (or rather the board should be scored as 1NT+1 for NS.)

The reason is that when RR bids 1NT only, it is 90% certain that his 'stop' bid was going to show a weak 2 in hearts. This makes ChCh hand much better than it could have been - hence his raise allowing RR to bid game on the 'extra' values shown.

However SB has damned himself. For the class of player as ChCh there is, indeed, no logical alternative to bidding 2NT. (Which raises the question - if you are an unethical player and an unethical player would always do something unethical, doesn't that mean that there is no LA to that unethical action - and so should be allowed?)
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#6 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2018-October-25, 18:44

View Postbarmar, on 2018-October-25, 08:47, said:

I assume 1NT was not forcing?

But even if it's not, passing with 16 HCP is a gross underbid.

SB strongly disagrees and has even done a Bridge Analyser 10,000 hand simulation, which shows that Pass is the only LA. Opposite 5-9 points with 0-2 spades, and 2-6 in each of the other suits he had the following matrix, with the top line being the number of tricks made in 3NT, and the bottom line being the percentage.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
5 17 31 30 12 3 2 0 0

Partner will clearly only accept when top of the range, but this was still only 17% of 3NT making. Of course if partner has six hearts, game in hearts rates to be good, and that is increased by the use of the Stop card.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#7 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2018-October-25, 18:46

View Postweejonnie, on 2018-October-25, 13:40, said:

Which raises the question - if you are an unethical player and an unethical player would always do something unethical, doesn't that mean that there is no LA to that unethical action - and so should be allowed?)

No, those polled should be of the highest ethics, but playing the same system and of the same ability.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#8 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2018-October-25, 18:53

View Postweejonnie, on 2018-October-25, 13:40, said:

The reason is that when RR bids 1NT only, it is 90% certain that his 'stop' bid was going to show a weak 2 in hearts.

I can't agree with 90% - he could have had a weak 2D or 2H, or a pre-empt in clubs, diamonds or hearts. The weak twos are more likely, so we might go with 35-35-10-10-10 for each of the five possible hands.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#9 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2018-October-25, 22:10

I agree with SB. Passing with 16 is normal in Acol. 2NT is indeed invitational but most define it as 17-18.

CC's comments don't help him. If he had said that this pair always raises with a decent 16 then ok. But his self serving comment that 2NT maximizes the risk that North declares is irrelevant. It is also wrong - surely pass maximizes the risk, unless he assumes that West would balanced in that case.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#10 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2018-October-26, 03:29

I don’t think that the ethics of ChCh should play a role. Since there was no poll, the TD should answer the question whether there was a LA to 2NT. My decision would be there was, pass, and the replies posted are sufficient support for that. The AS would be 1NT+1.
Joost
0

#11 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2018-October-26, 03:32

View Posthelene_t, on 2018-October-25, 22:10, said:

If he had said that this pair always raises with a decent 16 then ok.

Without a CC or other convincing evidence I just don’t believe players that claim “that they would always” do this or that.
Joost
1

#12 User is offline   Tramticket 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,070
  • Joined: 2009-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent (Near London)

Posted 2018-October-26, 03:45

View Postlamford, on 2018-October-25, 18:44, said:

SB strongly disagrees and has even done a Bridge Analyser 10,000 hand simulation, which shows that Pass is the only LA. Opposite 5-9 points with 0-2 spades, and 2-6 in each of the other suits he had the following matrix, with the top line being the number of tricks made in 3NT, and the bottom line being the percentage.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
5 17 31 30 12 3 2 0 0

Partner will clearly only accept when top of the range, but this was still only 17% of 3NT making. Of course if partner has six hearts, game in hearts rates to be good, and that is increased by the use of the Stop card.


If I understand your simulation correctly, 3NT makes 17% of the time opposite a partner holding 5-9 HCP? Let's assume that partner would accept an invite holding 8-9 HCP and this represents about 40% of the 5-9 holdings ... now our success rate is estimated as 17/40= 42.5% of the cases where the partnership bids to 3NT. This is starting to get close to the odds that we need for bidding a vulnerable game at IMPs....

Helene_T is correct in her assertion that standard Acol teaching defines a 2NT raise as 17-18 HCP*. But I hate missing vulnerable games at IMPs and will tend to view a lot of 16-point hands as worth an invite. I certainly see both Pass and 2NT as L.A.s


* - I find that many players who purport to play Acol do not know this.
0

#13 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2018-October-26, 05:43

View PostTramticket, on 2018-October-26, 03:45, said:

I certainly see both Pass and 2NT as L.A.s

That was the most pertinent part of your post. And I think 2NT is also demonstrably suggested over Pass by the UI as it will usually get to the top game or part score when partner has a six-card (or even seven-card) suit.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#14 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2018-October-26, 06:12

However: is the pass a LA for Charlie the Chimp? Even if we assume he is highly ethical (which might be regarded as libel) there might be no logical alternative for him to raising to 2NT. The fact that 3NT only makes 17% (or 42.5%) of the time is irrelevant since no player can work out the odds accurately. If ChCh is a very aggressive player then 2NT may be mandatory (he has a potential source of tricks and 6 controls), whilst for SB (being less aggressive) 2NT would be a clear LA.

It is up to OO to determine (based on what he thinks ChCh attitude is towards bidding, or a polling of (are there any?) players of ChCh's class) whether for ChCh pass is a LA. That is why he gets paid.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
1

#15 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2018-October-26, 06:45

lamford and weejonnie highlight the problem of guessing what a class of player might do.

Such a determination is less contentious if you judge this by reference to the field, rather than the specific player. And the law should be changed to reflect this.

Especially as, it is often the case that, for peers of this player, an unsound action might be the likely choice. Which can make it hard for the director to justify his ruling to the player, without insulting him or hurting his feelings.

Anyway, you almost always need a poll, and as weejonnie points out, its hard to find peers of a player like Colin.
0

#16 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2018-October-26, 06:51

I suppose you could look at the results of other hands that session as an indicator. If ChCh and his 'partner' play a lot more hands than others, or have bid more games/ slams, then that could be an indication of aggressiveness. Not much to go on, naturally, as there are other reasons (system/ misunderstandings to name but two) but better than nothing.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#17 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2018-October-26, 09:24

View Postnige1, on 2018-October-26, 06:45, said:

Anyway, you almost always need a poll, and as weejonnie points out, its hard to find peers of a player like Colin.

Especially if you get their name wrong and assign them ability and ethics they don't possess. Wikipedia clarifies this nicely:

Colin the Corgi, among the club's younger members, a strong player who is often sarcastic and testy and thus has "all the makings of a future master"

Charlie the Chimp would rather post mortem the last hand than play the next. He is an exponent of sharp practice at the table, once famously producing a remarkable quadruple squeeze against himself by retaining a small card to conceal his own revoke.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#18 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2018-October-26, 09:42

View Postnige1, on 2018-October-26, 06:45, said:

lamford and weejonnie highlight the problem of guessing what a class of player might do.

Such a determination is less contentious if you judge this by reference to the field, rather than the specific player. And the law should be changed to reflect this.

I think there's a good reason it's done by reference to the class of player. A beginner who isn't as confident of their declarer play is likely to bid more cautiously. Meckwell routinely bid 3NT with 23 combined HCP, we mere mortals prefer to have 25 (and when I was learning bridge we were taught 26 points was needed for a NT or major suit game).

So aggressive and conservative players don't always have the same LAs, and it would be unfair to judge their action based on players who bid significantly differently from them.

Does this mean more judgement is required in making these rulings? Unfortunately, yes.

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