My friend, Richard Hills, Australian bridge and bridge laws expert often describes Law 74A2 as "...the most important Law in the Lawbook". Law 74 is entitled "Conduct and Attitude" and A2 is specifically about causing annoyance or embarrassment to other players. Fortunately in the few encounters I have had with Richard across the green baize he has reported that the matches have been played with fine spirit.
Naturally Law 74A2 follows immediately from Law 74A1 which instructs players to remain courteous. Here is the precise wording of those two laws:
"LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE
A. Proper Attitude
1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might
cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might
interfere with the enjoyment of the game."
Courtesy is defined at www.dictionary.com as "excellence of manners or social conduct; polite behavior".
I am currently in Auckland at the Air New Zealand Koru lounge on my way home from the excellent and thoroughly recommended Gold Coast Congress hosted by the Queensland Bridge Association. By and large the huge majority of players at that congress are courteous and a pleasure to play against. Sadly my eight days of bridge was marred by three discourteous incidents involving five or six players (three pairs). One incident occurred in round eleven of the teams and two occurred in the Swiss Pairs in rounds one and nine.
I will discuss each of the three incidents. However, one incident stood out in that one of the perpetrators of the discourtesy and rudeness, Dr Alan Doddridge, had an official capacity at the event of Recorder. A Recorder is someone a player goes to when such discourtesy and rudeness occurs at the table. Dr Doddridge was not only a Recorder at the Gold Coast Congress but in New Zealand he is the Recorder for the Central Districts Region. As such, I believe he has a special responsibility to behave in a manner that embodies Law 74. Sadly, in my limited experience this is far from the first occasion where Dr Doddridge has behaved poorly at the bridge table.
As I stated above, the first incident occurred in round eleven of the teams in a match against the SAWICKI team. We were playing against Henry Sawicki and Rachel Frenkel. This pair play a non-standard system which they call "Medium Club" and is based on a strong but limited 1C opening with other openings at the one level limited and canape in style. That is they frequently open a shorter suit and rebid in a longer suit.
On the hand in question, board eight of that match, the uncontested auction from my opponents was:
1H 2D;
3D 3S;
4S 5D;
Pass
There were no alerted bids. I was on lead and asked for an explanation of the auction - "Can you explain the auction please?". The obligation of the opponents at this point is to provide all information they have from partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, and partnership experience. The wording in the law is:
"When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply
to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special
information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership
experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and
experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Law 40B6a.
To be fair I got some good information from Ms Frenkel. She said she believed her partner was 4441 and indeed he was. However this was a summary of the whole auction and I wanted to know what inferences were available at each bid. In this regard Ms Frenkel was initially unwilling to tell me the minimum length for the 3D raise. Mr Sawicki's answers were far less revealing. He told me the auction was "just normal bridge". Whatever it was, a potentially canape auction, is not just normal bridge. So obviously I felt I was entitle to more information. In particular, at some point he added 3S was "natural". "Natural" would normally mean a four-card suit. However the subsequent auction seemed to reveal that 3S was not "natural" since when the suit was raised his partner retreated back to 5D, which while not unheard of it is extremely unusual to retreat from a major suit fit to a minor suit fit. These opponents were an experienced partnership and I felt I had an entitlement to more information about their partnership experience in these situations. Indeed the auction suggested that they had some experience as Sawicki correctly divined that Frenkel's 5D was a correction and not a slam try. Additionally, it turned out that Frenkel had three card support for Sawicki's hearts which she had not mentioned so there seems to be an inference at 3D that Sawicki did not have five hearts. This information was never conveyed to us.
Anyway that is just background. The purpose of writing is to illustrate the discourtesy. Rather than attempt to answer my more probing questions Sawicki's response was "this is ridiculous", "you are childish", "this is not bridge". These sort of comments continued when the director came to the table, some of which were repeated. Sawicki not content with insulting me added to the discourtesy by insulting the director, Jan Peach. While Peach asked for the comments to cease she did little to enforce Law 74 and essentially allowed Sawicki to continue his barrage of insults.
The second of the three incidents occurred in the first round of the Swiss Pairs, where my partner and I were pitted against Alan Doddridge and Jenny Wilson. Early in the match, I was on lead with AKx club. I lead the club ace and five to the QJ came in the dummy. In this situation I expect my partner to give me count. We play reverse count and he played a high card which showed me he had an odd number of clubs. Doddridge followed. This meant that partner had 1 or 3 clubs. If one I could give him a ruff and if three which I judged much more likely the second club was cashing. On the actual hand the danger of setting up the clubs was minimal as the dummy was short of quick entries so I continued club. Partner completed his echo confirming three which left only two clubs for Doddridge. However on this trick Doddridge partially pulled out a card, sat back in his seat, then leaned forward before fulling detaching a card and playing it. I trusted my partner and was not deceived by this byplay and so switched to another suit. Unfortunately, though when my partner got in he thought I might be out of clubs and so continued a club.
At this point, I tried to get agreement about the slow play on the second round of clubs. Doddridge did not deny the slow play and invited me to call the director. However in doing so he showed obvious dissent. Before the director arrived he sat back and said "deja vu" which I believed was designed to taunt me and certainly wasn't in compliance with Richard Hills' most important law - "carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game."
When the director arrived at the table, Doddridge said in an agitated way "He is accusing me of cheating". Again this is not carefully avoiding any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player. It is also in violation of the etiquette Law 74B5 "summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants." Just to be clear, Doddridge's statement to the director is discourteous to me since I had made no accusation of cheating.
A complaint of a player playing (or bidding for that matter) out of tempo is never in the first instance considered an accusation of cheating. There is a presumption in the laws that players do not cheat at bridge. A tempo break may be made for many reasons, most of which are accidental or otherwise unintentional. That is not cheating. Nevertheless, the laws allow for redress whether or not there was intent. This is explained clearly in Law 73F for violations of Law 73 - Law73D deals with variations in tempo such as Doddridge's slow play on this hand. The key phrase is "who could have known".
"When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage
to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player
has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of
an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who
could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to
his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score" Law 73F.
The "could have known" clause essentially means that even though you are not cheating, for the purpose of redress but not for disciplinary penalty, you will be treated as if you were cheating since your actions may have disadvantaged the opponents. The distinction is subtle but it is significant and a director call on a tempo issue is not ipso facto an accusation of cheating.
I would have hoped that Doddridge a regional recorder would have had a good understanding of this distinction but apparently not.
I consider his dissenting remarks and niggly comments which continued beyond that described above to be a form of bullying. The way I interpret things Doddridge's rude, discourteous comments were intended to make me feel bad for calling the director.
In this occasion after the director settled things down and play continued I received further abuse from Jenny Wilson who said in a demeaning way "This is why we don't play at the Palmerston North Bridge Club any more." Maybe I have it wrong and it was an honest statement applauding the standards at the Palmerston North Bridge Club where directors are called for infractions and players are not allowed to be abusive to their opponents but I think not. In case it needs to be pointed out this comment by Wilson is a clear violation of Law74A2.
Wilson and Doddridge both continued their disregard for Law 74 by repeatedly telling me to stop when I was simply calling the director for their repeated improper behaviour.
Unbelievably, Doddridge (and Wilson) seem to believe that I have done something wrong. I was accused of both being a bully and being rude. I talked at length with the chief director Laurie Kelso about this incident with respect to asking his advice on how I am supposed to behave when there is an infraction at the table and the opponents (with a history of this sort of behaviour) make rude, discourteous, niggly, annoying and hurtful comments to me. In the final analysis he offered the opinion that I had done nothing wrong in this incident. From which I interpret and it seems obvious that it is proper to call the director when I perceive there is a possible infraction or irregularity and that it is proper to call the director when my opponents are repeatedly rude to me.
The third incident was similar when playing the ninth round of the Swiss Pairs against Jeanne Hey and Joan Valentine. On this occasion I was declaring a no trump contract on the S9 lead with J74 in dummy and Q852 in hand. I asked about the leads and was told that the lead 4ths, tops of sequences and top of nothing. Consequently I decided to play the jack from dummy which lost to the ace and a spade came back which I ran to the seven but the opening leader played the ten and then cashed the king. So the lead had been from KT96. I played out the hand and then asked the leader about the leads and was told "I can lead anything". I called the director. Subsequently she also told the director that they had the unusual agreement that if they lead an odd card they want the suit led back. The director adjusted the score one trick in our favour based on the misinformation. Then the fun started. Both opponents started making snarky comments aimed at both myself and my partner - although what my poor partner had done I have no idea, he had sat there as dummy. The comments included "I am disgusted in west", "I am disgusted in both of them", "Don't worry he has to live with himself" etc.
I suppose I could report this to the recorder. Oh but Doddridge is the recorder. He probably thinks its fair game for my opponents to insult me. After all I did call the director.
In my view its unacceptable that any one behave like this at the bridge table to fellow competitors. Its particularly bad when this behaviour is perpetrated by Doddridge and Wilson given Doddridge's responsibility as recorder. Yes I include Wilson's behaviour on a similar level to Doddridge given that by playing with her he, as recorder, is giving tacit approval to her behaviour whilst simultaneously modelling that poor behaviour.
This is far from the first time that Doddridge's behaviour has been substandard at the bridge table and around other bridge related situations. New Zealand Bridge is well aware of his poor behaviour and has so far chosen to take no action against him.
I call on New Zealand Bridge to take action against Dr Alan Doddridge for his repeated inappropriate behaviour.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
More Unauthorized Information
Palmerston North Club Swiss Pairs
| Board 21 North Deals N-S Vul | ♠ — ♥ Q J 10 6 2 ♦ 10 7 2 ♣ K Q 10 7 3 | ||||||||||
♠ A Q 10 6 4 ♥ K 7 4 ♦ A 5 ♣ A 6 4 |
| ♠ K J 9 2 ♥ A 3 ♦ J 6 4 ♣ J 9 8 2 | |||||||||
| ♠ 8 7 5 3 ♥ 9 8 5 ♦ K Q 9 8 3 ♣ 5 | |||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| 1 ♠ | Dbl | 3 ♣1 | 3 ♦ |
| 4 ♣ | Pass | 4 ♠ | All pass |
|
| 4 ♠ by West |
| Made 4 — +420 |
It is strange how things happen in themes. This hand turned up at the club on Tuesday night.
West misexplained their partnership agreement as a weak jump shift.
The question arises, as east, what are your responsibilities over partner's 4♣ given her misexplanation?
Lawfully you "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information".
To my mind bidding 4♠ is the bid most likely to clear up the misunderstanding and therefore you 'must carefully avoid' bidding 4♠ if there is any reasonable alternative. Here there is such an alternative. Partner's 4♣ looks like a cuebid in search of slam. (For some it could even be Gerber!) In either case 4♥ is a logical alternative. The law is clear that is the bid you 'must' make. It 'must' be made even though you know that after 4♥ the auction is highly likely to spiral out of control. Bidding 4♠ is deliberately taking advantage of the unauthorized information and therefore an illegal option.
After 4♠ is chosen the director is empowered to adjust the score. It can be difficult to decide what to adjust to. Its certainly not clear here where the auction will go after 4♥. Perhaps west will bid 4♠ as another cue bid and then east is free to pass - a lucky escape. Perhaps west will bid 4NT Blackwood in search of a club slam. Perhaps west will attempt to sign-off in 5♣. After which east may bid 5♠ with nothing else to cue-bid but its not completely clear how west will interpret that bid - maybe west will pass but maybe not.
You can see how the auction can spiral out of control leading to imminent disaster. Your job as east as much as it might go against your natural instinct is to not avoid the disaster by making bids that are more likely to wake your partner up. That would be taking advantage of the unauthorized information.
In the event the director adjusted the board giving a split ruling - 50% of 4♠ making and 50% of 5♠ down one. My feeling having thought about it overnight is that this is too generous to the offending side here. Superficially there are two actions from west that might lead to a higher contract and only one that will lead to 4♠. Further if the auction goes beyond 4♠ who is to say it will stop at 5♠.
In addition to any adjustment the law almost demands a penalty be imposed on east for bidding 4♠. Remember the law is "must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information".
"Must" is a very strong term. The laws of bridge include an interpretation of such terms. Here is what it says:
"“must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)"
The weaker term "shall" has this comment:
"“shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not)"
If a failure to do what one "shall" do incurs a procedural penalty more often than not then a failure to do what one "must" do by extrapolation should almost always attract a penalty.
And in my opinion so it should be. The player is deliberately trying to gain an advantage from their partner's unauthorized information. This needs to be discouraged and imposing penalties on such actions is perfectly reasonable.
That it is not done only encourages players to take advantage next time and contributes to the reason why these issues of misusing unauthorized information are rife in our game.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Do You Cheat?
In recent bridge publications there is little written on ethics and cheating. Not so in days past. Victor Mollo and Nico Gardener in Bridge for Beginners devote a section to ethics in the second chapter.
"What a player should bid will be discussed in the next lesson. How he should bid can be laid down firmly this minute. The manner must be impersonal and the voice even."
"Intonation and inflection, and even bouncing up and down in one's chair, all are frowned upon in the best circles. The word for these emotional aids to science is 'unethical', and that is almost a synonym for cheating."
The 1947 book Steamlined Bridge or Bidding without Tears by Mollo has an entire chapter devoted to the subject and from there I have stolen the title of this blog.
"A number of honest and highly respected people cheat at Bridge. They don't mark their cards or slip Aces or even signal to their partners by means of snorts and kicks. If they did anything so crude, they would be quickly exposed and disgraced. But many a man with a virtuaous past and many a woman with a rosy future, pursue tactics that are fraudulent, both in the letter and in the spirit. Sometimes it is practiced in a moral twilight, consciousness being obscured partly - though not wholly - by ignorance. Occasionally it is quite deliberate."
How have things progressed in the sixty plus years since those words were written? Very poorly. With little or no education how could they? In a word the cheaters flourish. By and large they are not reprimanded and there is therefore no incentive for them to mend their ways.
Sure there are a few high profile cases where players are penalized or even banned for cheating. I am not writing about those incidents.
And on the other extreme we all or almost all probably commit some minor misdemenour from time to time. It can be hard to do the right ethical thing every time when faced with extraneous information from partner etc. Again I am not writing about those incidents.
I am referrng to a significant number of players who always or almost always bid based on their partner's hesitation or mannerisms. Who never deliberately choose the losing option when their partner has illegally and perhaps subtlely indicated the winning option.
For me this issue came to a head last weekend at a tournament where two hands in my mind very similar in nature came up two boards apart. The closeness of the hands emphasised the use of unauthorized information.
Swiss Pairs (IMPs v Datum)
Swiss Pairs (IMPs v Datum)
As you can see one double was taken out and the other left in. So what its a game of judgement and these things happen you say. However I have not told you the whole story. This pair were playing their version of optional doubles. A method that is very sensitive to unauthorized information. Its very easy to leave in or take out an optional double when partner's speed or mannerisms convey additional information.
When asked East explained the double on the first board as "Either takeout or penalty. I have to decide". In the presence of the director West concurred with this saying "Yes we play optional doubles".
Perhaps this is not what everyone would call an 'optional double' but that is what was said at the table.
When the second double was made the specific question asked was "Do you play this double the same as the previous one?" This was answered in the affirmative.
So why was the first double removed and the second double passed?
The secret is in the tempo of the double.
These hands were played where a stop card is required before a jump bid. South on both occasions used the stop card and waited the required ten seconds before removing it.
On board five west angonized for a further 20+ seconds (30 seconds in all) before doubling and her partner pulled the double.
On board seven west doubled immediately after the bid was made and while the stop card was still on the table. Surprise surprise this double was left in.
Amazingly the director allowed both actions.
Superficially 4♠ fails on the first board so at first glance you might see no damage. However the play is interesting. After three rounds of diamonds, the third ruffed in hand, declarer can put west to the test by playing the ♣K. This may give the illusion of trying to create an entry to dummy in order to take a trump finesse. And even if west takes the ♣A it is not completely clear how to continue - a trump or a diamond defeat the contract and a club or a heart see declarer home.
On the published datums declarer is winning 13 IMPs or losing 3 IMPs in 4♠ doubled. While 5♣ -1 was worth 4 IMPs to north south. So the misdefense needs to occur a little less than one time in two for declarer to in profit on average playing in 4♠ doubled. One commentator has suggested that 4♠ might make around 60% of the time. On that basis an adjusted score of 60% of 13 IMPs and 40% of -3 IMPs, a total of 6.6 IMPs, would be justified.
The second hand was taken to appeal.
The relevant laws are:
Law 73 C
"Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."
Law16B1a
"Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."
Law 73 is the most interesting. The player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" this is a very strong statement. The pattern of the two boards suggests that for this player taking advantage of partner's tempo is routine rather than something to be avoided.
Board Five established that for this player removing one of these 'optional' doubles it a logical alternative with balanced rubbish. On the assumption that the fast double suggests leaving the 'optional' double in Law 16 disallows that action.
To me this seems clear.
Nevertheless the appeal committee allowed the pass. Thus east west gained an advantage over the two boards of up to 23 IMPs (or perhaps even more if their final contract had been doubled had the double of 3♠ been removed). 9 IMPs on the first board losing 4 rather than losing 13 IMPs if 4♠ doubled made and 14 IMPs on second where they won seven rather than losing seven (more if they get doubled).
These sort of rulings are patently absurd. The offenders gain a significant advantage whilst the non-offenders are left to lick their wounds.
In fact in addition to the redress for the damage caused I believe east west should have suffered a sizeable penalty. The word "must" in Law 73 is very strong. The preface to the laws state that the weaker term "shall" when not complied with will be penalized more often than not therefore for failing to do what one "must" do ought to receive a nearly automatic penalty.
Failing to give redress and failing to penalize whilst contemporaneously failing to make any attempt to educate these unethical players just encourages them to continue with their skullduggery. Sadly this is born out in that in some circles these tactics are fast becoming the norm rather the exception.
Well then "Do you Cheat?"
"What a player should bid will be discussed in the next lesson. How he should bid can be laid down firmly this minute. The manner must be impersonal and the voice even."
"Intonation and inflection, and even bouncing up and down in one's chair, all are frowned upon in the best circles. The word for these emotional aids to science is 'unethical', and that is almost a synonym for cheating."
The 1947 book Steamlined Bridge or Bidding without Tears by Mollo has an entire chapter devoted to the subject and from there I have stolen the title of this blog.
"A number of honest and highly respected people cheat at Bridge. They don't mark their cards or slip Aces or even signal to their partners by means of snorts and kicks. If they did anything so crude, they would be quickly exposed and disgraced. But many a man with a virtuaous past and many a woman with a rosy future, pursue tactics that are fraudulent, both in the letter and in the spirit. Sometimes it is practiced in a moral twilight, consciousness being obscured partly - though not wholly - by ignorance. Occasionally it is quite deliberate."
How have things progressed in the sixty plus years since those words were written? Very poorly. With little or no education how could they? In a word the cheaters flourish. By and large they are not reprimanded and there is therefore no incentive for them to mend their ways.
Sure there are a few high profile cases where players are penalized or even banned for cheating. I am not writing about those incidents.
And on the other extreme we all or almost all probably commit some minor misdemenour from time to time. It can be hard to do the right ethical thing every time when faced with extraneous information from partner etc. Again I am not writing about those incidents.
I am referrng to a significant number of players who always or almost always bid based on their partner's hesitation or mannerisms. Who never deliberately choose the losing option when their partner has illegally and perhaps subtlely indicated the winning option.
For me this issue came to a head last weekend at a tournament where two hands in my mind very similar in nature came up two boards apart. The closeness of the hands emphasised the use of unauthorized information.
| Board 5 North Deals N-S Vul | ♠ 5 4 ♥ Q 9 8 7 2 ♦ 9 8 6 ♣ Q 6 2 | ||||||||||
| ♠ 3 ♥ K J ♦ A K J 7 5 ♣ A 9 8 4 3 |
| ♠ 7 2 ♥ 10 6 5 3 ♦ Q 10 3 ♣ J 10 7 5 | |||||||||
| ♠ A K Q J 10 9 8 6 ♥ A 4 ♦ 4 2 ♣ K | |||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | Pass | 4 ♠ | |
| Dbl | Pass | 5 ♣ | All pass |
| 5 ♣ by East |
| Down 1 — -50 |
| Board 7 South Deals Both Vul | ♠ — ♥ A K J 10 4 ♦ Q 5 2 ♣ 9 8 6 3 2 | ||||||||||
| ♠ J 8 2 ♥ Q 5 2 ♦ A K 8 7 ♣ A K 5 |
| ♠ Q 5 3 ♥ 8 7 3 ♦ J 9 6 4 ♣ Q J 10 | |||||||||
| ♠ A K 10 9 7 6 4 ♥ 9 6 ♦ 10 3 ♣ 7 4 | |||||||||||
| West | North | East | South |
| 3 ♠ | |||
| Dbl | All pass |
| 3 ♠ x by South |
| Down 1 — -200 |
As you can see one double was taken out and the other left in. So what its a game of judgement and these things happen you say. However I have not told you the whole story. This pair were playing their version of optional doubles. A method that is very sensitive to unauthorized information. Its very easy to leave in or take out an optional double when partner's speed or mannerisms convey additional information.
When asked East explained the double on the first board as "Either takeout or penalty. I have to decide". In the presence of the director West concurred with this saying "Yes we play optional doubles".
Perhaps this is not what everyone would call an 'optional double' but that is what was said at the table.
When the second double was made the specific question asked was "Do you play this double the same as the previous one?" This was answered in the affirmative.
So why was the first double removed and the second double passed?
The secret is in the tempo of the double.
These hands were played where a stop card is required before a jump bid. South on both occasions used the stop card and waited the required ten seconds before removing it.
On board five west angonized for a further 20+ seconds (30 seconds in all) before doubling and her partner pulled the double.
On board seven west doubled immediately after the bid was made and while the stop card was still on the table. Surprise surprise this double was left in.
Amazingly the director allowed both actions.
Superficially 4♠ fails on the first board so at first glance you might see no damage. However the play is interesting. After three rounds of diamonds, the third ruffed in hand, declarer can put west to the test by playing the ♣K. This may give the illusion of trying to create an entry to dummy in order to take a trump finesse. And even if west takes the ♣A it is not completely clear how to continue - a trump or a diamond defeat the contract and a club or a heart see declarer home.
On the published datums declarer is winning 13 IMPs or losing 3 IMPs in 4♠ doubled. While 5♣ -1 was worth 4 IMPs to north south. So the misdefense needs to occur a little less than one time in two for declarer to in profit on average playing in 4♠ doubled. One commentator has suggested that 4♠ might make around 60% of the time. On that basis an adjusted score of 60% of 13 IMPs and 40% of -3 IMPs, a total of 6.6 IMPs, would be justified.
The second hand was taken to appeal.
The relevant laws are:
Law 73 C
"Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner
When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information."
Law16B1a
"Extraneous Information from Partner
1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."
Law 73 is the most interesting. The player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" this is a very strong statement. The pattern of the two boards suggests that for this player taking advantage of partner's tempo is routine rather than something to be avoided.
Board Five established that for this player removing one of these 'optional' doubles it a logical alternative with balanced rubbish. On the assumption that the fast double suggests leaving the 'optional' double in Law 16 disallows that action.
To me this seems clear.
Nevertheless the appeal committee allowed the pass. Thus east west gained an advantage over the two boards of up to 23 IMPs (or perhaps even more if their final contract had been doubled had the double of 3♠ been removed). 9 IMPs on the first board losing 4 rather than losing 13 IMPs if 4♠ doubled made and 14 IMPs on second where they won seven rather than losing seven (more if they get doubled).
These sort of rulings are patently absurd. The offenders gain a significant advantage whilst the non-offenders are left to lick their wounds.
In fact in addition to the redress for the damage caused I believe east west should have suffered a sizeable penalty. The word "must" in Law 73 is very strong. The preface to the laws state that the weaker term "shall" when not complied with will be penalized more often than not therefore for failing to do what one "must" do ought to receive a nearly automatic penalty.
Failing to give redress and failing to penalize whilst contemporaneously failing to make any attempt to educate these unethical players just encourages them to continue with their skullduggery. Sadly this is born out in that in some circles these tactics are fast becoming the norm rather the exception.
Well then "Do you Cheat?"
Monday, September 1, 2008
Centre Island Teams Match 2 Board 20
Centre Island Teams Match 2
This hand featured a related theme to the last hand. After partner shows shortage in the majors I could have been optimistic about the likelihood of a minor suit fit. As it was this was our auction...
| Board 20 West Deals Both Vul | ♠ 7 6 4 ♥ 10 7 4 3 ♦ K 6 5 4 ♣ K 6 | ||||||||||
♠ A Q ♥ K Q 2 ♦ A 8 3 2 ♣ A 9 4 3 |
| ♠ K 9 8 5 ♥ A 5 ♦ Q J 10 9 7 ♣ Q 5 | |||||||||
| ♠ J 10 3 2 ♥ J 9 8 6 ♦ — ♣ J 10 8 7 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Livingston | Burrows | ||
| 2 ♦1 | Pass | 3 NT | Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
|
| 3 NT by East |
At the table I took the pessimistic view and bashed 3NT with extra values but thinking two 'balanced' hands would make slam unlikely.
Especially at IMPs I should have been more optimistic. If a fit could be found in either spades or diamonds a slam might be possible with marginal values. The slight risk of giving the opponents extra information or of getting to 5-minor when 3NT would have been better should have been taken for the big gain of bidding slam if an appropriate fit could be found. In fact our methods were ideal for the hand.
Had I taken the more optimistic view then our auction would have developed as follows:
| West | North | East | South |
| 2 ♦1 | Pass | 2 ♠2 | |
| Pass | 2 NT | Pass | 3 ♣3 |
| Pass | 3 NT4 | Pass | 4 ♦ |
| Pass | 4 ♠5 | Pass | 4 NT6 |
| Pass | 5 ♣5 | Pass | 6 ♦ |
| Pass | Pass | Pass |
|
After the 3NT response showing only five-cards (at most) in the majors I would have been optimistic about a good diamond fit. Partner would have cue-bid and we would have found slam. Note for us the spade cue-bid does not deny a heart control as 4♥ would have be kick-back RKCB.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Centre Island Teams Match 2 Board 13
Centre Island Teams Match Two
| Board 13 North Deals Both Vul | ♠ Q 8 4 ♥ J 10 4 3 ♦ J 9 2 ♣ 9 8 2 | ||||||||||
♠ K 10 2 ♥ A K 8 6 ♦ A 8 4 3 ♣ A 7 |
| ♠ 5 3 ♥ 7 5 2 ♦ K 10 ♣ K Q J 10 5 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ A J 9 7 6 ♥ Q 9 ♦ Q 7 6 5 ♣ 6 4 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Livingston | Burrows | ||
| Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| 2 ♦1 | Pass | 2 ♠2 | Pass |
| 2 NT | Pass | 3 ♣3 | Pass |
| 3 ♦4 | Pass | 3 ♥5 | Pass |
| 3 NT6 | Pass | 5 ♣ | Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
|
| 5 ♣ by East |
This hand featured one of our pet conventions and a IMP theory of my own.
We use the Mexican 2♦ popularized by George Rosenkranz and currently played by some of the top Italian pairs. Our responses are home grown.
At a different vulnerability I might have opened 3♣ but second seat vulnerable we have higher standards.
In our style we frequently bash 3NT with balanced (no singleton or void) hands however here I chose to investigate a possible 5=3 heart fit. This decision was made because of the weak doubleton spade. Having not found a heart fit the vagaries of our system meant that I was forced to ask for four spades on route to 3NT - an immediate 3NT would have shown two four-card majors. When partner denied four spades I knew that we had at most five spades between our two hands. This led me to choose 5♣ rather than 3NT as the final contract. At IMPs we should play 5-minor more often than in Matchpoint duplicate pairs. Perhaps 3NT is reasonable on this hand but over the past couple of years I have done many simulations in which on similar hands 5-minor was at least as good as 3NT.
In addition sometimes going beyond 3NT will allow you to find a good minor suit slam.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Caccia Birch Charity
Caccia Birch Daffodil Day Tournament - Session One
On Sunday I played in the Caccia Birch Charity at which $2500 was raised for the Cancer Society.
It was a good day with a well run tournament. I say this despite the fact that my partner and I finished in a disappointing 21st place. Of course I cannot claim that we played our best but we did have some bad luck.
Tonight I am due to run a session on slam bidding for some of this year's beginners in the club. These two slam hands caught my attention of how not to bid a slam ...
| Board 5 North Deals N-S Vul | ♠ A 10 5 ♥ K Q 10 6 5 ♦ A ♣ A 7 6 2 | ||||||||||
♠ K Q 8 7 6 2 ♥ 9 4 3 ♦ J 8 5 ♣ 3 |
| ♠ 9 ♥ J 7 2 ♦ Q 10 9 6 4 3 2 ♣ 5 4 | |||||||||
| ♠ J 4 3 ♥ A 8 ♦ K 7 ♣ K Q J 10 9 8 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Burrows | |||
| 1 ♥ | Pass | 2 ♣ | |
| 2 ♠ | 4 NT1 | Pass | 5 ♦2 |
| Pass | 6 ♥! | Pass | Pass |
| Pass |
|
| 6 ♥ by North |
| Made 7 — +1460 |
North has a great hand when partner shows values and clubs with her two-over-one response. So launching into Blackwood is reasonable. Maybe a diamond splinter is better. However the final choice of 6♥ is seems to be based more on hope than sound bidding. North only knows south has one heart because she admitted to an ace. So 6♥ was a possible five-one fit. On the actual hand if there was a 4=2 or 5=1 heart break the slam was in danger provided the player with the long trump was west or if east he had a second spade.
On second thoughts perhaps if you think that west has six spades then east is most likely to have the long trump. If this is the case 6♥ will be playable even in a 5=1 fit and could therefore be worth a lot of matchpoints.
If you consider the play in 6♥ when partner turns up with ♥A8 then when west follows to the second heart some consideration should be given to finessing the ♥10 if you have had a spade lead. Your only danger is that the defense have a trump trick and can cash a spade. How likely in a two-over-one auction is it that west would come in with a weak hand and only a five-card suit? If you think it is not at all like then the ♥10 is standout.
In the actual play declarer dropped the jack and made 13 tricks.
We were lucky!!!! The didn't bid a grand slam. 7♣ is a little tricky to bid - north doesn't immediately know about the long clubs with south and south doesn't know for sure how his spade losers are going to disappear.
Caccia Birch Daffodil Day Tournament - Session Two
| Board 4 West Deals Both Vul | ♠ 7 6 5 4 3 ♥ J 4 3 ♦ J 9 ♣ A 10 7 | ||||||||||
♠ K J 10 2 ♥ A K Q 2 ♦ 3 2 ♣ K 9 8 |
| ♠ A Q 9 ♥ 9 ♦ A Q 8 ♣ Q J 5 4 3 2 | |||||||||
| ♠ 8 ♥ 10 8 7 6 5 ♦ K 10 7 6 5 4 ♣ 6 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Burrows | |||
| 1 ♣1 | Pass | 2 ♣2 | Pass |
| 2 ♥ | Pass | 4 ♣3 | Pass |
| 4 ♥4 | Pass | 5 ♣5 | Pass |
| 5 NT6 | Pass | 6 ♣! | Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
|
| 6 ♣ by West |
| Made 6 — +1370 |
This hand follows the same theme as the last where the bidder did not take the fundamental step of confirming a fit before bidding a slam. This time the final bid of 6♣ has little to recommend it. It is possible on this auction that partner has no clubs or even if she does have a club or two there is no guarantee of the ♣A or ♣K.
Having said that east is not entirely to blame. Playing Precision it is normal for west's 2♥ rebid to show a five-card suit. I don't know her reasons for bidding 2♥ - perhaps she was fearful of her two small diamonds - but a 2NT rebid by west would have been much more helpful to east. She then could be sure of a club fit.
Caccia Birch Daffodil Day - Session Two
| Board 7 South Deals Both Vul | ♠ A 10 8 5 ♥ A 10 4 3 2 ♦ — ♣ K 9 6 2 | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| ♠ K Q J 9 7 6 4 2 ♥ K J ♦ 7 4 ♣ A |
| West | North | East | South |
| 1 ♠ | |||
| Pass | 4 ♦1 | Pass | 4 NT2 |
| Pass | 5 ♥3 | Pass | 7 ♠ |
| Pass | Pass | Pass |
|
| 7 ♠ by South |
Another hand from the second session would have showed off a favourite convention of mine - void splinters at the four-level (for me normal splinters are one level lower). This would have allowed us to find the short route to the grand. Identifying the void allows us to use Blackwood (RKCB) from either side unambiguously. If the 4♦ bidder subsequently uses Blackwood then partner discounts the ace in the void suit.
Perhaps it is not that likely that the auction would be uncontested - although at the event we had an uncontested auction (it was different than the auction shown).
Caccia Birch Daffodil Day - Session Two
| Board 20 West Deals Both Vul | ♠ A Q 8 3 ♥ 9 4 3 ♦ 6 2 ♣ J 6 5 3 | ||||||||||
♠ 9 6 ♥ K Q J 8 ♦ Q J 3 ♣ Q 10 8 2 |
| ♠ K 7 ♥ A 7 2 ♦ 9 8 7 5 4 ♣ K 9 7 | |||||||||
| ♠ J 10 5 4 2 ♥ 10 6 5 ♦ A K 10 ♣ A 4 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Burrows | |||
| 1 NT1 | Pass | Pass | Pass |
|
| 1 NT by West |
| Made 1 — -90 |
I am not sure if west miscounted her points or frequently opens these eleven counts but that is one pretty weak 1NT. I am fond of light 1NT openings but I don't think I would have found this bid.
Some might have bid 2♠ in the passout seat with my hand but that's not my style with a balanced hand particularly with such a bad suit.
If partner had lead a spade we would have had a relatively quick seven tricks. She chose to lead a club and seven tricks were there for declarer.
Again we were lucky!!! After I had won the ace declarer and switched to a spade declarer could have crossed to her hand with a heart and hooked my partner for the ♣J and made eight tricks.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
KiwiTeams 080813 - A few hands
I thought I would celebrate the Central Climbers first win by posting some hands from the match...
Early on Palmer and Wilson found their three-three fit in the simplest of auctions.
| Board 3 South Deals E-W Vul | ♠ J 8 2 ♥ A Q 10 6 ♦ 10 7 4 ♣ A 10 8 | ||||||||||
♠ A K Q 10 ♥ K 4 3 ♦ Q 8 3 ♣ J 5 4 |
| ♠ 6 5 4 3 ♥ 9 8 ♦ J 6 5 2 ♣ K 9 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ 9 7 ♥ J 7 5 2 ♦ A K 9 ♣ Q 7 6 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| gerry | lmu | tarakiwi | seychelles |
| Pass | |||
| 1 ♣ | All pass |
| 1 ♣ by West |
| Trick | Lead | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| 1. N | ♠ 2 | 3 | 9 | 10 |
| 2. W | ♠ A | 8 | 4 | 7 |
| 3. W | ♠ K | J | 5 | ♣ 2 |
| 4. S | ♦ A | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| 5. S | ♦ K | Q | 7 | 5 |
| 6. S | ♦ 9 | 8 | 10 | J |
| 7. E | ♥ 8 | 2 | K | A |
| 8. N | ♥ Q | 9 | 5 | 3 |
| 9. N | ♥ 6 | ♣ 3 | 7 | 4 |
| 10. E | ♦ 6 | ♥ J | ♠ Q | ♣ 8 |
| 11. N | ♥ 10 | ♠ 6 | ♣ 6 | ♣ J |
| 12. W | ♣ 4 | 10 | K | 7 |
| 13. E | ♣ 9 | Q | 5 | A |
| Down 1 — E-W -100 |
The auction was more eventful in the closed room ...
| Board 3 South Deals E-W Vul | ♠ J 8 2 ♥ A Q 10 6 ♦ 10 7 4 ♣ A 10 8 | ||||||||||
♠ A K Q 10 ♥ K 4 3 ♦ Q 8 3 ♣ J 5 4 |
| ♠ 6 5 4 3 ♥ 9 8 ♦ J 6 5 2 ♣ K 9 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ 9 7 ♥ J 7 5 2 ♦ A K 9 ♣ Q 7 6 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| sandrac | kermit | jenter62 | cascade |
| 1 NT1 | |||
| Dbl | All pass |
|
| 1 NT x by South |
| Trick | Lead | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| 1. W | ♠ A | 2 | 3 | 7 |
| 2. W | ♠ K | 8 | 4 | 9 |
| 3. W | ♠ Q | J | 5 | ♣ 2 |
| 4. W | ♠ 10 | ♦ 4 | 6 | ♥ 2 |
| 5. W | ♦ 3 | 7 | J | A |
| 6. S | ♥ J | 3 | 6 | 8 |
| 7. S | ♥ 7 | 4 | 10 | 9 |
| 8. N | ♥ A | ♣ 3 | 5 | K |
| 9. N | ♥ Q | ♦ 2 | ♣ 6 | ♣ 4 |
| 10. N | ♣ 8 | K | 7 | 5 |
| 11. E | ♦ 6 | K | 8 | 10 |
| 12. S | ♣ Q | J | A | 9 |
| 13. N | ♣ 10 | ♦ 5 | ♦ 9 | ♦ Q |
| Made 2 — N-S +280 |
The mini-1NT bought a double from west. East with only four points and a balanced hand had nowhere to go so chose to defend. With the distribution being friendly Burrows came to eight tricks. Perhaps he should just play for one club honour to be onside. However trying to combine chances in clubs and diamonds he needed a squeeze to overcome a blockage ...
| ♠ — ♥ Q ♦ 10 ♣ A 10 8 | |||||||||||
♠ — ♥ — ♦ Q 8 ♣ J 5 4 |
| ♠ — ♥ — ♦ 6 5 2 ♣ K 9 | |||||||||
| ♠ — ♥ — ♦ K 9 ♣ Q 7 6 |
On the last heart west is squeezed. She cannot pitch a diamond as then the ♦Q will fall making declarer's nine good. A club is equally fatal as eventually north's ♣10 comes good.
Differing opening styles led to a big swing on board 7 ...
| Board 7 South Deals Both Vul | ♠ 10 8 4 ♥ 10 7 5 2 ♦ 7 6 4 3 ♣ K 9 | ||||||||||
♠ J 9 7 6 3 2 ♥ K J 9 8 6 ♦ J ♣ A |
| ♠ A K ♥ A 3 ♦ A K 9 2 ♣ 8 7 6 4 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ Q 5 ♥ Q 4 ♦ Q 10 8 5 ♣ Q J 10 5 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| gerry | lmu | tarakiwi | seychelles |
| Pass | |||
| 1 ♠ | Pass | 2 ♦ | Pass |
| 2 ♥ | Pass | 3 ♣1 | Pass |
| 3 ♥ | Pass | 3 ♠ | Pass |
| 4 ♠ | Pass | 5 ♦2 | Pass |
| 6 ♠ | All pass |
|
| 6 ♠ by West |
| Trick | Lead | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| 1. N | ♠ 4 | K | 5 | 2 |
| 2. E | ♠ A | Q | 3 | 8 |
| 3. E | ♣ 3 | 10 | A | 9 |
| 4. W | ♠ J | 10 | ♦ 2 | ♦ 5 |
| 5. W | ♥ 6 | 5 | A | 4 |
| 6. E | ♥ 3 | Q | K | 2 |
| 7. W | ♥ J | 7 | ♣ 4 | ♣ 2 |
| 8. W | ♥ 9 | 10 | ♣ 6 | ♣ 5 |
| 9. N | ♣ K | - | - | - |
| Made 6 — E-W +1430 |
Palmer opened 1♠ in the open room and despite having no guaranteed fit Wilson tried for slam based on his sharp honours. Palmer accepted the slam try based on extra distribution - he certainly didn't have extra values.
The final contract was a little thin needing either spades or hearts to play for no losers. When the ♠Q was doubleton and the ♥Q doubleton in front of the jack Palmer had no problem bringing home 12 tricks.
In the other room ...
| Board 7 South Deals Both Vul | ♠ 10 8 4 ♥ 10 7 5 2 ♦ 7 6 4 3 ♣ K 9 | ||||||||||
♠ J 9 7 6 3 2 ♥ K J 9 8 6 ♦ J ♣ A |
| ♠ A K ♥ A 3 ♦ A K 9 2 ♣ 8 7 6 4 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ Q 5 ♥ Q 4 ♦ Q 10 8 5 ♣ Q J 10 5 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| sandrac | kermit | jenter62 | cascade |
| Pass | |||
| 2 ♥1 | Pass | 2 NT! | Pass |
| 3 ♠ | Pass | 4 ♥ | All pass |
|
| 4 ♥ by West |
| Trick | Lead | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| 1. N | ♣ K | 3 | 5 | A |
| 2. W | ♥ 6 | 2 | A | 4 |
| 3. E | ♥ 3 | Q | K | 5 |
| 4. W | ♥ J | 7 | ♣ 4 | ♣ 2 |
| 5. W | ♠ 2 | 4 | K | Q |
| 6. E | ♠ A | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| 7. E | ♦ A | 5 | J | 4 |
| 8. E | ♦ K | 8 | ♠ 6 | 3 |
| 9. E | ♣ 6 | 10 | ♥ 8 | 9 |
| 10. W | ♠ J | 10 | ♣ 7 | ♣ J |
| 11. W | ♠ 9 | ♥ 10 | ♣ 8 | ♦ 10 |
| 12. N | ♦ 7 | 2 | Q | ♥ 9 |
| 13. W | ♠ 7 | ♦ 6 | ♦ 9 | ♣ Q |
| Made 6 — E-W +680 |
Calvert opened a weak two-suiter. Its a matter for partnership style and agreement but perhaps with some extra distribution and 10 hcp the hand is too strong for 2♥ even vulnerable.
Even with 18 prime points it is hard for jenter62 to imagine slam especially when she is not even certain of a fit.
An aggressive pass by Palmer helped produce another good swing ...
| Board 10 East Deals Both Vul | ♠ 9 6 4 3 ♥ K 9 6 3 ♦ J 8 5 ♣ J 9 | ||||||||||
♠ K 5 ♥ J 8 2 ♦ A 9 6 3 ♣ 8 6 5 2 |
| ♠ A Q J 10 7 ♥ A 10 5 4 ♦ — ♣ A 10 4 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ 8 2 ♥ Q 7 ♦ K Q 10 7 4 2 ♣ K Q 7 |
EW 3♠; EW 3♥; EW 4♣; EW 2N; NS 1♦
| West | North | East | South |
| gerry | lmu | tarakiwi | seychelles |
| 1 ♠ | 2 ♦ | ||
| Pass | Pass | Dbl1 | All pass |
|
| 2 ♦ x by South |
| Trick | Lead | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| 1. W | ♠ K | 3 | A | 2 |
| 2. E | ♠ Q | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| 3. E | ♠ J | ♦ 10 | ♣ 2 | 6 |
| 4. S | ♦ K | 3 | 5 | ♣ 3 |
| 5. S | ♦ 2 | 6 | 8 | ♣ 4 |
| 6. N | ♣ J | 10 | 7 | 6 |
| 7. N | ♣ 9 | A | Q | 5 |
| 8. E | ♠ 10 | ♥ 7 | ♦ 9 | 9 |
| 9. W | ♦ A | J | ♥ 4 | 4 |
| 10. W | ♣ 8 | ♥ 3 | ♥ 5 | K |
| 11. S | ♦ Q | ♥ 8 | ♥ 6 | ♥ 10 |
| 12. S | ♦ 7 | ♥ 2 | ♥ 9 | ♠ 7 |
| 13. S | ♥ Q | J | K | A |
| Down 1 — N-S -200 |
Would you pass 2♦Dbl with the west cards. South is hardly maximum for the 2♦ overcall and on the surface there are eight tricks for declarer - five diamonds, two clubs and a heart. A closer analysis shows that the defense can defeat the contract with two spades, two side aces and two trump tricks (or by forcing declarer off by repeatedly leading spades).
If you consider that Gonthier would have overcalled with the ♣A rather than the ♣K and that Wilson would still double (he could even have the ♣J or ♥K from dummy) with those cards swapped then you see the danger of converting the takeout double for penalties.
Some might argue that Wilson should not double with a diamond void. No one though can argue with the result +200 for east-west.
| Board 10 East Deals Both Vul | ♠ 9 6 4 3 ♥ K 9 6 3 ♦ J 8 5 ♣ J 9 | ||||||||||
♠ K 5 ♥ J 8 2 ♦ A 9 6 3 ♣ 8 6 5 2 |
| ♠ A Q J 10 7 ♥ A 10 5 4 ♦ — ♣ A 10 4 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ 8 2 ♥ Q 7 ♦ K Q 10 7 4 2 ♣ K Q 7 |
| West | North | East | South |
| sandrac | kermit | jenter62 | cascade |
| 1 ♠ | 2 ♦ | ||
| Dbl | Pass | 3 ♥ | Pass |
| 3 NT | All pass |
| 3 NT by West |
| Trick | Lead | 2nd | 3rd | 4th |
| 1. N | ♦ 5 | ♣ 3 | 10 | 3 |
| 2. S | ♦ 4 | 9 | J | ♣ 4 |
| 3. N | ♦ 8 | ♥ 4 | Q | A |
| 4. W | ♥ 2 | 6 | 10 | Q |
| 5. S | ♦ K | 6 | ♠ 3 | ♥ 5 |
| 6. S | ♦ 7 | ♣ 2 | ♠ 4 | ♣ 10 |
| 7. S | ♦ 2 | ♣ 5 | ♠ 6 | ♠ 7 |
| 8. S | ♣ 7 | 6 | 9 | A |
| 9. E | ♠ A | 2 | - | - |
| Down 2 — E-W -200 |
In the closed room east-west got into a different sort of trouble. After the same start to the auction as the open room Calvert chose to double where Palmer had passed. jenter62 perhaps believing that her partner had four hearts jumped to 3♥ which effectively pushed her side into a hopeless 3NT.
Personally I am in favour of the useful values sort of negative double rather than the more mainstream "guaranteeing four-cards in the unbid major". Especially when as I suggested earlier I have no intention of passing 2♦ doubled. In that style most often partner will only bid 2♥ with a four-card suit expecting a raise. Maybe though even in this style the east hand here is just too strong for 2♥.
Bridge is a cruel game north-south in the open room and east-west here did little or nothing wrong and lost 9 IMPs for their trouble.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Club Night 080812
Palmerston North Club 080812
| Board 3 South Deals E-W Vul | |||||||||||
| ♠ A 7 ♥ 10 9 ♦ A K Q 10 9 7 5 3 ♣ 3 |
| West | North | East | South |
| 2 ♦1 | |||
| Pass | 2 ♥2 | ? |
|
I found this bidding problem to be difficult. There were a number of issues:
The scoring was matchpoints which means that 3NT could easily be a better scoring contract;
We were vulnerable against not so I was wary of bidding 5♦ and potentially giving up 100s - maybe doubled.
In the end I decided my choice was between bidding 3NT or 5♦, I also gave some consideration to double hoping to be able to bid my diamonds later. I wasn't brave enough to bid 3NT without a heart stopper so I blasted 5♦ which ended the auction.
There was good and bad news in the full layout:
| Board 3 South Deals E-W Vul | ♠ 9 4 ♥ A 5 4 2 ♦ J 2 ♣ K 9 8 7 4 | ||||||||||
♠ 5 3 2 ♥ K Q 8 7 3 ♦ 8 6 ♣ A 6 5 |
| ♠ A 7 ♥ 10 9 ♦ A K Q 10 9 7 5 3 ♣ 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ K Q J 10 8 6 ♥ J 6 ♦ 4 ♣ Q J 10 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| 2 ♦ | |||
| Pass | 2 ♥ | 5 ♦ | Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
| 5 ♦ by East |
Partner had two tricks so that 5♦ was cold but he also had one quick trick and a heart stopper so that we had 630 available in 3NT. Maybe next time I will be braver.
Another five-level decision gave me a pleasant surprise:
| Board 14 East Deals None Vul | ♠ J ♥ 10 ♦ K Q 8 5 2 ♣ A 9 8 7 6 5 | ||||||||||
♠ K 8 7 5 3 ♥ 8 7 4 3 2 ♦ A 10 4 ♣ — |
| ♠ 9 6 2 ♥ A J 5 ♦ J 9 ♣ K J 10 4 3 | |||||||||
| ♠ A Q 10 4 ♥ K Q 9 6 ♦ 7 6 3 ♣ Q 2 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | 1 NT1 | ||
| Pass | 5 ♣ | Dbl | Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
|
| 5 ♣ x by North |
North's 5♣ was close to the last bid I was expecting. I guess north-south had limited methods and north with limited values and lots of distribution elected to blast a suit game. On another day 5♣ might be a fine contract but not today unless you were a defender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
