[jillybean]

Hi,

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  Pass
 Pass  1♣    Pass  2♣
 Pass  2♠    Pass  3♠
 Pass  4♠    Dbl   Pass
 Pass  RDbl  Pass  Pass
 Pass  

This is an indy.

I was called by East after this board 4♠NXX+1, E called saying N/S had failed to alert 1♣ and they must have known each other were playing Polish Club. He had doubled 4♠ thinking he was playing against a 4/3 ♠ fit and his partner would be able to ruff ♣.

I spoke to North who was intermediate and had a basic SAYC profile, his explanation of the 1♣ opening was that he couldn’t open 2nt with a singleton and his hand was too strong for 1♠.

I couldn’t talk to South they had signed off. 2♣ bid seemed a little odd but ok seeing his ♠ holding was so weak. I think east made a risky double and I didn’t adjust the board.

I did not get to talk to east again, he joined another tournament but I did receive a few more messages from him telling me how I should deal with players like N/S.

[Walddk]

"Same procedure as last year, James". Alert or not, does not matter. What matters is: has East been damaged by the missing alert? The answer is a clear no. Table result stands, period. And furthermore, North should not alert if he thinks that 1♣ is the right bid with that hand and the partnership has no specific agreement.

Maybe someone (a mentor!) needs to tell him, politely of course, that 1♠ is quite normal with his hand, but's that a different story.

By the way, a tournament director is not supposed to make bridge related judgements. Whether 2♣ is a good/bad bid is not for the TD to decide. Players are entitled to bid as badly as they like.

Roland

[jillybean]

Walddk, on Nov 30 2005, 11:35 PM, said:

By the way, a tournament director is not supposed to make bridge related judgements. Whether 2♣ is a good/bad bid is not for the TD to decide. Players are entitled to bid as badly as they like.

Roland

I mentioned Souths bid only because I was looking for any evidence of a concealed partnership agreement.

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Dec 1 2005, 08:35 AM, said:

Players are entitled to bid as badly as they like.

You should have told West. As we can see from the auction, everybody else was apparently fully aware of this right.

Seriously, the 2♣ bid clearly shows that South was expecting North to have clubs, so there certainly wasn't a concealed partnership agreement.

[jillybean]

For my info what are the standard responses to Polish 1♣?

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Dec 1 2005, 08:57 AM, said:

For my info what are the standard responses to Polish 1♣?

1♦ response:
1. Negative: 0–8 HCP. In the 7–8 HCP range, responder should not have a 4-card major (the response of one of a major is 7+HCP, the 1NT response is 9–11 HCP).

2. 9–11 unbalanced; either both minors (5-4), or one poor minor. The hand does not qualify for any of the responses: 1NT, 2 in a minor, 3 in a minor.

3. 12–16 HCP balanced without a 4-card major. The hand is not suitable for declaring no trumps.

1♥/1♠ responses:
7+HCP, 4+ cards, can have longer minor if less than GF.

1NT response:
9–11 HCP, no 4-card major.

2♣/2♦ responses:
5+ cards, GF, can have 4-card major.

2♥/2♠ responses:
Strong jump shift (semi-solid suit).

2NT response:
12+ HCP, GF no 4-card major.


(From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Gerben42]

Polish ♣ auction might go:

1♣ (Polish) - 1♠ (a minimum positive response in my opinion)
2♦ (Odwrotka) - 2NT (5♠ minimum)
3♠ (slam interest) - 4♣ (control)
4♦ (control) - 4♥ (control)
4NT (RKC) - 5♦ (one)
5♠ (too bad) - Pass

BTW doubling like that got what it deserved

[david_c]

Indeed - South's 2♣ bid shows that they didn't think they were playing Polish Club.

Actually I think 2♣ is a reasonable bid in a natural system. With a weak hand, it's often right to show your support then get out of the way. Playing four-card majors with a strong NT, 2♣ would be my choice as well.

[helene_t]

North's 1♣ opening is very strange, I could speculate he's native to some non-SAYC language (Precision?) but, like many, puts SAYC on his card to make it easier to find partners. Pure speculation, I have no evidence at all. South is clearly assuming natural (standard?) methods.

You were right in letting the score stand. You would need strong evidence to draw the conclusion that NS had the concealed agreement to play some alertable 1♣ opening. Concealed agreements are almost impossible in an indy.

Let's suppose that NS have been known to play a strong club system with light canapé responses, only claiming that in this tournament they decided to try SAYC for some unclear reason. Even then, you could consider to let the score stand for EW, if possible removing the X for NS: If NS were in a 4-3 fit, W would (from East's perspective) have passed in 3rd seat at favorable with a 5-card spades. This should suggest to East that something is wrong with the auction.

I think East's dbl is perfectly reasonable. One good thing that might happen is that declarer misguesses the trumps.

[Flame]

I do not agree with Roland on this, E/W were damage, East double is risky but players are allowed to take risky actions, East decided the risk was X% and decided it worth it, while if he knew Nroth was showing a strong have with 5 spades he would think the risk is greater and not double, this is legitimate and if the agrement was to play polish the score should b changed BUT, as we can see by south bidding this wasnt an agrement, north just dont know enough, and therfore the score should stand. In an individual turney as it seems to be its quite obvious that it wassnt an agrement.

[Gerben42]

They were damaged but they were not damaged by an undisclosed agreement. So no adjustment.

[Walddk]

Gerben42, on Dec 1 2005, 01:53 PM, said:

They were damaged but they were not damaged by an undisclosed agreement. So no adjustment.

The damage was self-inflicted and not caused by a missing alert. East took a chance and was punished. He's got to live with that.

Roland

[awm]

Walddk, on Dec 1 2005, 08:13 AM, said:

The damage was self-inflicted and not caused by a missing alert. East took a chance and was punished. He's got to live with that.

Roland

A lot of times risky actions are made "less risky" by the opponents bidding. For example, you hold:

Axx
JTxx
x
KQJTx

RHO opens 1NT (15-17), LHO bids 2NT, RHO bids 3NT. Do you double? Well, you have an easy lead, and it certainly looks like you might get four clubs and the spade ace. The opponents had an invitational auction, so partner probably has some stuff. The opponents might take five diamonds, three hearts, and the club ace, but partner could easily have a diamond stop or a heart honor, or the opponents may just have two flat hands where neither holds five diamonds. Obviously double is risky, but especially at matchpoints it's not ridiculous.

On the other hand, suppose 2NT is alerted as showing a game-forcing hand with 6+♦. Now do you double? Heck no. Partner has zilch, opponents will run six diamonds, the club ace, and three hearts on you off the top.

In the example hand from this thread, east thought he had a huge stack in the opponents side suit fit, and that the opponents were likely playing a 4-3 major fit on a lousy break, probably with borderline game values. Is it obvious to double? No, still risky. But it's a lot more appealing than it would be if north's 1♣ was alerted as strong and forcing.

With this said, I agree with Gerben that there is no evidence that north-south had any agreement about the 1♣ bid, so the table result should stand.

[coyot]

I would say that the damage was NOT self-inflicted, but it was quite likely NOT caused by a hidden agreement. (That is, you can't expect opps in Indy to have a hidden agreement, can you? Esp. if their profiles don't mention Polish club at all.)

Simply put, E/W got screwed by a non-standard bid by North. I don't like that bid at all, either, I would gladly open 1♠ with that hand as it still needs at least an Ace to make a game... Yes, E/W expected to score at least 3 tricks from the very start by two club ruffs and diamond ace, and doubled in the hope of finding one more trick in the combined hands...

I've been similarly screwed quite often, typically by old ladies who gladly opened 3♦ in first seat with a side major 4 card, causing me to totally misdefend the board . Such is life - and I've scored a ton of good results myself in a similar fashion, making strange/stupid bids. Life is tough... table result stands

[Walddk]

coyot, on Dec 2 2005, 10:24 AM, said:

I would say that the damage was NOT self-inflicted, but it was quite likely NOT caused by a hidden agreement.

That's a contradiction. If the bad result was not inflicted by NS, it was self-inflicted. No one asked East to double. He did, so he inflicted the result upon himself!

Roland

[david_c]

Walddk, on Dec 2 2005, 12:50 PM, said:

coyot, on Dec 2 2005, 10:24 AM, said:

I would say that the damage was NOT self-inflicted, but it was quite likely NOT caused by a hidden agreement.

That's a contradiction.

No it's not. The point is that the damage was caused (partly / primarily) by the fact that North did not have a natural 1♣ opening. But this was not a hidden agreement, just a random bid from North.