BBO Discussion Forums: Strange bidding all round (EBU) - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Strange bidding all round (EBU)

#1 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2012-April-16, 07:49

Club teams-of-four competition:

X was alerted; it shows 9+ points, any distribution
West thought for a long time before passing over 4

NS are a regular partnership and play in local leagues and sometimes for the county third team-of-eight. EW have played together only once or twice before, and play only at the club.

Result: 4X(N)-1, EW NS -100

North was the director, and wasn't happy about East's double of 4 after the agreed hesitation, so he asked me to give a ruling.

How would you rule? If you require any more information, ask and I'll try to provide it.
0

#2 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2012-April-16, 08:23

First thing I do as TD is request that the players put this hand aside and show me the one that matches the auction.

All kidding aside, East's double of 4 is UNBELIEVABLE! Are you sure the West hand was not exposed on the table?

I have no idea what East was thinking about when he doubled. To say that his double of 4 was influenced by West's hesitation over 4 would be an understatement to the nth degree. Quite frankly, I think that West had a loaded gun pointed at East influencing the double.

I would certainly cancel the double of 4.

By the way, why down only 1?
2

#3 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,201
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-16, 08:24

I rule that the hesitation could demonstrably suggest doubling over pass, that East's double is therefore illegal, and so adjust the score to 4N-1, NS -50 (I think your "EW -100" is an error, isn't it?)
--------------------
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
0

#4 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,302
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2012-April-16, 08:39

View PostArtK78, on 2012-April-16, 08:23, said:

By the way, why down only 1?

Because the defence cannot take more than two spades, one heart and one club, and, as the declarer contracted for ten tricks, and scored nine, he is down only one. And if the defence continue forcing in diamonds the contract actually makes!

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
1

#5 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,201
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-April-16, 08:53

View Postlamford, on 2012-April-16, 08:39, said:

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?


A bit, maybe. I wouldn't quibble with a warning.
--------------------
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
0

#6 User is offline   PeterAlan 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 2010-May-03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-16, 09:13

Nothing to add about E/W, but there's also N's opening bid (you say they are a regular partnership) - illegal as an agreement if playing under EBU Level 4 (or less) since only 7 HCP. This is just to note - I'm not suggesting anything was fielded.

View Postlamford, on 2012-April-16, 08:39, said:

View PostArtK78, on 2012-April-16, 08:23, said:

By the way, why down only 1?

Because the defence cannot take more than two spades, one heart and one club, and, as the declarer contracted for ten tricks, and scored nine, he is down only one. And if the defence continue forcing in diamonds the contract actually makes!

But -2 on a lead - declarer will either lose a third or a second (I've verified this with DF).
0

#7 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,814
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2012-April-16, 09:22

View Postlamford, on 2012-April-16, 08:39, said:

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?

Yes, assuming that the 2NT bid shows 19 points. But I would love to hear East's reasons for doubling.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#8 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,454
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2012-April-16, 09:51

View Postpaulg, on 2012-April-16, 09:22, said:

Yes, assuming that the 2NT bid shows 19 points. But I would love to hear East's reasons for doubling.

Need to find out what 2N is.

Was 2N forcing/alerted or normal invite ? If they've agreed to overcall on crap like this such that the fitting 19 count doesn't automatically bid game, then the double is not ridiculous with all points outside your suit. It may not be bridge, but may not be a field.

If 2N is GF and my overcall is not completely systemically off planet but mildly substandard then partner's pass is presumably forcing, now I'm in a tough spot ethically.
0

#9 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2012-April-16, 09:57

Not relevant to EW's infraction, but:
Is North's hand a permitted opening?
Was South's double for takeout?
If not was it alerted?
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#10 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-April-16, 12:21

View PostVixTD, on 2012-April-16, 07:49, said:

North was the director, and wasn't happy about East's double of 4 after the agreed hesitation, so he asked me to give a ruling.

How would you rule? If you require any more information, ask and I'll try to provide it.


In these UI situations, it is always good practice for the TD to ask the player in receipt of UI to explain why he chose the disputed call or play.

View Postlamford, on 2012-April-16, 08:39, said:

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?


Not on this occasion, but I'd like to hear what East has to say before assessing the size of any PP.
0

#11 User is offline   ahydra 

  • AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,834
  • Joined: 2009-September-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wellington, NZ

Posted 2012-April-16, 14:16

Lol. So North opens a 7 count, East makes a 2-level overcall on a 4-count, West bids only 2NT with a 19-count, and then North bids a new suit at the 3-level! Good job one staff member from the mental hospital (South) was present to round them all back up!

If EW are B/I it would be very harsh to give them a PP. Just explain the rules and cancel the X. (To be honest, East's double is so insane in absence of the UI that the contract deserves to be "un-undoubled", for NS -25).

ahydra
0

#12 User is offline   mr1303 

  • Admirer of Walter the Walrus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,541
  • Joined: 2003-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
  • Interests:Bridge, surfing, water skiing, cricket, golf. Generally being outside really.

Posted 2012-April-16, 16:34

Quick question for someone with a not very solid understanding of the laws.

The laws state that a player with UI may not select, from logical alternatives, one demonstrably suggested by the UI.

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?
0

#13 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,561
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-April-16, 18:23

View Postmr1303, on 2012-April-16, 16:34, said:

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?


It apparently made sense at the time to the player in question.

The selected call was chosen by 100% of the player's precise peers. It is always considered a "logical alternative".

(I thought we just had this?)
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#14 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2012-April-16, 18:49

View PostVampyr, on 2012-April-16, 18:23, said:


View Postmr1303, on 2012-April-16, 16:34, said:

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?


It apparently made sense at the time to the player in question.

The selected call was chosen by 100% of the player's precise peers. It is always considered a "logical alternative".

(I thought we just had this?)

Was this the weekly duplicate at the insane asylum?
0

#15 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-April-17, 01:06

View Postmr1303, on 2012-April-16, 16:34, said:

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?

It's not enough to read the the Laws: you also have to read the documents where they tell you what they really meant.

The WBFLC minutes of 8th October 2010 tell us that "the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1", which seems clear enough. In fact, that was obviously deemed too clear, so they followed it with "An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances."
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
1

#16 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,380
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton, New Zealand

Posted 2012-April-17, 05:34

View PostArtK78, on 2012-April-16, 18:49, said:

Was this the weekly duplicate at the insane asylum?

ha-ha maybe Vampyr should somehow have emphasized precise peers.
Can't have a baby if you do it contraclockwise! --- Jlall
0

#17 User is offline   Lanor Fow 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 2007-May-19

Posted 2012-April-17, 05:45

View Postgnasher, on 2012-April-17, 01:06, said:

It's not enough to read the the Laws: you also have to read the documents where they tell you what they really meant.

The WBFLC minutes of 8th October 2010 tell us that "the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1", which seems clear enough. In fact, that was obviously deemed too clear, so they followed it with "An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances."

I assume in that latter case we can still use law 73 where applicable?

AS to the case in hand, do we know the agreement for 2? I originally expected this to be alertable if agreed to be this weak, but 5 G 3 "Players should not alert:" (d) "Any non-forcing overcall where the suit may contain only four cards, or the hand
shown is or may be very weak."
in the orange book seems to suggest otherwise. If the agreement is not to be this weak, then we may well be in the fielded misbid/psyche area. If so, how would one rule, on the fielded misbid/psyche or the UI, or is it dependend on which would give the better score to NOS?
0

#18 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2012-April-17, 06:28

View PostCyberyeti, on 2012-April-16, 09:51, said:

Need to find out what 2N is.

West just seemed to think she was showing a balanced hand. The notion of whether she was showing this sort of strength, or whether it was forcing or not, didn't seem to have occurred to her.
0

#19 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2012-April-17, 06:31

View Postjallerton, on 2012-April-16, 12:21, said:

In these UI situations, it is always good practice for the TD to ask the player in receipt of UI to explain why he chose the disputed call or play.

East just shrugged and said, "well, partner has bid no trumps so she must have something in hearts".
0

#20 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2012-April-17, 07:15

View PostRMB1, on 2012-April-16, 09:57, said:

Was South's double for takeout?
If not was it alerted?

It was alerted, as stated under the hand diagram. If "any distribution" really means what it says I don't see how North is supposed to know what to do opposite, i.e. on what basis he decides whether or not take it out. I imagine he didn't have a difficult decision with this hand, though.

View PostRMB1, on 2012-April-16, 09:57, said:

Is North's hand a permitted opening?

Alan thinks not. OB11C9 states that the minimum strength for opening one of a suit at levels 3 and 4 is rule of 18, with the proviso that it must have more than 7 hcp. Under the heading "level 4 only" there is no mention of minimum strength, but OB11C15 states that:

Quote

An opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ is only permitted if it shows at least four cards in the suit bid, forcing or not.

I wondered whether this supercedes the requirement for minimum strength set out in OB11C9 and opening bids in the majors are permitted to be any strength provided they show at least four cards in the suit, but the Tangerine Book (the idiots' guide to EBU regulations) makes it clear that the minimum strength requirement still applies at level 4. So perhaps OB11C15 is just reducing the restriction on permitted distribution at level 4, but how exactly it differs from the distributional requirements already given for levels 2, 3 and 4 in OB11C6 I don't know:

Quote

1 and 1 openings
These may be played as any one of the following:
(a) natural, 4+ cards, forcing or not
(b) canapé, 4+ cards, forcing or not
© possible canapé, 4+ cards, forcing or not
(d) natural, 5+ cards, forcing or not

I suppose it allows you to open a major on a four-card suit only if it promises another longer suit, but a five(+)-card suit otherwise.

I think I agree with Alan.

I asked North whether level 4 systems were allowed in the club, and he said he thought it allowed level 3 systems only, so that solved that problem.

I asked North and South separately whether they would routinely open the North hand one of a suit, and they both said they might pass but didn't think it was abnormal to open it 1, so I ruled they had an illegal agreement.

Where does that leave us with the ruling?
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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