[mr1303]

A regular partner of mine told me about this one. Sadly I don't have the vulnerability but it was a swiss teams event.

Kxxxx
x
AQTxx
Ax

(1H) 1S (2H) ....(P)
P 3D

After RHO opens 1H, a 2H bid would be weak or strong (this hand is intermediate). Partner hesitates before passing over 2H.

The partnership on these cards got to 5D which made. The director polled 10 players, of whom 8 bid 3D WTP, 1 bid 3D but considered pass, and 1 passed.

As a result, the TD ruled score stands.

As the AC, what do you think?

[paulg]

If the TD told the appellants the results of the polling, then I'd be tempted to keep their deposit.

[aguahombre]

Yes, it is sad that we don't have the colors; but, we must assume not unfavorable. At Vul vs. NV, this hand would be in range of the "split" Michaels, making pass a L.A. because of the 1♠ misjudgement and the dangers of now bidding 3D (without the UI).

However, the whole concept of the split range Michaels treatment is that with the intermediate range, overcaller will be bidding his/her 2nd suit at the 3-level or lower. That is what the overcaller did. When our methods predetermine what we will be doing, and then we do that ---there is no L.A. involved.

To clarify, this is very different from self-serving statements that "I always intended to...."; the system itself establishes what we intended to do.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-October-31, 09:12

[ewj]

Passing 2H is just absurd. If someone appealed saying they should have passed 2H, I would keep the deposit. And I don't think the process should take more than 30s to sort out...

[ahydra]

3D looks pretty clear cut, the results of the poll back this up, so I have nothing to add except that I agree with paulg.

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

One of the points of playing split range is that if you are not willing to bid 3♦ in this spot then you should have started with 2♥ in the first place. The passer was someone who presumably did not understand the system. It is difficult to believe that this went to appeal unless the issue was with our third call.

[MickyB]

The polling figures just go to show how absurd the current laws on LAs are. If one more person had considered passing, the TD would have had to disallow the 3D bid.

[mycroft]

For once I agree with aguahombre. When they chose to bid 1♠ rather than 2♦ or 2♥, it was with the intent of showing their real suit later. They obviously were comfortable with doing it at the 3 level, because that's where the auction almost certainly was going to be.

Not counting theory, "I'd rather go -1100 than -110" - Larry Cohen. We don't let them play 2-of-a-fit, and this hand isn't even close to being an exception to that. Plus, although "AI doesn't trump UI", we know partner has something (to go with his 4 hearts) - they didn't even invite.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2012-October-31, 09:53, said:

For once I agree with aguahombre.

O.K. I infer that on those occasions when my arguments were substantially the same as yours, it caused you to change your mind.

[bluejak]

MickyB, on 2012-October-31, 09:28, said:

The polling figures just go to show how absurd the current laws on LAs are. If one more person had considered passing, the TD would have had to disallow the 3D bid.

This shows how absurd it is to consider that polling is what UI Laws are all about. Of course it is not true that a TD "would have to disallow the 3D bid" and merely shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole UI and LA business.

Polling is merely a guide to judgement, not an absolute. And borderline cases in any judgement ruling always create problems: to suggest that there are borderline cases make Laws wrong is just wrong.



On a different point it intrigues me the logic in this thread: if you cannot bid the second suit at the 3-level you cannot make the simple overcall. That's neither definitely the case nor, for all we know, how this pair plays it. Why not the 4-level? Or the 5-level?

If you make 2-suited overcalls on any strength, there are difficulties. If you make 2-suited overcalls on certain strengths only you solve certain problems and create others. While the agreement stated here is one way to play it, I certainly don't when I play split ranges: going for 1100 just to prove something or other is not my idea of how to play bridge. If I overcall in one suit then I hope to be able to show the other suit.

As so often in these forums, people assume a certain way of playing with no evidence that the pair in question plays it that way.

[mycroft]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-31, 10:40, said:

O.K. I infer that on those occasions when my arguments were substantially the same as yours, it caused you to change your mind.

Absolutely. Why would you think otherwise?

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 13:22, said:

On a different point it intrigues me the logic in this thread: if you cannot bid the second suit at the 3-level you cannot make the simple overcall. That's neither definitely the case nor, for all we know, how this pair plays it. Why not the 4-level? Or the 5-level?

Because anybody who is *planning* on hiding AQTxx and showing Kxxxx, even minor vs major, is...well, either they're system-bound (MAFIA-style? Walrusy?) or they aren't thinking ahead, or they have better luck with partner's opening leads than I do.

We all know that there are auctions where the plan goes awry, but unless partner raises spades or it goes 1♥-1♠-p-1NT; p- or the like, I'm not showing my diamonds short of the 3 level. As I said before, I chose 1♠ rather than 2♥ *or* 2♦.

Quote

While the agreement stated here is one way to play it, I certainly don't when I play split ranges: going for 1100 just to prove something or other is not my idea of how to play bridge. If I overcall in one suit then I hope to be able to show the other suit.

Yes, I agree. But this isn't "one suit" and "another suit", it's King-empty and a suit you actually want led. Reverse the suits, and I wouldn't be extending this part of the argument (I would still be extending the "we don't let them play 2-of-a-fit" argument, if the table is of any reasonable standard.)

Obviously, all of our "assumptions" are going to be asked, as an AC. Some of them should have been asked as a TD, too. But unless this is bottom-of-the-field/flight C (okay, around here, flight B - monsterpoint accumulation is making 1000 no proof that you can think bridge), I'd consult (of course), and I've been very wrong before, but wouldn't be surprised to be bringing back "there's no alternative to balancing with that hand into 1♥-2♥." - without a poll. If the heart side are the C pair, there will be no hint of sarcasm in my voice, and probably some education; if the balancing side are the C pair, I'd be very surprised that there was an issue/call, but I'd work in the education, and maybe do do a poll to see what their peers would think.

[barmar]

I'm with bluejak on this one. You could be bidding 1♠ with the understanding that you might not be able to show your second suit. If the opponents only compete to 2♣, you'll be able to show it; if they compete higher, you're out of luck. That's what you get for playing that Michaels can only be bid with a weak hand or a powerhouse -- coming back in on the 3 level might require the upper range of intermediate, not ALL intermediates.

So if you do come back in with a low intermediate hand, and there's UI suggesting that partner has values, we could adjust.

However, the argument that partner is marked with something because the opponents didn't even invite game is also persuasive.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-October-31, 15:39, said:

I'm with bluejak on this one. You could be bidding 1♠ with the understanding that you might not be able to show your second suit. If the opponents only compete to 2♣, you'll be able to show it; if they compete higher, you're out of luck. That's what you get for playing that Michaels can only be bid with a weak hand or a powerhouse -- coming back in on the 3 level might require the upper range of intermediate, not ALL intermediates.

So if you do come back in with a low intermediate hand, and there's UI suggesting that partner has values, we could adjust.

I wouldn't assume they had such unworkable agreement about when to overcall and when to use a split range two-suited call. If you adjusted, you would be calling them morons as well.
That might be true, but I would need more evidence..and it wouldn't be in the form of a poll.
Apparently two of the ten are unfamiliar with split-range bids.

[Trinidad]

So, there are three ways to bid this hand pattern:

I) with a weak hand you bid 2♥, forcing the auction to 2♠ or 3♦
II) with a strong hand you bid 2♥, initially forcing the auction to 2♠ or 3♦ and -because you will bid again- forcing the auction to -at least- 3♠ or 4♦
III) with an intermediate hand you bid 1♠, and are willing to show the diamonds in the next round.

The question is: How high are you willing to force the auction with the intermediate hand? To me, it makes sense that this level should be between the strong and weak level. If weak forces to 2♠/3♦ and strong forces to 3♠/4♦, I think it is perfectly natural that with an intermediate you are willing to force to 3♦/3♠.

Not only is it logical to play that way, I think pretty much everybody who plays split range Michaels plays it that way. Many (most?) pairs would be willing to bid to the 4 level on a 5-5, if the opponents bid and raise.

Rik

[barmar]

But a general principle of preemptive bidding is that you're often willing to bid higher with weak, shapely hands than you would with a "normal" hand. The benefit is in the interference with the opponents' auction, and you hope your penalty is less then the value of the contract they would have reached without interference.

With an intermediate hand, you may be overbidding your hand if you go to the 3 level, when the opponents might not be making much. They might not even be making, since it seems like the points are about evenly distributed, and the opponents will run into a bad trump break.

[MickyB]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 13:22, said:

This shows how absurd it is to consider that polling is what UI Laws are all about. Of course it is not true that a TD "would have to disallow the 3D bid" and merely shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole UI and LA business.

Polling is merely a guide to judgement, not an absolute. And borderline cases in any judgement ruling always create problems: to suggest that there are borderline cases make Laws wrong is just wrong.

Eh?

Obviously, I have made some assumptions, such as the TD has only polled players that he considers to be peers of the one in question, and that we consider it clear that the hesitation suggests action. I just don't understand why a TD would do a poll and then decide that his results are wrong without a pretty obvious reason.

Of course there will always be borderline cases, shockingly I am aware of this, I just think the line is currently drawn in the wrong place. The old 70% rule was closer to the mark IMO than this new 25%/8% stuff.

I look forward to your providing more detail as to how I have completely misunderstood the whole UI and LA business.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-October-31, 16:27, said:

But a general principle of preemptive bidding is that you're often willing to bid higher with weak, shapely hands than you would with a "normal" hand.

I disagree with this, no matter how obvious it may sound at first.

The general principle of preemptive bidding is not that you want to bid high. It is that you want to bid high fast, hence the term "preempt".

The matter is cluttered a little because during a slow auction there will be additional information (e.g. if the opponents have a fit, you are willing to bid harder; if they don't you will be hesitant to bid). But I don't think that I am far of the mark if I say that with a given distribution I know the level that I want to compete to, irrespective of the strength of my hand. The strength of the hand is only determining the speed.

With a weak hand I will bid to that level as fast as possible. With a strong hand I will be competing to that same level as slow as possible to exchange as much information with partner as the opponents are allowing us.

Rik

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-October-31, 13:22, said:

This shows how absurd it is to consider that polling is what UI Laws are all about. Of course it is not true that a TD "would have to disallow the 3D bid" and merely shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole UI and LA business.

Polling is merely a guide to judgement, not an absolute.

I am 100% with you on this one. But I know a lot of TDs who are 100% certain that a TD ruling is wrong -by definition- if he didn't poll. These -BTW- are the same TDs who perform their polls the wrong way, by asking the wrong questions or asking them in the wrong order.

Rik

[PeterAlan]

It will have been Hand 35; E/W vulnerable, S dealer [how do I get the hand editor to show this when bidding is switched off?]:

---

[aguahombre]

Is East familiar with responsive doubles?