[jvage]

Maybe "sub-minimum" was a bad word, I meant borderline between 3♣ and 3♦. If partner can't find another bid over 3♦ game will normally not be laydown, while 3♣ will lead to some no-play games.

John

[jallerton]

jvage, on Mar 22 2010, 12:09 PM, said:

Personally I use similar methods and consider both the example hands as sub-minimum for 3♣. If I did bid 3♣ on something like this I would definitely bid 3NT over 3♥ with the second example hand (x, Kx, KJTxx, AJTxx).

John

On the second example hand I would also bid 3NT over 3♥ playing my methods, as I play 3♥ as asking for further hand description. However, the meaning of 3♥ for the actual E/W pair was described in the opening post as "asking for a cue bid", so playing their methods it is presumably systemic to bid 4♣.

Quote

Maybe "sub-minimum" was a bad word, I meant borderline between 3♣ and 3♦.

If these hands are also borderline playing the methods of the actual E/W pair, then East should try to cater for them in his subsequent bidding. Once he receives UI implying that West has extra values, East is now obliged to cater for these borderline/minimum hands in his subsequent bidding.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Mar 23 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

Once he receives UI implying that West has extra values, East is now obliged to cater for these borderline/minimum hands in his subsequent bidding.

We are told by the OP that 3C showed a non-minimum, so East is only obliged to cater for hands that are non-minimum. And neither of the hands you put forward fits that description to me or anyone else I have asked.

[jallerton]

The TD was told that 3♣ showed "extra values" but this was a statement made to the TD by E/W, which (I speculate) could probably not be substantiated on their convention card or in their system file. Unsubstantiated potentitally self-serving statements provide evidence, but this evidence should not be accepted as a fact; such statements need to be viewed with a degree of scepticism; so the TD should make further enquiries and seek alternative evidence where available.

What we do know in this case is that ♠ 4 ♥J5 ♦AK1095 ♣AJ863 is significantly better than a minimum 3♣ bid (so significantly better than just "extra values"!), because holding this hand West thought for 2 minutes before signing off in 5♦.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Mar 24 2010, 03:49 PM, said:

What we do know in this case is that ♠ 4 ♥J5 ♦AK1095 ♣AJ863 is significantly better than a minimum 3♣ bid (so significantly better than just "extra values"!), because holding this hand West thought for 2 minutes before signing off in 5♦.

I think you would assess the hand held as significantly better than ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx as well. For you to rule that pass was a logical alternative you would have to deem that the hand held was demonstrably suggested by the UI over the hands you "hand-picked". The self-serving aspect was your choice of hands with two key cards missing.

[jallerton]

lamford, on Mar 24 2010, 10:27 PM, said:

I think you would assess the hand held as significantly better than ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx as well.

Indeed I would. ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx is a (close to) minimum 3♣ bid for me (a borderline 3♣ bid for John).

Quote

For you to rule that pass was a logical alternative you would have to deem that the hand held was demonstrably suggested by the UI over the hands you "hand-picked".

Correct. A minimum hand with 2 key cards will have less interest in slam and sign off in 5♦ more quickly. Hence the 2 minute pause demonstrably suggests a stronger hand, such as the hand held which contains the AK of trumps and a side ace.

Quote

The self-serving aspect was your choice of hands with two key cards missing.

I was not involved in the Norwegian Premier League, nor do I know any of the players at the table, so I do not understand why you consider anything I have said on this thread to be "self-serving". Do you also think that the TD's comment was also "self-serving"?

opening post said:

The TD adjusted the score to 5♦+2. His argument was that the long hesitation suggests 3 "aces" (of 5) lacking a heart-control

[lamford]

jallerton, on Mar 24 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

Correct.  A minimum hand with 2 key cards will have less interest in slam and sign off in 5♦ more quickly.

We are just disagreeing on hand evaluation; you have selected two hands which, in my opinion, are minimum, and you are continuing to argue that the player could have them. We are told that 3C was not a minimum. I do not agree that the hands you quote are consistent with a 3C bid in the methods of the players. Your selected hands are chosen specifically in order to make 6D no better than a 50% chance. Self-serving is obviously metaphorical in the context of posting on a forum; I was fully aware you did not play in the Norwegian Premier League.

I also disagree with the TD decision that the UI demonstrably suggested only two key cards; that was the classical hindsight ruling, which was correctly overruled.

[JanM]

lamford, on Mar 24 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

jallerton, on Mar 24 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

Correct.  A minimum hand with 2 key cards will have less interest in slam and sign off in 5♦ more quickly.

We are just disagreeing on hand evaluation; you have selected two hands which, in my opinion, are minimum, and you are continuing to argue that the player could have them. We are told that 3C was not a minimum. I do not agree that the hands you quote are consistent with a 3C bid in the methods of the players. Your selected hands are chosen specifically in order to make 6D no better than a 50% chance. Self-serving is obviously metaphorical in the context of posting on a forum; I was fully aware you did not play in the Norwegian Premier League.

What is a minimum depends on what sorts of hands this particular pair opens. I am convinced by the fact that West needed 3 minutes (which is a VERY long time) to choose 5♦ over a forward-going action with the actual hand, that for this pair both ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx and ♠x ♥Kx ♦KJ10xx ♣ AJ10xx would be "non-minimum" - good enough for 3♣ but not for the slow 5♦. If opener had either of these hands, 6♦ would be off 2 aces, one of them the Ace of trumps and the other one an ace that wasn't going away anywhere, so it would be substantially worse than 50%.

Quote

I also disagree with the TD decision that the UI demonstrably suggested only two key cards; that was the classical hindsight ruling, which was correctly overruled.

As I read the OP, the TD actually concluded that the slow 5♦ bid suggested 3 Keycards, not 2. That seems to be a good reading of what the slow bidder had.

So, I agree with JAllerton that Pass is an LA, at least if the description of 3♥ given by East is correct (IOW that it didn't suggest opener bid 3NT with a heart control, but asked him to start cue-bidding). East's entire auction was pretty strange, actually - first, he didn't try to get to spades (what would his partner open with 4243 or 4441 or even 4432?), then he bid 3♥ asking partner to cue-bid (strange method, doesn't fit his hand - couldn't NT have been right from his hand?). Then he bid 4♠ in order to allow partner to bid Keycard to look for 7, when his partner had already denied the A of spades and if he was sure he could make 6, he could have bid KCB to find out about 7. Then his partner made a minimum bid and he woke up and realized he should bid a slam. Sorry, European Champion or not, on this hand, he didn't bid like one and he did bid like someone taking advantage of UI.

[lamford]

JanM, on Mar 28 2010, 01:12 AM, said:

East's entire auction was pretty strange, actually - first, he didn't try to get to spades ... <snip>

I think one problem here is that we are insufficiently familiar with the pair's methods. How do you know that they could not get to spades after the start to the auction? How do you know whether the hands quoted by jallerton would be non-minimum in their methods? How do you know whether 3S would have been a cue-bid or have some other meaning? How do you know 3H precluded reaching 3NT?

The AC would (or should) have established the answers to all these questions. The TD has admitted failing to find out one bit of crucial evidence - what 3S would have meant over 3H. I suggest that there are quite a few other answers that he should have established.

I know you to be a strong player; but unless you are familiar with the pair's methods, how can you tell whether the player did not bid like an European Champion on this hand? Surely you cannot discern the whole system from a handful of bids; and don't forget the TD has given a potted explanation of the bids, without all the inferences.

I asked a strong player who plays these methods, and he states that 3S should be "can you bid 3NT partner?" and 3NT is "natural" and cues start at 4C. So, 3H asks for a cue with slam suitability and no-trump unsuitability. With these methods, the points about the grand not being possible are all invalid.

He also asked whether jallerton could come up with an actual minimum which was weaker than the two hands he gave and was still an opening bid, as he couldn't. Of course, we do not know what their minimum standards are, and again this should have been established.

[JanM]

I agree that without more information, no one can really know what was going on, but we can all know:
1. the explanation for 4♠ doesn't make sense
2. the opening bidder thought the actual hand was enough better than a minimum to merit a 3 minute consideration before bidding 5♦, so there must be SOME weaker hands that would have qualified for 3♣
3. In U! auctions, the benefit of the doubt is supposed to be given to the NOS
4. In general, opening bids have become lighter and lighter. For example, in the Vanderbilt final, Helness opened 1♦ in first seat favorable on Tx, AKTx, KJ9xx, xx and 1♠ in first seat both vul on KJTxx, Qx, J9xx, Ax. In the semi-final, everyone opened 1♦ or 1♥ on x, Txxxx, AKQJxx, x; Brogeland opened 1♥ on --, KQT9x, KQ9xx, xxx; Helness opened 1♦ on --, Jxx, AKQTx, J9xxx. I remember seeing several lighter openings, but I don't have time to look for them.

Even if your consultant is correct and cue bidding started with 4♣, I would be surprised if the opening bidder with x, Kx, KJTxx, AJTxx or x, K, KJTxxx, AJTxx would bid 3NT over 3♥. If these are possible hands for the auction so far - remember, opener didn't cooperate after showing a "non-minimum" with 3♣, then P is a Logical Alternative to 6♦.

Finally, if the grand is possible and if Pass of 5♦ is not a Logical Alternative to 6♦, why did the responder not bid 4NT over 4♣ to find out whether opener had 4 keycards, which was what he needed for the grand? By bidding 4♠ to get more information, I think he put himself in a position where he could not take advantage of the information that his partner actually gave - that he wasn't sure whether to bid more than 5♦ or not.

[lamford]

JanM, on Mar 28 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

I agree that without more information, no one can really know what was going on, but we can all know:
1. the explanation for 4♠ doesn't make sense
2. the opening bidder thought the actual hand was enough better than a minimum to merit a 3 minute consideration before bidding 5♦, so there must be SOME weaker hands that would have qualified for 3♣
3. In U! auctions, the benefit of the doubt is supposed to be given to the NOS
4. In general, opening bids have become lighter and lighter. For example, in the Vanderbilt final, Helness opened 1♦ in first seat favorable on Tx, AKTx, KJ9xx, xx and 1♠ in first seat both vul on KJTxx, Qx, J9xx, Ax. In the semi-final, everyone opened 1♦ or 1♥ on x, Txxxx, AKQJxx, x; Brogeland opened 1♥ on --, KQT9x, KQ9xx, xxx; Helness opened 1♦ on --, Jxx, AKQTx, J9xxx. I remember seeing several lighter openings, but I don't have time to look for them.

Even if your consultant is correct and cue bidding started with 4♣, I would be surprised if the opening bidder with x, Kx, KJTxx, AJTxx or x, K, KJTxxx, AJTxx would bid 3NT over 3♥. If these are possible hands for the auction so far - remember, opener didn't cooperate after showing a "non-minimum" with 3♣, then P is a Logical Alternative to 6♦.

Finally, if the grand is possible and if Pass of 5♦ is not a Logical Alternative to 6♦, why did the responder not bid 4NT over 4♣ to find out whether opener had 4 keycards, which was what he needed for the grand? By bidding 4♠ to get more information, I think he put himself in a position where he could not take advantage of the information that his partner actually gave - that he wasn't sure whether to bid more than 5♦ or not.

I also think that 4S may just have been a bad bid, when 4NT would have worked better, but we cannot punish East for bidding badly if he did. I would have wanted to ask him why he did not use RKCB.

I also wonder why East cue bid 4S and not 4H, or why he did not wait with 4D hoping for a 4S cue. One wonders if the TD has the meanings of the various bids correct, in fact.

I agree with the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the NOS, but we have to accept the TD's finding of fact and that included that 3C showed a non-minimum. To me that means extra values, and neither of the hands mooted remotely qualifies.

[jallerton]

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

I also wonder why East cue bid 4S and not 4H, or why he did not wait with 4D hoping for a 4S cue. One wonders if the TD has the meanings of the various bids correct, in fact.

I agree with the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the NOS, but we have to accept the TD's finding of fact and that included that 3C showed a non-minimum.

You state that we have to accept the TD's finding of fact.

The TD's finding of fact included the meanings of the calls as stated in the opening post and East's explanation of why he bid 4♠. It also included the fact that West thought for 3 minutes before bidding 5♦.

You can't just choose to believe one of the facts and ignore all of the others, just to suit your argument!

There is also your favourite Law 73C to consider in this case. Only East knows for sure what was going through his head at the point where he bid 4♠ and whether the slowness of the 5♦ bid may have "woken him up" in any way.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Mar 28 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

You can't just choose to believe one of the facts and ignore all of the others, just to suit your argument!

It would strengthen my argument to believe East's explanation of why he bid 4♠, but several don't and the AC didn't either. But they still ruled that Pass was not an LA at the end. Every man and his dog agree that Pass is demonstrably suggested.

It is sufficient to accept - as the AC must have done - that 3C shows a non-minimum, and all non-minimums make slam almost solid. You disagree, because your regard some potential hands, which look minimum to most other people, as also non-minimum. The AC disagreed, and they would have been better placed to establish this point.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

He also asked whether jallerton could come up with an actual minimum which was weaker than the two hands he gave and was still an opening bid, as he couldn't. Of course, we do not know what their minimum standards are, and again this should have been established.

He obviously didn't try very hard.

Jallerton suggested that
♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx
and
♠x ♥Kx ♦KJ10xx ♣ AJ10xx

are non-minimum in the context of being opposite invitational hands with diamond support.

Here are two weaker hands (I'm assuming a strong NT base):

Qxx KJx K10xx Axx
Qx Jx KJxxx AJ10x

are you really suggesting that either of these is not an opening bid?
Compared to these any 5-5 with two key cards and a side-suit singleton is obviously not minimum.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 29 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

lamford, on Mar 28 2010, 11:22 AM, said:

He also asked whether jallerton could come up with an actual minimum which was weaker than the two hands he gave and was still an opening bid, as he couldn't. Of course, we do not know what their minimum standards are, and again this should have been established.

He obviously didn't try very hard.

Jallerton suggested that
♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx
and
♠x ♥Kx ♦KJ10xx ♣ AJ10xx

are non-minimum in the context of being opposite invitational hands with diamond support.

Here are two weaker hands (I'm assuming a strong NT base):

Qxx KJx K10xx Axx
Qx Jx KJxxx AJ10x

are you really suggesting that either of these is not an opening bid?
Compared to these any 5-5 with two key cards and a side-suit singleton is obviously not minimum.

OK, I accept that there are hands which will open with less playing strength than jallerton's examples. It is surely just terminology. Where does the upper band for minimum end, and where does non-minimum start? We don't even know whether 3C is game-forcing; if it is then the hands certainly do not qualify.

[jvage]

Sorry, I got no more information about the case or the methods in use. As mentioned in the opening post I told the TD (I was not directly involved) that I was not sure if pass was a LA, but decided it probably was I was however pretty sure most good players would raise if given as a problem. It is interesting to note that posters here seem split, mostly very convinced one way or the other

It is also worth noting that the appeals committee contained some excellent players, including Tor Helnes. After his team (which is very strong even with a playing sponsor) failed to stay in our Premier League last year we'll meet there again next year

John