[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 06:37, said:

Why would that be interesting?

Because gordontd does not believe it is an opening bid, and you suggest that it is borderline. Whereas I would expect many to open 1S.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 06:23, said:

Why would we double 4♣?

I wouldn't. I would expect it to make an overtrick. But "we expect it to go down" was your opinion. That would be another "interesting" poll:

"North pulls to 4♣. What do you estimate the chances of this making opposite an extra-values Michaels when you hold the deadly Qx of clubs?"

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 06:23, said:

I think we'd be entitled to rectification under Law 1.

Noted, but East may well have a seventh spade. Indeed I would tend to expect it for the 3♠ bid.

And it might equally be a breach of Laws 13 or Law 14. I have only ever encountered a breach of Law 1 once, when there were two threes of spades and no two of spades.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-October-10, 06:54, said:

I wouldn't. I would expect it to make an overtrick. But "we expect it to go down" was your opinion. That would be another "interesting" poll:

"North pulls to 4♣. What do you estimate the chances of this making opposite an extra values Michaels when you hold the deadly Qx of clubs?"

Or we could do this one: "Playing IMPs, the non-vulnerable opponents bid to partscore which you expect will go down, but you think two down is unlikely. Do you double?"

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 07:13, said:

Or we could do this one: "Playign IMPs, the non-vulnerable opponents bid to partscore which you expect will go down, but you think two down is unlikely. Do you double?"

We seem to disagree by about two tricks on the evaluation here. I think that most likely is 11. You think the most likely is 9. How many do they make on the actual hand? 11. I was not advocating a double. Indeed I was indicating that I would expect it to concede 510. I think that was a typo and -610 is more likely.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-October-10, 07:08, said:

Noted, but East may well have a seventh spade. Indeed I would tend to expect it for the 3♠ bid.

Maybe you would. I, on the other hand, would expect something different.

Both of those expectations are of little relevance, however: what matters is what this East has shown and what this West expects. This West has, in fact, told us what she expects, and she seems to have made no mention of a seventh spade.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 07:16, said:

Maybe you would. I, on the other hand, would expect something different.

Both of those expectations are of little relevance, however: what matters is what this East has shown and what this West expects. This West has, in fact, told us what she expects, and she seems to have made no mention of a seventh spade.

She only stated that she expected a minimum hand. She was certainly right about that! She also judged impeccably that she was getting a better score against 3NT undoubled than she would have against 4C doubled. We have to assume that partner has not psyched, but we still do not expect 4C to go down. Partner may have a completely normal S KQJ10xx H xx D Axx C xx. Now they will certainly run to 4C as North misbid with 3NT.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-October-10, 07:16, said:

We seem to disagree by about two tricks on the evaluation here. I think that most likely is 11. You think the most likely is 9. How many do they make on the actual hand? 11. I was not advocating a double. Indeed I was indicating that I would expect it to concede 510. I think that was a typo and -610 is more likely.

Sorry, but you've lost me. Earlier in this thread, you seemed to suggest that a reason for passing out 3NT was the risk of conceding 510 against 4♣x. You wouldn't double 4♣, I wouldn't double 4♣, and it seems unlikely that the actual West player would double 4♣. If East doubled 4♣, I expect that even you would be looking forward to the defence with some confidence. So, why did you suggest that there was a risk of defending 4♣x? Or didn't you?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 07:24, said:

Sorry, but you've lost me. Earlier in this thread, you seemed to suggest that a reason for passing out 3NT was the risk of conceding 510 against 4♣x. You wouldn't double 4♣, I wouldn't double 4♣, and it seems unlikely that the actual West player would double 4♣. If East doubled 4♣, I expect that even you would be looking forward to the defence with some confidence. So, why did you suggest that there was a risk of defending 4♣x? Or didn't you?

There seems to be a risk of using sarcasm on here. Read this again:

"If they end up in 4♣, and we double that, we expect it to make, so at best we might convert -550 into -510, possibly nicking an IMP."

How on earth would someone in their right mind double it when they expect it to make? But I have learnt my lesson and will avoid sarcasm in future.

[gnasher]

Paul, is there any chance that you could go through your posts from no 13 onwards, indicating which bits were intended as sarcasm, parody, or the like, and which were intended to be taken at face value? You could use a colour-coding scheme such as

yellow = humour
brown = seriously held opinion

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 07:39, said:

Paul, is there any chance that you could go through your posts from no 13 onwards, indicating which bits were intended as sarcasm, parody, or the like, and which were intended to be taken at face value? You could use a colour-coding scheme such as

yellow = humour
brown = seriously held opinion

I think that was the only one, but I do not know how to use the colour-coding and do not want to learn; I shall stick with black and white in all senses. I presume all yours are yellow? They certainly made me laugh. As did the view that this could be classified as a red fielded psyche. More importantly it worries me that budding County Directors are being taught that it is.

[aguahombre]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-09, 16:47, said:

Any color is a joke.

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-10, 05:50, said:

My understand of the EBU system ( http://www.bridgebas...lassifications/ ) is that every psyche gets assigned a color. This includes "[i]n the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche".

Assuming the TD was even called; but I was referring to the colors with consequences.

lamford, on 2011-October-10, 06:42, said:

I am coming round more to the belief that this is green rather than amber.

Careful, you might even get to the point of reconsidering the "nonsense".

Others have already shown West's actions to be at least reasonable, not fielding. The psyche itself (yes it is one --even though it is a 7-loser hand) is what caused N/S to go off-track; but South also ignored West's accurate calls during the play, and buried the 6-2 heart fit with Michaels to start with. I know the ruling did not include a score adjustment, but nevertheless it seems to have been brought on by a fit of picque over N/S' own inadequate ability to deal with the competition and the play of the hand.

[olegru]

Could I advise rule of thumb?
If after some strange bidding opponents bid contract you expect to go down, but you are not ready to take any actions (bid own contract or double) if opponents will run to another contract and you are not expect your partner to be able to make any actions too - do not double opponents in the bad contract.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-10, 07:53, said:

I know the ruling did not include a score adjustment

I was advised it was adjusted by the award of an artifical adjusted score of +3 IMPs N/S and -3 IMPs E/W. I don't know if there was a 0.5 VP penalty for E/W in addition (WB 90.4.2). I am not aware whether there was any appeal.

[bluejak]

I am surprised at the view that West's hand is minimum for the first double.

My view is for Amber: it just does not smell right.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-October-10, 07:27, said:

"If they end up in 4♣, and we double that, we expect it to make, so at best we might convert -550 into -510, possibly nicking an IMP."

I have been thinking about the word "we". If I double it with ♣Qx then, yes, there is a good chance it will make.

But if partner doubles it I certainly do not expect it to make.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-October-10, 08:48, said:

I have been thinking about the word "we". If I double it with ♣Qx then, yes, there is a good chance it will make.
But if partner doubles it I certainly do not expect it to make.

I was assuming that gnasher was using the "authorial we" or "editorial we". Knowing that his English is well-above average, I would not otherwise expect him to write: "We have a defensive 11-count <snip>".

I merely changed his "we expect it go down" to "we expect it to make".

[Bbradley62]

lamford, on 2011-October-10, 06:27, said:

I know it falls short of the stringent standards for a 1♠ opener at YC on a Friday...

That could be an awfully large game

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-October-10, 05:49, said:

Your carefully constructed layout doesn't leave partner a 1♠ opener.

OK, let us come up with another layout where everyone has their bids and 3NT is cold, as I agree partner is more likely to open 3♠ on the earlier example.

---

I trust you are happy with the 1♠ opener here. Or is this another carefully-constructed layout?

Sorry about the rotation of the diagram.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-October-10, 10:41, said:

Or is this another carefully-constructed layout?

Was it not carefully-constructed?