BBO Discussion Forums: Singleton run - BBO Discussion Forums

mrdct, on 2011-January-13, 18:01, said:

North stated that you may run with a singleton in partner's suit. So he thought 5♣ to be a natural raise of his presumed clubs.

Establishing misinformation is tricky indeed, but that is not what we are discussing here.
South's actions are not under debate, he has no UI so is free to bid as he pleases.
North however, has by the lack of an alert on 3♣ the UI that his partner has not understood that 3♣ showed hearts+diamonds. This UI suggests bidding 5♥ and is therefore only allowed if passing is not a logical alternative (read Law 16B).

ahydra, on 2011-January-13, 16:56, said:

The problem isn't with South. It's with North. North has the UI that South didn't alert 3♣. This UI tells North that South thought that 3♣ was natural, rather than 55+ ♥♦. Therefore it tells North that South doesn't have a truck full of clubs, which is what you would expect of South would have alerted 3♣.

Quote

It is not the mistaken bid that is "punished" (as you write it), nor is it the lack of an alert (after all, the agreement was that 3♣ was natural).

What is rectified is the fact that North used UI when he decided not to play South for a hand with a lot of clubs. This is not punishment. This is only rectification to restore equity.

Now, if nothing was punished, and irregularities were merely rectified to restore equity, what then was the cause of the horrible score that NS got on this board? The horrible score was caused by the bidding misunderstanding that they had on this board. One of the two (apparently North) bid wrong and it lead to a poor score. That is quite normal when you bid wrong.

You might interpret it so that the "bridge gods" punished NS for not being on the same wavelength, but the TDs do not punish NS for their irregularity.

Rik

ahydra, on 2011-January-13, 16:56, said:

What you have missed is the UI. North bid 3♣ as Ghestem so he expected partner to alert it. Partner's failure to alert is UI and thus the UI Laws apply.

mrdct, on 2011-January-13, 18:01, said:

"You cannot be serious." The chances of someone who thinks they are playing Ghestem, when they aren't, having discussed this sequence are about the same as that of a kettle freezing when placed on a hot stove. North must carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI from the alert. So why cannot his partner have eight or nine clubs and be bidding this to play?

To add insult to injury, North has wrong-sided 5Cx which is ten off on the obvious trump lead. Played by South it would only be nine off, but East has enough entries, including the opening lead, to draw trumps. So -2600 it is. The sadist TD would give some percentage of -5200, as North has a great hand for clubs, with both red aces, a trump, and only one spade, and might well redouble, carefully avoiding taking advantage ... But I am a generous soul and would just give 100% of -2600.

Nah, lamford, let's allow "first round control and slam interest". 100% of -5200, after North redoubles to show second round control and extra length.

Yes, I'm joking. Sort of.

I have found this post very interesting.

I need to get out more and meet players who go for 2300-5200,knowingly, either to punish partner - or themselves as in this case.

I'm not really convinced that this constitutes anything resembling ethics. Until I am convinced, I'll bid as a card player and leave it to the opponents and the TD.

A "card player" in my experience is one who tries to win by playing to the rules, not despite the rules. The card players I play with and against try to follow the rules, including the UI rules. Sure, they often go wrong, but not by pretending that UI is a matter for the TD and their opponents.

ahydra, on 2011-January-13, 16:56, said:

The mistaken bid "isn't punished" in the sense that there will be no misinformation as E/W have been given a correct explanation.


You are also correct that South may not have UI. However, North does have UI. Presumably he did not intend 3♣ to show clubs, but when South did not alert the call, he learnt that South had interpreted the call as natural.

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-14, 15:22, said:

Having thought about this hand a bit more, it is clear that pass of 5Cx is demonstrably suggested over redouble, and should therefore be disallowed. North could hardly have a more suitable hand, whether partner is making a cuebid or bidding 5C to play, and it should be 100% of -5200. This has the added virtue that the next glossary of bridge can amend the definition of Ghestem as "a device to allow the director to change -100 to -1100" to a "device to allow the director to change -200 to -5200". I think this does resemble active ethics and I would certainly arrange a second game with someone who deliberately redoubled with the intention of going for 5200 (and I would promise not to think we were playing Ghestem next time).

I have been to lenient, as I awarded NS 3 tricks in 5♣ doubled. It should have been two.

West's pass on 5♥ for me certainly passed the shudder test, 5♥ and 5♠ both can be on, so I distracted the difference in IMPs between 5♥-2 and 5♥X-2 from the 16 IMPs that EW won on this hand. Thinking about it, I cannot be sure that a double of 5♥ would have passed the shudder test either, when the contract would have been made. My agreement is thus: after freely bidding a vulnerable game against non-vulnerable opponents we either play, or defend a doubled contact. East's pass then conveys the message, that he thinks 5♠ may be made. Since partner had no penalty double, while I hold a void 5♠ must be the winning call.


I polled three players on this and they agreed, but two of them would have doubled in stead of bid 5♠.

Moreover, West told me that he had wanted to call me after the 5♥ call, but that his partner (a TD) had told him not too as "everybody knew what was going on anyway".

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-16, 11:47, said:

It should have been a weighted score of one or two, depending on how often you thought a trump would be led.

lamford, on 2011-January-16, 04:47, said:

Good fun, Lamford

And if screens or other technology, do you wonder if 5C was invitational? Leave it, if you have xxx, Hx?

Some are obsessed with the much less probable 5C as demanding to play, not invitational, not lead directing - lead directing is less worrying obviously, emphasised in case some idiot seizes on this.

Is it an LA to go for let's say 1700+ etc, is it a rational risk. Who knows - ask/consult as Bluejak might say. None of Andre's consulted players seriously passed.

We had a stray money Bridge post recently. How do you feel if you personally are carrying the cost of the decision in cash, rather than Internet nonsense.

I do not believe that redoubling is a possibility here, since there is no reason to suppose that partner is bidding to make. Eight solid clubs opposite would not be enough to make 5♣. So -2300 or -2600 or some weighting between the two (I haven't done a full analysis).

I also do not believe that pass is suggested over redouble. With the UI, he knows that passing guarantees a bottom, whereas redoubling gives partner a chance to wake up -- and it is not unlikely that he will, since making a weak jump overcall and then redoubling partner's raise is inconceivable.

campboy, on 2011-January-16, 15:03, said:

Firstly it is teams scoring, and therefore the question of a bottom does not arise. Your argument is valid if partner is bidding 5C to play, but not if he is showing a control and making a slam try in one of our suits. In the first case, I agree, we might only have ten tricks on a trump lead, say. In the latter, I would expect us to make slam. And we mustn't even think about the fact that partner thinks that we have made a weak jump overcall - that is continuing to use the UI.

I have to think about how partner will interpret my next call to determine how to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, don't I? I think passing avoids advantage best because redoubling might wake partner up. In fact, if North had redoubled and South had woken up I would be adjusting.

campboy, on 2011-January-17, 12:58, said:

Right, so you don't need to be worried about partner waking up, as the TD will put him to sleep again. Redoubling actively pursues the largest possible minus (-5200) and still locks in the safe -2600 that we have banked.

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-16, 11:47, said:

I agree with the rectification adjustment to 5♣x by North; you are right that the contract would probably make two tricks rather than three.

However, I strongly disagree with your denial of redress to East/West, the non-offending side. Here is why.

1. As a matter of Law, the TD can only deny redress to East/West if either of their Passes over 5♥ is deemed to be "wild" and/or "gambling". It is not sufficient for either of the Passes to be deemed to be a "serious error" as the opportunity to make these calls is clearly related to the infraction of the 5♥ bid.

2. Just because the TD happens to play Pass as forcing in this particular sequence at this vulnerability, there is no reason why East/West should have this agreement.

3. High level competitive bidding decisions are rarely easy. To illustrate the point, we need look no further than the people consulted by the TD: two out of the three said they would double 5♥, despite holding a trump void and probably at most one defensive trick.

4. As I understand it, West's stated reasoning for passing was that he was concerned that either a 5♠ bid or a double from him might be interpreted as wild or gambling by the TD. The TD should sympathise with a non-offender's predicament in this situation. Remember, it was North, not West, who caused this mess!

5. Some commentators have suggested over the years that the non-offenders are supposed to "continue to play bridge" after an irregularity. OK, let's analyse the situation as West. North can't have a natural 3♣ overcall now that he has run from 5♣x. Perhaps we have come across Gh****m misunderstanding before and we infer that North has both red suits. Can North be 5-5 in the reds? Not really, no. In that case, North would be bound to stay in 5♣x because that is what Law 16 requires him to do; West knows that 3♣ has not been alerted and therefore knows that North's actions have been constrained by the UI.

As West, we therefore infer that North has no logical alternative to pulling 5♣x so he must have a freak hand with a lot of playing strength such as
♠none ♥KQJ10xxx ♦AJ10xxx ♣none.
In that case, doubling 5♥ would be a very poor idea. Competing to 5♠ might be a better option, but (i) we can expect bad breaks in the black suits too and (ii) who is to say that bidding 5♠ won't push them into a making 6♥?

In summary, West's Pass is nowhere close to being either wild or gambling. If North had not broken the Law, E/W would probably have been writing down +2300 after an enjoyable defence. They've already been denied their enjoyable defence, so the least the TD can do is to give them back their +2300.

lamford, on 2011-January-17, 16:06, said:

You can't have it both ways. There must be a legal call for North to make, so what is it? If it is redouble then the TD can't adjust after a redouble which wakes South up; if it is pass then the TD can't adjust on the basis that he should have redoubled. Redoubling only "locks in the safe -2600" on the assumption that it is illegal, and if you are assuming that then you shouldn't be redoubling.

campboy, on 2011-January-17, 19:44, said:

All North can do is carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. He should redouble, because that is the bid that he might have made if South has said "Ghestem, at least 5-5 in the reds". If he had heard that there would be no question of waking South up. If he redoubles, with the intention of waking his partner up, that would be an infraction using the UI, but that should not prevent him making the bid.