[kenberg]

Hands rotated to place me S.
Tourney, I'm a sub.

Scoring: MP


P P 1♣ X
1N All pass.

♣ ace and another club.
Down 1

---

Scoring: MP


P P 1♣ X
1N All pass.

♣ ace and another club.
Down 1

---

Tough game.

[ArtK78]

The first one is very impressive. Obviously the double of 1♣ was for penalties. That is the only rational explanation for the double, the lead and the failure of East to bid 2♥.

1NT was an interesting call, also.

The second one is odd only in that the opponents sold out to 1♠. They should (may?) make 2♥ and at least 9 tricks in clubs. Your side might not sell out to 2♥ anyway. The play was not remarkable. You could have made 1♠ if you had won the club shift at trick 2 and played a spade (guessing right, of course).

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Jan 15 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

You could have made 1♠ if you had won the club shift at trick 2 and played a spade (guessing right, of course).

Really?

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Jan 15 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 15 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

You could have made 1♠ if you had won the club shift at trick 2 and played a spade (guessing right, of course).

Really?

Maybe not. You probably still have to lose 7 tricks.

[JLOL]

Why would you ever post the second hand? The opps sold to 1S and go +50 when they are cold for a partscore in MP, and their defense was to lead their stiff ace of partner's suit and shift to the suit they don't have an ace of where dummy had the ace... effectively the bid terribly and then defended completely normally.

Also as a side note your partner had an obvious 1N balance which would make a lot of tricks.

[JLOL]

ArtK78, on Jan 15 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

They should (may?) make 2♥

LOL

Quote

and at least 9 tricks in clubs.

LOL

Quote

You could have made 1♠ if you had won the club shift at trick 2 and played a spade (guessing right, of course).

LOL

Expert analysis from Art.

Anyways if you are cheating it's not hard to have the auction 1D p 1H p 2C p p p which is actually quite normal. It also wouldn't have been hard to prebalance with 2C. I don't see any reason to think there was foul play there.

[kenberg]

No one finds the pass of 1H strange? The auction began P 1D P 1H P P

[jdonn]

kenberg, on Jan 15 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

No one finds the pass of 1H strange? The auction began P 1D P 1H P P

Sure it's strange. As was the double of 1♣. As was your partner's 1NT bid. Strange bidding is much more often a sign of beginners than a sign of cheating.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jan 15 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 15 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

No one finds the pass of 1H strange? The auction began P 1D P 1H P P

Sure it's strange. As was the double of 1♣. As was your partner's 1NT bid. Strange bidding is much more often a sign of beginners than a sign of cheating.

Agreed.. I have long held that incompetency is a far more common explanation than is conspiracy. However, we all tend to see conspiracy when the incompetency leads to a good result for the opps.

I once played a hand with 8642 in dummy opposite QJ3 in hand, in notrump, and won 3 tricks by force, against someone who had just returned from an intensive bridge camp situation. He led the 10 from K1075, his partner played the 9 from A9... I won the Q, led the J and he covered with the K. It was trivial to hook his 7 later. Having seen this, I believe almost anything.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 15 2009, 05:03 PM, said:

Agreed.. I have long held that incompetency is a far more common explanation than is conspiracy.

This is generally true, not just in bridge.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Jan 15 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

I once played a hand with 8642 in dummy opposite QJ3 in hand, in notrump, and won 3 tricks by force, against someone who had just returned from an intensive bridge camp situation. He led the 10 from K1075, his partner played the 9 from A9... I won the Q, led the J and he covered with the K. It was trivial to hook his 7 later. Having seen this, I believe almost anything.

I once played AJxx opposite 9xx for four tricks and no losers. But yours is better.

[kenberg]

I appreciate all of this commentary. I like to think well of my fellow bridge player and generally stretch to find a satisfactory explanation. This was testing my limits.

After the tourney I pointed the director towards these hands, not asking for an adjustment but suggesting that future observation might be indicated. I'm content to leave it at that, but the two hands struck me as unusually odd. I was curious as to how others would see it.

Added: As I recall they were experts according to their profiles. I won't hold them to that.

[TimG]

mikeh, on Jan 15 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

I have long held that incompetency is a far more common explanation than is conspiracy.

Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Jan 15 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

Added: As I recall they were experts according to their profiles.

Oohh, so you already knew that they were incompetent?

Rik

[kenberg]

Rik,
I had indeed overlooked this very sensible observation. Thanks you for reminding me.