[gartinmale]

Matchpoints, North America. Club game of varying strength. Here's the auction.

---

Do you bid?

If you would have bid 4♥ directly over 3♠, lefty would still have bid 4♠, and it would still be passed around to you.

[blackshoe]

I pass. Am I one of West's peers?

[pran]

gartinmale, on 2012-January-27, 00:57, said:

Matchpoints, North America. Club game of varying strength. Here's the auction.

---

Do you bid?

If you would have bid 4♥ directly over 3♠, lefty would still have bid 4♠, and it would still be passed around to you.

I have two tricks to partner. If I trust him to have the 7 tricks he should have for his preempt in equal zones then yes I bid 5♥. At MP -500 is better than -620.

[gartinmale]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-27, 02:45, said:

I pass. Am I one of West's peers?

Not by a mile. No offense to West. Okay, maybe small offense to West.

[gordontd]

gartinmale, on 2012-January-27, 00:57, said:

Do you bid?

Yes, I open 1♦

[ahydra]

I'd probably bid 4H the first time and pass next. We might even beat 4S and there's way too much risk 5H goes for 800.

And yes, I'd also consider opening 1D.

ahydra

[mycroft]

Count me in with the openers.

Having said that, assuming I found the ♥A after my pass, bidding 5♥ here is a mug's game - even if it might be right. If I'm bidding 5♥ over 4♠, I'm bidding 5♥ over 3♠. "Maybe they won't bid it" - yeah, sure.

Having said *that*, my answer to those questions is a bunch of questions. Who's my partner? What's our preempting style? Does he push in third seat? If he's classic, all seats, all vulnerabilities, he's got KQxxxxx and an outside K, and we're taking 3 tricks in spades and probably 9 in hearts, so sure. But I should have worked that out back at 3♥ where I get a chance to go +100 rather than this option of bad or worse. But I don't play with those people, and I expect KQ-sixth at best, maybe QT-seventh, and an Ace, or some other defensive trick, outside is likely. They could have 3-2 hearts, never mind 2-2, and we could easily take 4 tricks.

I pass, and wonder why I didn't open and give partner the problem.

[Coelacanth]

I think the bid/pass decision here can only be made with knowledge of partner's preempting style.

Unless said style is extreme in either direction I think both pass and 5♥ are LA's here.

[gartinmale]

I was South.

East had

♠ -
♥ KQJTxxxx
♦ Qxx
♣ xx

East thought for about a minute before opening 3♥ and for longer over 4♠.

The East/West partnership has no agreement on preempting style, and their card is not marked. East said he was initially trying to choose between 3♥, 4♥, and 5♥, and was thinking about both the vulnerability and how likely we were to double him compared to other tables.

Everyone agreed that there was a hesitation. West claimed that

(1) 5♥ is automatic, and

(2) His partner's hesitation implies a distributional hand, and that N/S can therefore make both 4♠ and 5♠; hence bidding on, giving us the fielder's choice of doubling 5♥ when it is right or bidding a making contract when it is not, is the action not suggested by the UI. In practice, 5♠ does make, losing a heart and a diamond, and 5♥ is one away, losing two clubs and the diamond king.

We objected to (1) because we thought it was false, and (2) because we thought it was, well, very false.

Every other table had played the hand already, but most of them opened East's hand and were never quite in this mess. At the club, with no one to poll, how would you go about ruling on the hand?

[aguahombre]

You are right about there being no one to poll. Peers of West who didn't open and of East who thought they had something to think about before and after their questionable choice would not understand what they were being asked.

[Trinidad]

You need to answer the question: What would West's peers consider LAs? and What would West's peers think the UI suggested?

Often, the easiest way is to poll West's peers. But it is not the only way. As a clear example, I think that West's bridge teacher (if he has one) would be very good at answering these questions, probably better than West's peers (who wouldn't understand these questions to begin with).

I think it would be a good idea to leave the dogma that you can only get a good ruling if you poll the player's peers.

Rik

[Jeremy69A]

I may be blind but I can't see the vulnerability on the hand. In a club game in my area

1. Most would open 1♦
2. Some but not many would bid 4♥ having passed originally
3. Most would pass 4♠

It maybe the standard in the game described is different but based on what has been said I think the hesitation suggests bidding on if the vulnerability is anything but unfavourable and I would not allow this choice.

[Trinidad]

The vulnerability is all vul. You can see this from the bar above the auction diagram: When NS are vulnerable, the bar on top of North and South will be red (as here). If NS are not vulnerable this bar is white. The same goes for EW.

Quick examples:

---

---

---

---

Rik

[phil_20686]

3H. Lol.

[wank]

gartinmale, on 2012-February-02, 00:33, said:

(2) His partner's hesitation implies a distributional hand, and that N/S can therefore make both 4♠ and 5♠; hence bidding on, giving us the fielder's choice of doubling 5♥ when it is right or bidding a making contract when it is not, is the action not suggested by the UI. In practice, 5♠ does make, losing a heart and a diamond, and 5♥ is one away, losing two clubs and the diamond king.

kudos to west for such classic bullshitting.

[wyman]

pass is definitely a logical alternative.

[pooltuna]

Initially I call 4♥ then I obey the captain(partner) and shut up

[aguahombre]

pooltuna, on 2012-February-02, 15:53, said:

Initially I call 4♥ then I obey the captain(partner) and shut up

And you would do so in tempo. This is typically the cause of a BIT by players of inexperience as must be the case here....an ill chosen or ill prepared initial action. That is exactly the UI West had ---that there was something wrong with the 3H bid; and he used it.

[bluejak]

gartinmale, on 2012-February-02, 00:33, said:

At the club, with no one to poll, how would you go about ruling on the hand?

aguahombre, on 2012-February-02, 02:01, said:

You are right about there being no one to poll.

I don't understand: why is there no-one to poll? Of course there are people to poll, other players in the club.

[gartinmale]

All of them have played the board already. I suppose in a perfect world that doesn't matter.

bluejak, on 2012-February-03, 18:20, said:

I don't understand: why is there no-one to poll? Of course there are people to poll, other players in the club.