Self-director call

2 Pages
1
2
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Self-director call

#1 Jinksy

Experimental biddicist

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,909
Joined: 2010-January-02
Gender:Male

Posted 2016-August-16, 18:13

This came up in a friendly event where no-one really cared, but I wondered if I'd be penalised for this in a real event:

MPs. 2♥x went for a hojillion points and a top for us.

I thought my double (competitive, showing values, though I think P took it as penalty) was clear enough to do it even after P's hesitation, but I showed by hand to S while she was waiting to put down dummy, and she grimaced in disgust

If it had been a real tournament, with an actual director call, what would the result be?

The "4♥ is a transfer to 4♠" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing

#2 Cyberyeti

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 14,152
Joined: 2009-July-13
Location:England

Posted 2016-August-16, 18:19

You have an 11 count opposite an opening bid, you can hardly be expected to pass.

#3 mr1303

Admirer of Walter the Walrus

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 2,563
Joined: 2003-November-14
Gender:Male
Location:Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Interests:Bridge, surfing, water skiing, cricket, golf. Generally being outside really.

Posted 2016-August-16, 18:28

What does the tank suggest? That partner was considering options besides pass.

If you had bid 3NT I would disallow it as I suggest the hesitation suggests not being minimum, so 3NT would be more successful than 2NT or double.

I don't think the hesitation suggests double over 2nt though.

#4 The_Badger

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 2013-January-25
Gender:Male
Location:England
Interests:Bridge, Chess, Film, Literature, Herbal Medicine, Nutrition

Posted 2016-August-16, 19:31

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-16, 18:19, said:

You have an 11 count opposite an opening bid, you can hardly be expected to pass.

+200 (minimum) is always a good score at MPs, except if you have a game - and that's logical

Partner doesn't support X you (over 2♥), bid NTs himself, or another suit, so it's quite unlikely 3NT is on.

A competitive X turned into a penalty X turns into a top. Well done!

(Surely bridge players are still allowed to hesitate (momentarily) at the bridge table or has 'political correctness' [

] infected our wonderful game, too?)

#5 sanst

Group: Full Members
Posts: 863
Joined: 2014-July-30
Gender:Male
Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2016-August-17, 01:54

This is clearly a pollable situation. Don't speculate what you would or wouldn't have done, but ask some players of comparable strength and give them the same information that E had at that moment.

Joost

#6 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2016-August-17, 03:33

sanst, on 2016-August-17, 01:54, said:

This is clearly a pollable situation. Don't speculate what you would or wouldn't have done, but ask some players of comparable strength and give them the same information that E had at that moment.

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#7 gordontd

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,485
Joined: 2009-July-14
Gender:Male
Location:London

Posted 2016-August-17, 03:54

lamford, on 2016-August-17, 03:33, said:

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

Certainly I agree Pass is not a logical alternative, but I wonder if some might bid 2NT? We would then have to consider whether the tempo break suggested double over 2NT, but in general we take the view that double is the most flexible call to cater for whatever it is that partner was thinking about.

Gordon Rainsford
London UK

#8 Cyberyeti

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 14,152
Joined: 2009-July-13
Location:England

Posted 2016-August-17, 04:59

lamford, on 2016-August-17, 03:33, said:

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

Why ? the grimace is likely to be "we're going for a number" rather than "you cheating $%^&".

Unless you very clearly play support doubles in this situation, particularly in unfamiliar partnerships, the most likely reason for the hesitation IMO is "what does X mean" and I'm not sure what this suggests.

#9 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2016-August-17, 09:08

Cyberyeti, on 2016-August-17, 04:59, said:

The OP stated that the grimace was in disgust, rather than in fear. And it followed on from "was clear enough to do it even after P's hesitation, but", suggesting that it was a grimace of disapprobation. Giving a DP for a grimace was not a serious suggestion ...

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#10 ggwhiz

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 3,952
Joined: 2008-June-23
Gender:Male

Posted 2016-August-17, 13:10

A poll might come up with alternatives but they wouldn't be logical.

When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?

#11 Vampyr

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 10,611
Joined: 2009-September-15
Gender:Female
Location:London

Posted 2016-August-17, 13:20

ggwhiz, on 2016-August-17, 13:10, said:

A poll might come up with alternatives but they wouldn't be logical.

I agree with Gordon that 2NT might well come up in a poll, and that double is suggested by the UI.

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein

#12 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2016-August-17, 17:44

gordontd, on 2016-August-17, 03:54, said:

It is usually the case that double is the most flexible call in these situations when partner passes in tempo. It caters for whatever partner had for his opening bid. If it is the same bid you would have made without the UI, for the same reason, can it then be said to be demonstrably suggested by the UI?

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#13 barmar

Group: Admin
Posts: 21,570
Joined: 2004-August-21
Gender:Male

Posted 2016-August-17, 19:28

lamford, on 2016-August-17, 03:33, said:

I can't conceive of a call other than double, nor a more suitable hand, and I would have given South a DP for the grimace.

Remember, this was a friendly game, not a real competition. One would hope that East wouldn't be showing his hand to dummy in a real game, and players would try harder to maintain a poker face.

#14 aguahombre

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 12,029
Joined: 2009-February-21
Gender:Male
Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2016-August-17, 22:57

Vampyr, on 2016-August-17, 13:20, said:

I agree with Gordon that 2NT might well come up in a poll, and that double is suggested by the UI.

When the opponents have bid and raised (or shown and raised) a suit, 2nt as a natural bid is just plain silly. But, perhaps a poll might find someone silly.

"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)

#15 gordontd

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 4,485
Joined: 2009-July-14
Gender:Male
Location:London

Posted 2016-August-18, 00:49

lamford, on 2016-August-17, 17:44, said:

I think it can be said to be demonstrably suggested "over another" if there is such an other. If there really is no alternative there obviously isn't an issue.

Gordon Rainsford
London UK

#16 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2016-August-18, 08:00

aguahombre, on 2016-August-17, 22:57, said:

When the opponents have bid and raised (or shown and raised) a suit, 2nt as a natural bid is just plain silly. But, perhaps a poll might find someone silly.

And we need to establish what 2NT would have meant in the particular partnership, as the pollees need to be playing the same methods. I think it should be clubs and secondary diamonds, something like Kxxxx x Qx(x) AJxx(x), but this pair might not have had that agreement.

The OP does state that double is "competitive showing values", and if that is a correct statement of their methods, I can see no LA.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#17 aguahombre

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 12,029
Joined: 2009-February-21
Gender:Male
Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2016-August-18, 10:16

lamford, on 2016-August-18, 08:00, said:

I think it (2nt) should be clubs and secondary diamonds, something like Kxxxx x Qx(x) AJxx(x), but this pair might not have had that agreement.

Having pretty much covered the 'ruling' issues, I believe this is a productive/useful spin-off.

Yes, I agree that 2nt should focus on clubs. When possible, we would like to use a tool which the opponents have given us to describe a hand which would normally be difficult/impossible to handle.

Five pieces in clubs and less strength than needed to bid 3♣ seems about right for 2nt. With 5-1-3-4, we could just bite the bullet and bid 3♦ NF.

With real diamond support AND G.F. strength, we could also bid 2nt, and then show the Diamonds next.

(Please, no jokes about spacing the 2nt bid to clarify.)

"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)

#18 MrAce

VIP Member

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,971
Joined: 2009-November-14
Gender:Male
Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2016-August-19, 02:47

gordontd, on 2016-August-17, 03:54, said:

DBL would not even occur to me. I would bid 2 NT.
2 NT defines my hand perfectly. I have ♥ stopper, I have 11 hcp and I have a balanced hand.
I would have doubled with MUCH less than what I have + ♥ shortness.

"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"

"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."

#19 lamford

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,444
Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2016-August-19, 12:22

MrAce, on 2016-August-19, 02:47, said:

The OP states that double was competitive, showing values. So this East would not have doubled with much less, and certainly not with heart shortness. I agree with you that one should just play double as takeout here.

I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar

#20 MrAce

VIP Member

Group: Advanced Members
Posts: 6,971
Joined: 2009-November-14
Gender:Male
Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2016-August-19, 19:18

lamford, on 2016-August-19, 12:22, said:

I understand that. But double showing values still denies a hand that could bid 2 NT. After all, without agreement, 2 NT is as natural as the air we breath. (For example take the ♥K and put it somewhere else and make it a no ♥ stopper hand)
This does not mean I believe this is the best use of 2 NT. As I said, I am speculating on "no agreement" basis.

2 Pages
1
2
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

BBO Discussion Forums: Self-director call - BBO Discussion Forums

Self-director call

#1 Jinksy

#2 Cyberyeti

#3 mr1303

#4 The_Badger

#5 sanst

#6 lamford

#7 gordontd

#8 Cyberyeti

#9 lamford

#10 ggwhiz

#11 Vampyr

#12 lamford

#13 barmar

#14 aguahombre

#15 gordontd

#16 lamford

#17 aguahombre

#18 MrAce

#19 lamford

#20 MrAce

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

BBO Discussion Forums: Self-director call - BBO Discussion Forums

Self-director call

1 User(s) are reading this topic 0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Delete Post

Skin and Language

Execution Stats

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users