[Phil]

Partner's 5♣ would have been last train?

This one's just too close and I wouldn't blame anyone for missing slam or getting to slam off the ♠T which is a big card. It also seems random to discover that our ♣A is facing a singleton.

I can't say I'm fond of the methods. It seems important for responder to be able to show shortness at a lower level, or (gasp) ask for key cards sooner.

[Fluffy]

Phil, on 2014-November-29, 13:41, said:

Partner's 5♣ would have been last train?

This one's just too close and I wouldn't blame anyone for missing slam or getting to slam off the ♠T which is a big card. It also seems random to discover that our ♣A is facing a singleton.

I can't say I'm fond of the methods. It seems important for responder to be able to show shortness at a lower level, or (gasp) ask for key cards sooner.

I agree, I would start 1NT-3♣-3♦-3NT showing club short not forcing with diamonds, I am a bit heavy, but partner obviously will like it very much and slam will be reached. What do people use minor transfer + 3NT for these days?

[jallerton]

WesleyC, on 2014-November-29, 12:15, said:

It sounds like the TD recognized that pass was a logical alternative, but after asking players (of the appropriate skill level) found that an insignificant number of them would actually choose to pass. The laws state that in this case the 6D bid is allowed. What else can the director possibly do?

No. If the TD (who has a very good understanding of the Laws) recognised that pass was a logical alternative, he would have adjusted the score!

Quote

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

I think the TD was saying to me that although pass might have been seriously considered by a significant proportion, nobody would actually pass, in his opinion. If Opener had been dealt a complete maximum, covering all bases, hand such as AKJx xx Qxx A10xx then I would have agreed with him. But in the context of a hand which has already co-operated, AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x is a considerably worse hand than that, in my view.

[WesleyC]

jallerton, on 2014-November-30, 16:15, said:

I think the TD was saying to me that although pass might have been seriously considered by a significant proportion, nobody would actually pass, in his opinion. If Opener had been dealt a complete maximum, covering all bases, hand such as AKJx xx Qxx A10xx then I would have agreed with him. But in the context of a hand which has already co-operated, AJ87 Qxx Qxx A10x is a considerably worse hand than that, in my view.

I've think I've got my language mixed up. The point I was trying to make is exactly what you've typed in the first line here. Except that you've added 'in his opinion'. If the TD actually asked several peers what action they would take and none of them passed, surely it stops being just his opinion? However Fluffy's point is valid: consulting players who already know the full hand will bias the results.

Because slam bidding style and methods vary so much, there aren't many situations where you will get unanimous support for one action. If you wanted to exploit this, you could call the director on every hesitation (or fast signoff) and force the opponents to make the opposite choice. However I honestly believe that most players make a conscious effort to avoid cheating in situations like this, so I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[PhilKing]

WesleyC, on 2014-December-01, 20:55, said:

However Fluffy's point is valid: consulting players who already know the full hand will bias the results.

FWIW I think on this occasion players who did not know the hand were consulted. There were plenty of apparently suitable people playing in the second division on this occasion. Unfortunately they all chose this moment for some rampant overbidding.

[WesleyC]

PhilKing, on 2014-December-02, 05:08, said:

FWIW I think on this occasion players who did not know the hand were consulted. There were plenty of apparently suitable people playing in the second division on this occasion. Unfortunately they all chose this moment for some rampant overbidding.

Given the system limitations, I'm fine with every bid in their auction even 6D. See you in second division?

[jallerton]

WesleyC, on 2014-December-01, 20:55, said:

I've think I've got my language mixed up. The point I was trying to make is exactly what you've typed in the first line here. Except that you've added 'in his opinion'. If the TD actually asked several peers what action they would take and none of them passed, surely it stops being just his opinion?

I wrote "in his opinion" because that is what the Law I quoted above says: "of whom it is judged some might select it".

Suppose the TD has the luxury of polling 100 people, 40 of the 100 seriously consider action A, but none of the 40 would actually choose action A. A slightly unlikely scenario, I admit, but if it were to occur, the the TD would presumably judge that not even "some" would select action A so it is not a logical alternative.

Now take the more common scenario whereby the TD polls (say) 5 people, 2 (so still 40% of the sample) seriously consider action A, but neither of these two people would select action A. Now, in my opinion, the sample size of 2 is nowhere near big enough for the TD to determine whether "some" of the population of serious considerers would choose action A or not. So the TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not action A might be found in practice by "some".

[PhilKing]

WesleyC, on 2014-December-02, 07:38, said:

Given the system limitations, I'm fine with every bid in their auction even 6D. See you in second division?

Well, there is no third division yet, I suppose.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-December-02, 17:44, said:

I wrote "in his opinion" because that is what the Law I quoted above says: "of whom it is judged some might select it".

Suppose the TD has the luxury of polling 100 people, 40 of the 100 seriously consider action A, but none of the 40 would actually choose action A. A slightly unlikely scenario, I admit, but if it were to occur, the the TD would presumably judge that not even "some" would select action A so it is not a logical alternative.

Now take the more common scenario whereby the TD polls (say) 5 people, 2 (so still 40% of the sample) seriously consider action A, but neither of these two people would select action A. Now, in my opinion, the sample size of 2 is nowhere near big enough for the TD to determine whether "some" of the population of serious considerers would choose action A or not. So the TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not action A might be found in practice by "some".

I think the benchmarks for an LA (maybe in the WB) are 20% seriously considering it, and 10% of them selecting it. In practice the sample size is often single figures and, in my experience, ACs are only told how many players actually select it. If one of out five selects it that gets classed as an LA, if none out of five does it is not. If the TD polls more than five he is being unusually diligent.

Did your side appeal the decision?

[jdeegan]

I dunno Beavis? Why did I bid 4♠? How can anyone make sense of a nonsense auction? Now, if I had somehow managed to bid 5♣ over 4♥, then 5♦ would have been a signoff.

Partner knows your hand - knows its shape and its high cards within a queen. He/she is in control. Tell your story properly and leave the decisions where they belong.

[WesleyC]

jdeegan, on 2014-December-03, 16:30, said:

I dunno Beavis? Why did I bid 4♠? How can anyone make sense of a nonsense auction? Now, if I had somehow managed to bid 5♣ over 4♥, then 5♦ would have been a signoff.

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the description of the auction as given in the OP?

Opener's 3S bid showed spade values and some interest playing diamonds. It says nothing about control of spades.
Opener's 4S bid is showing 1st or 2nd round control of spades. Bypassing 4S would presumably have denied control of spades.

[jdeegan]

WesleyC, on 2014-December-03, 23:36, said:

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the description of the auction as given in the OP?

Opener's 3S bid showed spade values and some interest playing diamonds. It says nothing about control of spades.
Opener's 4S bid is showing 1st or 2nd round control of spades. Bypassing 4S would presumably have denied control of spades.

By golly you are right. The OP by his own admission does not know how to bid. "Spade values" my Aunt Fanny. 3♠ shows a ♠ control (probably the ace). It denies a ♥ control. It confirms ♦ support. It says the hand is not dreck for slam purposes. That is just basic bridge.

In any event, South started with 1NT, a limit bid. This means the unlimited hand, North, is in control. South told his story as best he was capable. 5♦ is game and as such satisfies the initial agreement established by the 3♦ response. Bidding on over 5♦ is bizarre.

[wanoff]

jdeegan, on 2014-December-05, 18:18, said:

By golly you are right. The OP by his own admission does not know how to bid.

wtf - please try to keep up with this thread.

[MrAce]

jdeegan, on 2014-December-05, 18:18, said:

By golly you are right. The OP by his own admission does not know how to bid. "Spade values" my Aunt Fanny. 3♠ shows a ♠ control (probably the ace). It denies a ♥ control. It confirms ♦ support.

Well then I guess I also don't know the basics of bridge. I would definitely bid 3♠ with QJT xx KJx AKQxx. And since when basics of bridge changed and cuebids below 3 NT showing a control for slam and possibly an Ace by your definition?

[jdeegan]

MrAce, on 2014-December-07, 04:13, said:

Well then I guess I also don't know the basics of bridge. I would definitely bid 3♠ with QJT xx KJx AKQxx. And since when basics of bridge changed and cuebids below 3 NT showing a control for slam and possibly an Ace by your definition?

The point is that you don't want to waste the rest of the three level with a pointless bid. The hand you gave is a nice 4♣ call assuming you are playing 15-17 HCP one NT opener. You would confirm ♦ support, deny a ♥ or ♠ control and show a ♣ control and a hand not dreck for slam.