[blml] Your call

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Karel
> Sent: 5. juni 2006 16:16
> To: 'blml'
> Subject: RE: [blml] Your call
> 
> 
> > Ok  2 parter - no peeking :>>
> >
> > Teams
> >
> > S QTx
> > H A98x
> > D AQx
> > C AQT
> >
> > bidding proceeds
> >
> > 2S*   3H    4D     ??
> >
> > * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers)
> >
> > Your call ...
> 
> First comment: Why hide the vulnerabilities?
> 
> +++  deliberately left out to see would it influence your call.  Double,
> 3NT, 4H, 4NT, others are all possibilities and vul may push you one way or
> the other ...  

Precisely, and if your post was intended as a poll then that is exactly why
the result will be without any value at all.

> Made it as grey and nebulous as possible to see was there a
> sufficient vote to move toward slam or just die in game.

I shall expect the vulnerabilities to be very significant for this question.

..........
> > The opps call the td and say that 3H over a weak 2 bid generally shows a
> > decent hand.
> 
> What opponents feel that the 2H bid or 3H bid should show is not relevant?
> North/South play their own system not their opponents' system
> 
> +++  I think if you are deciding this case on the AC or as a TD - what the
> OS peers are likely to expect on a given sequence is very relevant or else
> you have no basis to make a decision.  The OS agreements were not
> documented

Why not? Didn't the Director and AC do their job with investigations?

If offenders are playing a legal system and have fulfilled their duty to
inform opponents then if opponents expects something else is completely
irrelevant.

> (and lets face it generally arent) and as such they are/were free to claim
> any range which improved their case.  Most pairs would not wander in with
> a
> 10 count over some sort of weak two as they need to be relatively
> confident
> of not getting hammered with a double from LHO ... ergo the general style
> is
> to keep overcalls over a weak two "decent".  The case in point, the 3H
> overcall, would I think be considered by the majority as a "dangerous" bid
> to put it mildly.  It is on the other hand a reasonable overcall of 1S.
> 
> 
> > South KNEW from the ui that this particular 3H's was alot
> > weaker as North intended to bid 2H over 1S and not over 2S.
> 
> Is this a fact? In case it is another fact that has been hidden from us.
> 
> +++  yes this info should have been added and was disputed.  The NOS
> claimed
> North was clearly reluctant to bid 3H.  In my experience in these types of
> cases the huge majority of offenders will make the bid good, fairly
> promptly, to avoid any penalities.  The NOS claim it was evident North was
> considering passing.  The OS claim north was just thinking thru the
> possible
> options.  IMO, Either way an established partnership will certainly pick
> up
> an appropriate vibe.

Law 73D1 (Inadvertent variations): 
..... Otherwise, inadvertently to vary tempo or manner in which a call or
play is made does not itself constitute a violation of propriety, but
inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and AT HIS OWN RISK.
(Last four words emphasized by me)

NOS appears to having claimed a lot of inferences from the way North
allegedly have made his calls. Unless they can establish a case of deception
(or a violation of Law 16A2) I do not think they have much of a case.
 
> > They felt
> > over
> > a "normal" 3H bid South had far too much not to pursue a slam and would
> > infact bid it after North showed 1 key card + the increased likelihood
> of
> > N's values being in the majors given the weak 2 minor opener.  They felt
> > the
> > score should be adjusted to 6H-1 as South had acted on the UI.
> 
> They have a point here, but whether it is strong enough to warrant an
> adjusted score is for the Director (and in case the AC) to decide. I am
> not
> so sure I would have adjusted.
> 
> > Extraneous info.
> > N/S play weak 2D/2H/2S ... (it was suggested that N may have missed the
> > opening bid all together)
> 
> So what?
> 
> +++  Again there was doubt as to whether N actually saw the opening bid at
> all.  The OS side claim North bid over what was thought to be a 1S opener,
> but the NOS thought North appeared surprised that there was a bid at all.
> If this was the case then 2H would have been a weak 2 (yes even with the 5
> card spade), again reducing S's enthusiasm to move.
> 
> 
> > Several pairs did bid the slam after a pass, 1H opening by North.
> > N/S played RKC
> 
> Again: So what?
> +++  Well if some pairs arrived at slam with pass 1H (opening bid), then
> on
> the actual auction, the OS have more information, similar values (again
> assuming most pairs would have an opening+ bid for a 3H bid) and should be
> more likely to get to slam.  That they didn't is due to the UI.
> 
> Which form of RKC the OS played could be relevant to allowing them to stop
> in 5 or do a queen ask and still stop.  (eg) 4130 5C one keycard, 5D queen
> ask, 5H none or 5S an extra heart - possible pass/bid on.  3041 5D - now
> there isnt room and South will be forced to punt or bid 5H's.
> 
> > The committee allowed the result to stand.  Comments ?
> 
> +++  Not sure the timing of asking about the meaning of the 2S is relevant
> -
> but I think it probably is.  When N didn't ask about the alert before
> bidding 2H's, (maybe thought the NOS were alerting they played 5CM or weak
> 2's or tartan 5+S's/4+minor) then it is almost certain that North took the
> 2S as showing spades.  With spades on North's right - the 3H bid is abit
> more understandable.  It also taints Souths perception of what to expect
> from Norths hand as the bid was made on the basis of spades and not the
> minors.  Also when it turns out its the minors, now the call doesn't look
> half as good, and would possibly back up the NOS sides claim of reluctance
> to bid.

Had I been in Morth's shoes I would have resented being told what I thought
during this auction. I would have reserved my right to tell the Director and
AC my actual thoughts.

 
> On the available facts I tend to agree with the AC.
> 
> Regards sven

Still the same conclusion

Sven