[blml] De Whale

[Tim West-Meads]

Herman wrote:

> do you really believe a player is going to put all his eggs in one 
> basket by bidding 4H (either on a singleton or a 7-card suit) if he 
> believes it's a true 50/50 toss of the coin? 

But it's not a 50/50 toss of the coin.  Assuming the bid is undiscussed 
and equally likely to be either by inference I expect partner to have a 
good chance of working out which by looking at his hand.  There are is 
also the possibility that if I splinter my LHO will double and save 
partner a guess.  Of course an LHO with 7+ hearts might decide not to 
double when informed that the bid is undiscussed.

> No, that is a case that I don't believe will come up.

It does.  Don't forget that the 4H bidder may be unaware of the 
ambiguity (believing that everybody/nobody plays 4H as a splinter) but 
that his partner doesn't know to which camp 4H bidder belongs.

> Rather, the bidder has some idea about this going to be understood. I 
> want to know what that idea was, and my AC will investigate fully, 
> and judge on the evidence. That's their job, as you say.

What's wrong with the idea that the odds favour partner getting it right 
despite the complete lack of agreement?

> It's all good and well you guys giving counter-examples. Some of 
> those examples are correct, others are less likely to happen in real 
> life. But those are only counter-examples. You have not touched upon 
> the majority of cases. In which the TD WILL rule against a pair that 
> hides behind "no agreement".

But Herman, the point is that the players should hide *nothing*.  They 
shouldn't either the possibilities or the ambiguities.

> 
> I am trying to get people to tell more about their agreements - even 
> to the point of explaining guesses. I want them to "bend over 
> backwards" in being helpful to their opponents, because that is how I 
> believe bridge should be played.

Herman - I have no problem with people explaining their guesses.  It is 
when they start pretending to have an agreement and don't explain the 
options that I have an issue.

 
> Even if you manage to convince the TD that you really have no 
> agreement, is it really worth the hassle of a TD call and ruling? 

I have never actually had a TD call in these circumstances.  Maybe it's 
because the truth often sounds convincing but when I start saying "Not 
actually discussed but it's probably either A or B because...etc.." I 
might get the occasional nudge for being boringly detailed but never a 
complaint that I haven't put them fully in the picture.

> And 
> are you really happy about getting a good score because you guessed 
> correctly but left your opponents to guess also - and they guessed 
> wrongly so you get an overtrick? 

Yes.  Often I don't bother guessing what partner holds and just bid the 
cards in front of me.  Sometimes I guess because my holding makes it 
more likely B than A or vice versa.  Opps may guess wrong because their 
hands don't provide any clues - that's life.

> Why not simply tell a bit more?

Because the only "more" I could tell would be related to my hand.  

Tim