[blml] Strange biddings

[Adam Beneschan]

Paul wrote:
 
> In a message dated 17/12/2007 18:35:30 GMT Standard Time, adam at irvine.com  
> writes:
> 
> And Alain gave a good reason why doubling 3NT
> is risky and may gain  little (Butler is IMP scoring, right?).  
> 
> [paul lamford] No he didn't. He gave a hand with the wrong number of  cards 
> in each suit, where the auction was from another  world.

OK, now that I've looked more carefully at Alain's hand and your
response---no, the auction was not from another world.  

His hand:

> I guess your partners would never dream of opening with AJTx Axx x
> J9xxx with the opponents holding xx xxx AQTxxx xx opposite Kxxx Kxxx
> Kxx AQ.

Regarding your response:

> a) the 4-4-3-2 hand would double, not bid 1NT
> b) the hand opposite would not bid 3NT, why would he think that even if  
> partner had the DK there would be nine tricks?
> c) the hand is designed as a self-serving defence to explain your failure  to 
> double 3NT
> d) the 10-count is not an opening bid.

(a), (b), and (d) are all wrong.  First of all, I think many players
would judge to make the bid that shows the HCP strength of the hand
and the double stopper.  Not all, but many.  (Remember, after a 1NT
overcall the partnership can still use Stayman to find the 4-4 major
fit much of the time.)

Second, there are many players who would bid 3NT with that diamond
suit.  Alan Truscott recommended this, if memory serves---he believed
it was best to go ahead and raise a strong notrump to 3NT with AQxxxx
or KQxxxx in a minor.  Even if the suit doesn't run, there are still
fair chances.  (I think Andrew Gumperz made the same point on
rec.games.bridge recently.)  And if I had AQxxxx and a little bird
told me that partner had the DK, I would fully expect to make 3NT.
There are layouts where it wouldn't make, but this is heavily against
the odds.

Third, maybe *you* wouldn't open that hand, but that's irrelevant when
you're making a ruling.  I probably wouldn't open it but I might.  In
a way, you're proving one of my original points: directors should not
assume they "know" what the "normal" bids are when deciding whether an
auction is suspicious (or, in other situations, an "egregious error").
Bridge is a complicated game, and players have to make judgment calls
in borderline cases.  The hand Alain gave may not be the most likely
possibility, but it's hardly from another planet.  Similarly, the
decisions South made during the auction may not be the choice of a
majority of players, but neither are they without merit; and a
director who assumes that there must be fielding going on because the
director can't see the merit in South's decisions is not doing his
job, IMHO.

David Stevenson often said that in England, directors were expected to
ask others before making a ruling that relied on bridge judgment.  I'd
hope that would happen on a hand like this; I'd think that if the
director polled experienced players, he'd find out that South's
actions might have been a little unusual but not unreasonble.  That
might raise enough suspicions to call this an amber psyche, but I
think a red psyche is out of line.  Of course, the original hand
happened in Belgium, and I don't know what Belgian directors are
expected to do---perhaps cook up a waffle or surrender to the Germans
or something, I don't know.

                                -- Adam