[blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


> Bob Geller:
>
>>Just for the record, what I said about the double was
>>that I would have doubled in tempo, so partner could
>>pull to 3S without an appeal.  Judging from what you
>>said above the result of my prompt double would indeed
>>have been pard's bidding 3S.  Which would have been
>>+140, not +130....
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> I prefer my pard to eschew pulling my penalty doubles.
>
> It seems to me inconsistent

Whether or not the assertion is valid, the assertion seems to have little 
value.  and I don't think that the assertion is valid.

Namely, The Pass of 3D is not a declarlation of willingness to defend the 
contract, but a declaration of unwillingness to do something else 
[definition of Pass].  The stakes of defending 3D are immensely less than 
3DX and a player unwilling to play for those stakes often will seek to lower 
them via pulling.

Something that is incosistent and relevant was the assertion in appeal:

The Appeal: N/S, the only players to appear before the
Committee,

said that in their methods a change of suit
by advancer shows a hand with either a good suit or a
suit with support for the overcaller.

North said that
when she bid 2S, she was committed to bidding again in
a normal non-game forcing sequence. South added that
if the auction had been passed back to her, she would
have bid 3S, which could not be beaten.

...The assertion said nothing about expected minimum strength, only about 
shape.

The assertion about being committed to bidding again- does it really mean 
bidding at the 4 level?  I would contend that it if there is any commitment 
at all it ends at 3C.  Which leads one to wonder why, since S did have a 
fair hand why 3C, or much superior- 2N would not have been systemic rebids.

It follows that in the absence of S's rebid she had the opinion she held 
poor cards for the auction, that 3C may be too high.  Which systemically 
suggests to N that the 3 Level is too high on these cards.[moth eaten black 
suits].

And in light of S's failure to rebid systemically, her assertion she would 
now save in 3S has an inconsistent ring to it.


>that a North who is willing
> to defend 3D undoubled is not willing to defend 3D
> doubled, especially when North's high cards are well
> placed for defence in the unbid suit (except for the
> jack of diamonds, which in turn might create a trump
> trick for South).

When the S hand originally appeared, no system was attached to the auction. 
In my methods I would double about 70% and pass 30%.  But given the system 
in play, if partner had the good S suit, in a D contract I would expect to 
take 2S, 1 to 1.5C,.5D(overruffed), ,and a H for 4.5-5 tricks [+].  If the 
moth eaten suit I would expect 1S, 2H,1C for 4[+] tricks.  If partner can't 
act over 3D then it is likely that the capacity of the cards has been 
exceeded. I then would rate a X to be in the 20% likelihood of success and 
probably not X very often, and Pass often.

regards
roger pewick

> Best wishes
>
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> National Training Branch, DIAC
> 02 6225 6285