Comments on: An Interesting Decision http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/ Contract Bridge Themes with a Midwest Accent! Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:03:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.9 by: Peg http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-131 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:27:37 +0000 http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-131 Truly ludicrous that a director would rule this way. Seems that this director has a miniscule understanding of the laws and proprieties. Of course, I, too, would never have opened 4C on this hand. (1C or 5C seems far more rational.) BUT ... once having done so, I live with partner's decision to bid 4H. Truly ludicrous that a director would rule this way. Seems that this director has a miniscule understanding of the laws and proprieties.

Of course, I, too, would never have opened 4C on this hand. (1C or 5C seems far more rational.)

BUT … once having done so, I live with partner’s decision to bid 4H.

]]> by: M Huston http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-127 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:57:22 +0000 http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-127 Christopher Monsour raises an interesting point, several in fact. With regard to the last question, the director is supposed to sort things out, but there is a presumption of misinformation/UI unless the "offending side" presents substantial evidence to the contrary. Christopher Monsour raises an interesting point, several in fact. With regard to the last question, the director is supposed to sort things out, but there is a presumption of misinformation/UI unless the “offending side” presents substantial evidence to the contrary.

]]> by: Christopher Monsour http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-125 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:40:07 +0000 http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-125 Would your answer be different if the pair were playing control asks with step responses (none, second, first) over their 4 level and higher preempts? In that case, opener should have to rebid 4S. Of course, since he would also have to alert 4H (still first round of the auction), his partner might have unauthorized information [might not if no information was asked for...some people would alert 4H to Namyats since it denies whatever 4D shows] and would not be able to rebid 5C unless he had to because of a clear agreement (e.g., if Namyats follows by next step is Kickback 1430 in their agreements, then responder could rebid 5C because there would be no logical alternative to giving keycards correctly). Question: If explanations like that had occurred, how does a director sort things out, barring system notes? Would your answer be different if the pair were playing control asks with step responses (none, second, first) over their 4 level and higher preempts? In that case, opener should have to rebid 4S. Of course, since he would also have to alert 4H (still first round of the auction), his partner might have unauthorized information [might not if no information was asked for…some people would alert 4H to Namyats since it denies whatever 4D shows] and would not be able to rebid 5C unless he had to because of a clear agreement (e.g., if Namyats follows by next step is Kickback 1430 in their agreements, then responder could rebid 5C because there would be no logical alternative to giving keycards correctly).

Question: If explanations like that had occurred, how does a director sort things out, barring system notes?

]]> by: M Huston http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-121 Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:12:22 +0000 http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-121 The premise is that the player opened 4C. The question is what to do over partner's 4H. I only see two logical alternatives: pass and bid 5H. 5C is poisoned and a player who bids it is not fulfilling his Law 73C obligations and the result on the board should be adjusted (assuming there is damage) and the player should be sharply educated. The premise is that the player opened 4C. The question is what to do over partner’s 4H. I only see two logical alternatives: pass and bid 5H. 5C is poisoned and a player who bids it is not fulfilling his Law 73C obligations and the result on the board should be adjusted (assuming there is damage) and the player should be sharply educated.

]]> by: Christopher Monsour http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-119 Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:12:08 +0000 http://oldprofbridge.com/2006/11/26/an-interesting-decision/#comment-119 In standard (including the standard-ish weak NT that you and I play) 1C would be my third choice (after 3NT or 5C), but if I did open 1C, I would be planning to rebid clubs at the lowest possible level. If you guess not to preempt the first round, you might as well assume you guessed right. And with hands that make game, partner almost always will have another call over 2C. In competition I would use bad 2NT if available (and if it denied support so that partner would know I could only bid it with a long primary suit) in preference to a non-jump 3C rebid. In standard (including the standard-ish weak NT that you and I play) 1C would be my third choice (after 3NT or 5C), but if I did open 1C, I would be planning to rebid clubs at the lowest possible level. If you guess not to preempt the first round, you might as well assume you guessed right. And with hands that make game, partner almost always will have another call over 2C.

In competition I would use bad 2NT if available (and if it denied support so that partner would know I could only bid it with a long primary suit) in preference to a non-jump 3C rebid.

]]>