[inquiry]

This is the first of three hands submitted by Hanoi5 that were used in Round 1.

Scoring: MP

Board 3. Bidding Script: You must offer EW the ACBL defense to multi at: http://web2.acbl.org...database/3b.htm South opens 2♦ (Multi), North bids 2♠ (if sufficient) after which and South 4♥ if sufficient.

Notes: Opening Multi 2♦ might not be fair in this contest, but this auction has an interesting twist. North's 2♠ bid is most often a pass/correct where north likes hearts, but not spades and is willing to go to at least 3♥ if south has the ♥ suit. Here, taking advantage of the vulnerability, north is making a tactical 2♠ bid (lets call it psych). South leaps to game with good hearts and non-minimum. There are a lot of ways EW can deal with this. It looks like WEST has to pass over 2♦, but EAST has options over 2♠, including 2NT, and 3♠, but both are risky. Most people will no doubt passed 2♠ which just transferred the problem to the four level, where bidding will be more riskly. But at least then at the four level, it will be true that north has fewer spades and more hearts, so West surely has a spade fit. That logic might just be enough to get me to bid 4♠ over 4♥.

---

Scores: 4♠=10, 5♠=5, 3N*=3, 4♥x=2, 4♥=1, slams=0

I have to explain the 3NT score above and contract below. At one talbe, West overcalled the 2♦ bid 2NT, so north could not bid 2♠, so south has no 4♥ bid available. I had to come up with a score for 3NT. The 2NT bid was an accident, but when I saw the 3NT contract, I assumed an operator error, so I posted about an operator error which would require me to give an adjusted score on tihs hand. I was wrong, because with the 2NT overcall, the NS bidding was changed appropriately, and they didn't bid to 4♥. How they could stop in 3NT after a 2NT overcall is another issue.

I was surprised at how many people landed on their feet on this hand. The vast majority of the 4S bidders passed on the first round and bid 4S on the second round.
4♠ew = 20
4♥s = 3
4♥xs= 1
3NTw = 1
6♠w = 1
6♣w= 1

6S W Codo-Fluffy
6C W jdonn/gib
4S W peachy/lg62
4S W mbodell - javabean
4S W tlgoodwin/timg
4S W olegru - driver733
4S W CanadaGrl/Gerardo
4S W gnasher/catch22
4S W helene_t-agusaris
4S W zasanya/ravia6
4S E lobowolf/bkjswan
4S E jlall/hanp
4S E karlson/threenobob
4S E Hrothgar/Free
4S E kristen33/jillybean
4S E East4Evil/sohcahtoa
4S E bluecalm/redds
4S E rogerClee/cherdano
4S E ant590 - crayzeejim
4S E cascade kermit
4S E Flycycle/Wackojack
4S E mohitz/akjq
4Hx S elianna/awm
4H S kfay/jchiu
4H S sallyally/joylson
4 H S tylere / bid_em_up
3N W Siegmund/MSchmahl
NA 0 j0i/gwnn
NA 0 Tomi2-JHDW
NA 0 Vampyr/Lamford

[Free]

Imo the 2♠ bid is nuts, even at this vulnerability.

[Cascade]

Free, on Jul 26 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

Imo the 2♠ bid is nuts, even at this vulnerability.

Indeed I was very surprised that partner had two hearts.

[JavaBean]

Yes, the fact that partner was marked with no hearts (or possibly minus one hearts) made me wary of competing over 4♥: he must be quite weak if he can't act at all with that kind of heart shortness. But I doubled anyway, and it worked out because apparently NS had snuck some of their hearts into his hand.

[Fluffy]

Cascade, on Jul 26 2010, 06:45 AM, said:

Free, on Jul 26 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

Imo the 2♠ bid is nuts, even at this vulnerability.

Indeed I was very surprised that partner had two hearts.

you were surprised? lol you weren't in slam!, I was hesitation to play 7 when I decided to give Codo a chance to stop by jumping to 6♥ when I saw his hand lol. Well who cares, playing 7 is the same score as playing 6.

[Hanoi5]

I believe the reason for most people getting this one right is that it is not a secret anymore how to deal with Multi.

[Codo]

Hanoi5, on Jul 26 2010, 06:43 PM, said:

I believe the reason for most people getting this one right is that it is not a secret anymore how to deal with Multi.

In my opinion E/W on this hand did not belong into this camp.

[gnasher]

Quote

The vast majority of the 4S bidders passed on the first round and bid 4S on the second round.

With hindsight, it would have been better to make the West hand weaker, so that 4♠ is going for 500 against nothing. That would cast doubt upon this:

Quote

I believe the reason for most people getting this one right is that it is not a secret anymore how to deal with Multi.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-July-26, 05:10

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Jul 26 2010, 06:09 AM, said:

Quote

The vast majority of the 4S bidders passed on the first round and bid 4S on the second round.

With hindsight, it would have been better to make the West hand weaker, so that 4♠ is going for 500 against nothing. That would cast doubt upon this:

Quote

I believe the reason for most people getting this one right is that it is not a secret anymore how to deal with Multi.

Yeah I thought you had a very good auction to 4♠, unlike most of us I assume.

Gnasher's auction was:
(2D) P (2S) X*
(4H) 4S
X was spades, or takeout of spades. Over 4♥, West could be sure it was the former.

[Siegmund]

2D-pass-2S certainly gives fourth hand an interesting problem. Rather unfortunately, the leap to 4H removes all the problems, exposing EW's big spade fit even if the 2S bid made it harder to find temporarily. (I remember thinking, after we landed in 3NT ... hmmm, maybe not so bad, 2nd-best contract. Heh.) I think it was a fair bidding problem, but the leap to 4H removed most the interest from it.

I do think it would have been appropriate to include a note in the signup that we might face a multi.

As for what happened at the 3NT table, I will give you all the 'rest of the story' here. There were in fact two operator errors, but not the two inquiry thought there were; and since we DID have a bidding accident that was only partly caused by them, so I am not screaming for an adjustment.

Operator announced that there was a multi, and invited us to discuss our defense.
Partner thought 2NT was minors; I reminded him that our usual agreement is that 2NT is strong over a weak bid, but chose my words poorly, saying something like "I agree except I thought 2NT is supposed to be strong, but whichever way you want it for today."

Before partner had confirmed which way he wanted to play 2NT, operator dealt the cards. The other three hands turned face-down, and I was looking at a semibalanced 19-count, 4 spades and a heart stopper. Oh, no: now there is a UI problem if I try to insist on 2NT strong.

I open a chat to inquiry saying we may need a director, and I dig up a link to the multi defence posted on my website, so I can provide documentation that 2NT 17-19 is our actual agreement, not me being sharp and picking a defense to fit the cards I am dealt.)

Before inquiry answers, partner says "oops" in table chat.
A few seconds after, operator says "oops" in table chat.
I took this to mean partner agreed he was wrong about our agreement and was agreeing to play it my way, and assumed operator was just being chatty. As it turns out, I now think that both oopses were because operator dealt board 2 to the table twice in a row instead of loading board 3.

There was an exceedingly long pause (during which I was trying to explain my ethical dilemma to inquiry in private chat) before 2D finally got opened on my right. Still looking at 19HCP, I overcalled 2NT. Partner raised to 3NT. Still looking at 19HCP, I passed partner's raise to 3NT and waited for the lead.I see 15 points in the dummy, and am aghast that one minute after our conversation, partner has either already forgotten was 2NT means, or didnt intend his "oops" as agreeing with me. !@#$. !@#$%. !@#$%. We've just missed a cold slam.

...and then a hand record popped up on the screen showing a nondescript 10-count I had never seen before. "wtf happened, where did those cards come from?" .... and neither inquiry nor the operator had a word to say about that.

It was certainly not the only software glitch -- I was disconnected twice during the session; the 'movie' button sometimes brought up gibberish or a completely empty hand record, but sometimes showed me the previous board, and to my shock somewhere around board 7 showed me the complete hand still in progress before we bid it; and I got sent to a teams scoresheet when I tried to click past the claim screen once. I don't know if my actual cards on board 3 got displayed when dummy was faced, or not until the hand record popped up after the claim was accepted. But I very definitely was still looking at the 5-4-2-2 19-count both when I bid 2NT and when I passed 3NT.

[inquiry]

Well, despite the characterization Siegmund description gives, I was not hosting his bidding. I was there for a few hands, probably this one, because I do remember getting a message about he saw a different hand than the one he bid. I then went to see if anyone had ever seen the wrong hand at a bidding table. In addition I was doing other things associated with my yellow function. When I get back to my computer I can check how many of the messages Siegmund says he sent me came to me. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) several went to the actual host.

[kayin801]

I thought a 2NT overcall was obvious with 4th hand... unless that has some conventional meaning for others

[Siegmund]

Quote

Well, despite the characterization Siegmund description gives, I was not hosting his bidding.

Despite? I tried to make it quite clear that inquiry was not hosting, but was at the table kibitzing when the incident occurred. Sorry if that was not clear.

Quote

When I get back to my computer I can check how many of the messages Siegmund says he sent me came to me. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) several went to the actual host.

I said something to the table about us missing the slam, which probably confused everybody else.

The question about whether we might need a director, and the followup explaining how we hadn't finished discussing our defence when I got dealt the 19 count, were sent to you; I don't remember if I heard anything back before the hand was over and the hand-display issue came to light (if I did it was brief.) I would guess I sent a total of about six lines to you, half at the start and half after the hand.

Given that some of them were sent at the same time as I apparently failed to receive my cards for board 3, I too will be interested in whether they made it through. I didn't get a disconnect message, but a large number of lost packets is possible.

I assumed, when you announced in the thread there had been operator errors leading to an adjusted score, that the operator had confirmed dealing too soon and dealing board 2 twice. When it turned out that your concern was only with the lacking 2S and 4H bids, I really had no idea what to think.

As I said, I am not after an adjustment now, since we did have a pretty serious misunderstanding, and even a top on this board wouldn't help us in the overalls much.

[jillybean]

I was the host here. At the end of board2 I advised Siegmund and his partner that they would be facing a multi2♦ opening next hand and posted the link to the suggested ACBL defense.

jillybean: On this next board your opps will open a multi 2!d
Siegmund: we do anything special against multi p?
jillybean: You can read about about Multi2!d defense here before you bid the board http://web2.acbl.org...database/3b.htm
Siegmund: I would assume the def on my webpage article is what we do, unless you say otherwise p
MSchmahl: 2NT is minors, 2H 2S natural, immediate X is NTish?
Siegmund: I would have assumed 2N strong, but whichever you like for now

(here I redealt board2 by mistke)

MSchmahl: Oops
jillybean: oops

I assumed both opps had realized they were looking at board2 again and I dealt board3 without saying anything further. At this point all players would have the correct board in front of them.

As far as I could tell, the discussion regarding defense had ended. You both had the opportunity to disucss it further until you made a bid. You say that there was an exceedingly long pause before I bid 2♦ (likely I was making 100% sure I had the right board and bidding) during which time no comment was made to the table nor to me about defense or the lack of time to discuss defense.

After the hand I did say we would need to look at it later, so "neither inquiry nor the operator had a word to say about that" isn't accurate at all.

Siegmund: <head in hands>
Siegmund: thought 'oops' meant we were playing it the old way...sign
Siegmund: wait a sec... wtf happened on the last deal?
Siegmund: I still had my 4252 19-count when I overcalled 2NT
Siegmund: the hand that popped up in the recap, I have never seen before
jillybean: We will have to take a look at that later, I cant see the past hands
Siegmund: swell

and at the end of the session I said

jillybean: ok that's all , I will talk to Ben about board3

I'm sorry I made a mistake redealing board2 and I am at a loss to understand why you still had board2 after I redealt the hand.

This would be a good time to point out that if you have any problems you should first of all advise the operator who is guaranteed to be at the PC and able to respond. You won't be giving any UI as we can see all hands and bid from scripts.

[JLOGIC]

I overcalled 2N then bid 4S over partner's X of 4H, thought that was pretty normal. Don't understand passing 2S with such a good hand and Axx of hearts when they are very likely to have 9 hearts. If I could have Xed 2S to show spades I would have obv.

[hrothgar]

JLOGIC, on Jul 27 2010, 01:43 AM, said:

I overcalled 2N then bid 4S over partner's X of 4H, thought that was pretty normal. Don't understand passing 2S with such a good hand and Axx of hearts when they are very likely to have 9 hearts. If I could have Xed 2S to show spades I would have obv.

For whats its worth, we replicated the same auction

[cherdanno]

Kathryn, you clearly didn't do anything wrong.

Siegmund, sorry to hear your story. I assume your 4252 19-count was actually a 4225 19 count? S.th. like AQT7 Kx Ax AQTxx?

[TimG]

cherdanno, on Jul 26 2010, 06:18 AM, said:

Yeah I thought you had a very good auction to 4♠, unlike most of us I assume.

Gnasher's auction was:
(2D) P (2S) X*
(4H) 4S
X was spades, or takeout of spades.

That was our auction, though the DBL was not two-way.

[tgoodwinsr]

Our new agreement (we weren't up to speed for the first round of the contest) is that 2D - P - 2M - Dbl. is a takeout double of OM. I'm not sure this is right, but that is the agreement. Anybody who has insight about what to do in this position, please let us know.

[Mbodell]

tgoodwinsr, on Jul 26 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

Our new agreement (we weren't up to speed for the first round of the contest) is that 2D - P - 2M - Dbl. is a takeout double of OM. I'm not sure this is right, but that is the agreement. Anybody who has insight about what to do in this position, please let us know.

Interesting...

On a "normal" multi 2♦ - P - 2♠ means that the 2♠ bidder has lots of hearts, so a TO double of hearts might make sense... except that if the 2♦ bidder has hearts you would get a chance to bid again only if the 2♦ bidder has spades is this auction going to die.

Likewise 2♦ - P - 2♥, if they have a spade fit, they'll bid again. If they have a heart fit, the auction could die. So i seems like you'd prefer X to be take-out of the suit bid (assuming you want it to be takeout of anything).