[bluejak]

♥

---

West would not double with 6+ and a reasonable 5+ card suit in ♦, ♥ or ♠.

This post has been edited by bluejak: 2012-March-26, 18:24
Reason for edit: I forgot the not! :(

[aguahombre]

dejavu, all over again???

[billw55]

3♣ is "diamonds or majors" but looking at my hand it seems pretty clear that he has diamonds. So I am faced with choice of just bidding what I have, or passing to let a possible penalty develop. The second action seems more flexible (I can always bid something later) so I suppose I pass. Although I highly doubt I am a peer of the players in question.

[axman]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-26, 11:37, said:

♥

---

West would double with 6+ and a reasonable 5+ card suit in ♦, ♥ or ♠.

Meaning that actually the agreement is that X= 5-7hcp plus at least one suit [other than clubs] of a minimum of five long, and if it is only five long it is a respectable suit as distinguished from a disrepectable suit? I wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of rot.

[gordontd]

 axman, on 2012-March-26, 13:07, said:

Meaning that actually the agreement is that X= 5-7hcp plus at least one suit [other than clubs] of a minimum of five long, and if it is only five long it is a respectable suit as distinguished from a disrepectable suit? I wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of rot.

Who said that? Not the original poster.

[blackshoe]

 axman, on 2012-March-26, 13:07, said:

Meaning that actually the agreement is that X= 5-7hcp plus at least one suit [other than clubs] of a minimum of five long, and if it is only five long it is a respectable suit as distinguished from a disrepectable suit? I wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of rot.

Perhaps not, but what you (or I, or anyone other than the pair at the table) might agree to play in this position is irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

3♥. Second choice, if I think partner will understand it, 4♣.

[mike777]

3h I assume this is gf in your agreements?


It seems too tough to play x and a suit rebid by opener as nf and to stop on a dime here.


btw why not have responder bid her 5 card suit here say QTxxx or better? so x denies this?

[sfi]

 axman, on 2012-March-26, 13:07, said:

Meaning that actually the agreement is that X= 5-7hcp plus at least one suit [other than clubs] of a minimum of five long, and if it is only five long it is a respectable suit as distinguished from a disrepectable suit? I wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of rot.

My reading was that a new suit is FG, so all semi-positive hands, even those with a good suit, have to double rather than bid at the 3 level.

[bluejak]

Sorry, silly me, I put something wrong: I left out a not!

West would not double with 6+ and a reasonable 5+ card suit in ♦, ♥ or ♠. If anyone needs to edit their poll response because of this Ed or I can do it so send one of us a personal message and we will do it for you.

Mea culpa.

As regards seeing it all again I thought it was time we found out what people would do.

[Zelandakh]

Still waiting to find out what an immediate 3♥ and a belated 3♥ or 4♥ call would mean in our agreements. Until we know what our agreements actually are I do not see how anyone can answer the poll question. We also do not know if the correct meaning of North's pass is "No agreement" as stated here or "show me your hand type" as seemed to be implied in the OP. The meaning of the double was given as something like "any 5, or 6-7 without a decent 5 card suit". It sounds a little strange and I wonder if I misread it and/or whether that really is the agreement in place.

[TimG]

Sorry, didn't see the explanations...was expecting a mouse over would reveal the meaning of the alerted calls, didn't think until later to click on the calls.

Does the partnership have an agreement regarding how to cope with this type of interference, or any default rules? Knowing what serves as a cue-bid in this auction would seem to be important!

I think I'll vote for a 3D cue-bid, but it doesn't seem to be an option.

[aguahombre]

I am wondering whether it is relevant that the actual call by East with misinformation was 4♥, not deemed worthy of even mentioning by the AC (only 3H) ----and that only one of the twelve in this poll did it?

I am not sure how a poll of possible actions by the NOS is supposed to work, either. Is it to decide whether to believe this person's contention about what he would have done?

Was 4H so ill-conceived that we should actually believe pass would not have entered his mind with any information?

[AlexJonson]

Good poll, I was happy to respond.

Be interested to see the original poster's view on the poll results.

[bluejak]

 TimG, on 2012-March-27, 10:12, said:

Sorry, didn't see the explanations...was expecting a mouse over would reveal the meaning of the alerted calls, didn't think until later to click on the calls.

This forum works the way BBO sets it up. We are lucky that they are willing to let us use their forums. It is true I would prefer some things to be different, but there you go ...

If a call is highlighted in yellow then a click will reveal something: a further click will hide it again.

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-27, 11:08, said:

I am not sure how a poll of possible actions by the NOS is supposed to work, either. Is it to decide whether to believe this person's contention about what he would have done?

I was just interested in what people would do. Admittedly, I was somewhat affected by a couple of posts which seemed to think it obvious that this hand would pass, which I personally thought unlikely.

But there is nothing magic about a poll: it just gives an impression of what a group of people would do in a particular circumstance. In this case the pollees are members of IBLF. This is merely an aid to judgement in assessing damage and/or weighting for adjustments.

[axman]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-27, 18:18, said:

This forum works the way BBO sets it up. We are lucky that they are willing to let us use their forums. It is true I would prefer some things to be different, but there you go ...

If a call is highlighted in yellow then a click will reveal something: a further click will hide it again.


I was just interested in what people would do. Admittedly, I was somewhat affected by a couple of posts which seemed to think it obvious that this hand would pass, which I personally thought unlikely.

But there is nothing magic about a poll: it just gives an impression of what a group of people would do in a particular circumstance. In this case the pollees are members of IBLF. This is merely an aid to judgement in assessing damage and/or weighting for adjustments.

Some time ago I was approached as a consultant reputedly in the form of a poll. I say reputedly because in actuality I was ushered into a meeting to find myself to be a member of an AC. Apparently there was some UI issue during the auction- and I then set about establishing what the agreements were to the entirety of the auction and its surrounds. Matters escalated to the point that one of the litigants stormed out. It is my contention that the litigant saw that it was obvious that once those facts were established that it would be clear that his position was a fatuous one [without merit].

Why relate this anecdote? There has been a rush to give conclusions without even considering which of the several hundred versions of strong club was at play. I think that it is dubious to come to conclusions without such facts.

I will point out that it seems that so far it is likely that the capacity of the NS cards has been exceeded; while it is not clear if the capacity of the EW cards has yet been exceeded given the point of view that the prospects are great that suits are breaking badly and everything depends largely upon Ws shape and the location of his honors. I think that E has the expectation of 4+ defensive tricks at Cs and W has 1.5+. what clouds any further analysis is that lack of NS being forthcoming as to its agreements as to ranges of strength for the ranges of distributions promised for 3C; as well as the conventional nature of Ns pass [I say conventional because by the nature of their convention it [implicitly] must necessarily convey some message, even if NS were negligent in not knowing what it is prior to adopting it].

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-27, 18:18, said:

This forum works the way BBO sets it up. We are lucky that they are willing to let us use their forums. It is true I would prefer some things to be different, but there you go ...

It has nothing to do with the forum. It's just a link to the handviewer web site, which works the same way outside the forums.

The only place where hovering over a bid shows the explanation is in the BBO app itself.

If you'd like to suggest improvements, the Suggestions for the Software forum is available.

[bluejak]

 axman, on 2012-March-27, 20:25, said:

Some time ago I was approached as a consultant reputedly in the form of a poll. I say reputedly because in actuality I was ushered into a meeting to find myself to be a member of an AC. Apparently there was some UI issue during the auction- and I then set about establishing what the agreements were to the entirety of the auction and its surrounds. Matters escalated to the point that one of the litigants stormed out. It is my contention that the litigant saw that it was obvious that once those facts were established that it would be clear that his position was a fatuous one [without merit].

Why relate this anecdote? There has been a rush to give conclusions without even considering which of the several hundred versions of strong club was at play. I think that it is dubious to come to conclusions without such facts.

There is no need for you to join in with the discussion of this hand if you do not wish to. However, we do like here to discuss judgement rulings from time to time, often, in fact usually, without being able to ask the players further questions. Of course it would be better if we could ask further questions, but if we cannot that does not invalidate further discussion.

So, here, it is interesting to discuss views and take a relevant poll, even though it woud be better if we were better informed.

 axman, on 2012-March-27, 20:25, said:

I will point out that it seems that so far it is likely that the capacity of the NS cards has been exceeded; while it is not clear if the capacity of the EW cards has yet been exceeded given the point of view that the prospects are great that suits are breaking badly and everything depends largely upon Ws shape and the location of his honors. I think that E has the expectation of 4+ defensive tricks at Cs and W has 1.5+. what clouds any further analysis is that lack of NS being forthcoming as to its agreements as to ranges of strength for the ranges of distributions promised for 3C; as well as the conventional nature of Ns pass [I say conventional because by the nature of their convention it [implicitly] must necessarily convey some message, even if NS were negligent in not knowing what it is prior to adopting it].

Not at all. It is common to take up these conventions without discussing the meanings of pass and redouble once they are doubled. There is no implicit agreement in so doing until the pair have relevant experience.