MEW and EM were at our fall sectional in September learning etiquette and the basics. I had to work but my buddy took a day off and extra'd for the bridge scenes.

haha, theres actually a legit show where people are trying to get sponsored as bridge pros? That's awesome.

First two seasons of Fargo are pretty awesome. Each season is its own story so you can start watching Season 3 without missing anything.

Ruling question

competitive auction unknown to this point

...

3S-(P)-slow pass-(4H)
4S-AP

Partner opposite the 4H bidder calls director for slow pass. Director says call me back at end of hand. 4S goes down 1. Director comes back and person who called director is happy with the result. Until later he realizes that 4H can make. But it only makes if declarer with 9 card trump suit plays for Qxx onside. Do you roll it back to 4H making? Even though it requires an antipercentage play, AND he was initially happy with result?

BTW, I wasn't involved in the hand, I was just asked for a second opinion on the hand.

Plays who for Qxx?

the slow pass has Qxx


♠ K Q 8 2
♥ 5
♦ J 5 3
♣ K 9 8 7 4

♠ 10 6 5
♥ A K 10 9 8 6
♦ 4 2
♣ 5 3

♠ J
♥ J 7 3
♦ A K Q 10 8 6
♣ J 6 2

♠ A 9 7 4 3
♥ Q 4 2
♦ 9 7
♣ A Q 10

These hands being the 3S bidder up top as north, then W E S

My guess is the auction went

east the diamond hand dealing

(1D)-1S-(2H)

and now the

3S-(P)-slow pass-(4H)
4S-AP

3S I am assuming was inv knowing the NS here

Without the exact auction there is no way to make a good judgment, but typically someone raising up his own bid vs a slow pass is SUSPICIOUS

If this is pairs, you can look at the other results to make a good decision, if this is IMPs then you must decide whether 4H making is reasonable. Playing the overcaller to have Qxx of trumps certainly looks unreasonable

In most parts of the world (maybe all non ACBL?) you can assign a weighted ruling, eg 4H making 4 half the time and 4H down 1 half the time (or whatever percentage you think). ACBL is more draconian in that you can't do that, and if you think the non offending side would make half the time then you roll it back to 4H making (giving the non offending side the benefit of the doubt).

I think the correct way to judge this would be to poll peers of the potential declarer on how they would play it. If they all judge to play AK of hearts then it's still 4S down 1. If a significant (even if minority) hook then it is making. In non ACBL land you can look at how many of the peers make it, round to the non offending sides favor and go with a weighted result.

Depending on the experience level of the offending side you might assess a procedural penalty for blatantly taking advantage of UI. I know some people think the experience level doesn't matter and that's fair enough but I think if they are inexperienced then the director should just educate them rather than give them a PP.

Personally I think playing the preemptor for not Qx of hearts is in the game, but not clear, so generally (in ACBL) I would lean towards rolling it back to 4H making if I could not do a poll. The non offenders should not lose their right to play and make a winning decision in 4H because the opponents cheated. Obv if its totally double dummy or ridiculous then they probably didn't lose anything, but I think there is a fair chance of getting hearts right on this hand and I don't like the idea that that possible opportunity was taken away.

To me the most interesting question (and I have no idea) is if a person bid 4S and it is not allowed, are you allowed to have to information that they thought of bidding 4S? If someone even remotely thought for 1 second about bidding 4S as a 3S bidder, then it would be 100 % to play them for a stiff heart instead of Qx (who would want to preempt then bid again with Qx of the opponents trump suit?) As far as I know the laws do not indicate anything about this, since generally bridge laws don't take that stuff into account, but it does seem like at the table if they passed instead of bidding 4S you'd probably be able to notice that and guess hearts for sure.

Good luck in the trials this week FMK

Law 73D1:

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. Inadvertent Variations
It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk.

So, yes, you are absolutely allowed to notice inadvertent variations in an opponents tempo and draw inferences.


As for the actual question -- it doesn't even seem that antipercentage to me to play the 3S/4S bidder for trump shortness on this auction. He's gotta be bidding on something. If I adjusted (and it sounds like I would based on what I know), it would be to a lot of 4H making.

ACBL joined the 21st century on this one last year: http://bridgewinners.com/article/vie...-january-2016/

I agree, though a warning is technically a PP, so you can have the best of all worlds!

On this I agree; even with a weighted ruling possible I wouldn't give much of 4H-1 here.

Oh wow, very interesting thank you. I stand corrected!

Wow, I had watched the first season (excellent) but couldn't get into the 2nd. Will take another look now.

fun hand from the trials

AKxxxx
AK
Ax
AKQ

...and your partner opens 2S...

one of the easier grand slams I've seen to bid

And probably one of the flattest boards in the session?

I heard one table opened a weak 2d (in front of the 2s opener), so the huge hands partner now passed and RHO psyched 2s! Now the huge hand doubled which is ostensibly takeout, and partner converted it to penalty! Now when RHO ran to 3d this hand just bid 7s lol. A push but a not as flat as it would appear.

The interesting problem is of course when you pick up this hand in pairs.

Hopefully partner did not have

QJTxxx
QJ
Jx
Jxx

Should be able to suss out DK or HQ anyway. I'm interested in what approaches were actually taken over 2s by responder besides just jamming.

Board 20 in the Diamond-Wold (sixth eighth?) match is amusing and mystifying at the same time.

2NT-3 to win 2 IMPs is not a fun hand for declarer.

Onto the semis. Probably against Fireman but Wooldridge is naturally 5 boards behind every one else. Looks like a tie in Harris-Rosenthal

"A live vugraph broadcast has just started. 2017 USBC QF - Segment 9 of 8"

lol