Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
60% or not 60% that is the question.
103 views
Skip to first unread message
bhmwe...@gmail.com
May 14, 2013, 7:41:23 AM5/14/13
to
Yesterday when I played Matchpoint pairs, I had the following hand during the last round, non-vul vs vul:
86 AJT762 A Q873
OK, now the problem:
The TD had been called to a table the previsous round. There had been a heart lead OOT, and declarer required the correct defender to lead a heart.
Unfortunately the correct defender was void in hearts so she played some other suit. Declarer with KQxxx of hearts now wanted to change her mind, but was of course not allowed to do that.
Unfortunately I as a TD had been consulted about the not too common albeit simple situation, and I discovered now that this was the board in question.
I now knew that partner is void in hearts and that LHO has KQxxx.
I could have called the TD and claimed that I could not play the board and score 60%, but as we needed a better board than that I decided to stand my ground and try not to use this knowledge.
RHO opened 1S and I called 2H.
LHO bid 3D and RHO bid 3C(!).
I did not accept this and he corrected to 4C.
His partner tried to end the bidding with 4 NT, but RHO bid 5D.
Now, I know that 5D is going down, as partner can ruff hearts. But a double would be more the result of my UI, I felt. So I stoically passed.
LHO passed but partner did have AT975 - T9643 T96
so he had reason to double, and we collected 1100.
Was it a correct decision to try and act like I knew nothing of partner's hand.
Am I allowed to double 5D reasoning that I have two aces, and a well-placed club, as well as shortage of diamonds, meaning that partner could have some diamond tricks? Or could opponents claim that I doubled on the UI that partner was void in hearts?
86 AJT762 A Q873
OK, now the problem:
The TD had been called to a table the previsous round. There had been a heart lead OOT, and declarer required the correct defender to lead a heart.
Unfortunately the correct defender was void in hearts so she played some other suit. Declarer with KQxxx of hearts now wanted to change her mind, but was of course not allowed to do that.
Unfortunately I as a TD had been consulted about the not too common albeit simple situation, and I discovered now that this was the board in question.
I now knew that partner is void in hearts and that LHO has KQxxx.
I could have called the TD and claimed that I could not play the board and score 60%, but as we needed a better board than that I decided to stand my ground and try not to use this knowledge.
RHO opened 1S and I called 2H.
LHO bid 3D and RHO bid 3C(!).
I did not accept this and he corrected to 4C.
His partner tried to end the bidding with 4 NT, but RHO bid 5D.
Now, I know that 5D is going down, as partner can ruff hearts. But a double would be more the result of my UI, I felt. So I stoically passed.
LHO passed but partner did have AT975 - T9643 T96
so he had reason to double, and we collected 1100.
Was it a correct decision to try and act like I knew nothing of partner's hand.
Am I allowed to double 5D reasoning that I have two aces, and a well-placed club, as well as shortage of diamonds, meaning that partner could have some diamond tricks? Or could opponents claim that I doubled on the UI that partner was void in hearts?
Dave Flower
May 14, 2013, 8:01:42 AM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 12:41:23 UTC+1, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yesterday when I played Matchpoint pairs, I had the following hand during the last round, non-vul vs vul: 86 AJT762 A Q873 OK, now the problem: The TD had been called to a table the previsous round. There had been a heart lead OOT, and declarer required the correct defender to lead a heart. Unfortunately the correct defender was void in hearts so she played some other suit. Declarer with KQxxx of hearts now wanted to change her mind, but was of course not allowed to do that. Unfortunately I as a TD had been consulted about the not too common albeit simple situation, and I discovered now that this was the board in question. I now knew that partner is void in hearts and that LHO has KQxxx. I could have called the TD and claimed that I could not play the board and score 60%, but as we needed a better board than that I decided to stand my ground and try not to use this knowledge. RHO opened 1S and I called 2H. LHO bid 3D and RHO bid 3C(!). I did not accept this and he corrected to 4C. His partner tried to end the bidding with 4 NT, but RHO bid 5D. Now, I know that 5D is going down, as partner can ruff hearts. But a double would be more the result of my UI, I felt. So I stoically passed. LHO passed but partner did have AT975 - T9643 T96 so he had reason to double, and we collected 1100. Was it a correct decision to try and act like I knew nothing of partner's hand. Am I allowed to double 5D reasoning that I have two aces, and a well-placed club, as well as shortage of diamonds, meaning that partner could have some diamond tricks? Or could opponents claim that I doubled on the UI that partner was void in hearts?
Firstly, you were at fault in not calling the Director. L16C1 applies, requiring you to call the Director.
> Yesterday when I played Matchpoint pairs, I had the following hand during the last round, non-vul vs vul: 86 AJT762 A Q873 OK, now the problem: The TD had been called to a table the previsous round. There had been a heart lead OOT, and declarer required the correct defender to lead a heart. Unfortunately the correct defender was void in hearts so she played some other suit. Declarer with KQxxx of hearts now wanted to change her mind, but was of course not allowed to do that. Unfortunately I as a TD had been consulted about the not too common albeit simple situation, and I discovered now that this was the board in question. I now knew that partner is void in hearts and that LHO has KQxxx. I could have called the TD and claimed that I could not play the board and score 60%, but as we needed a better board than that I decided to stand my ground and try not to use this knowledge. RHO opened 1S and I called 2H. LHO bid 3D and RHO bid 3C(!). I did not accept this and he corrected to 4C. His partner tried to end the bidding with 4 NT, but RHO bid 5D. Now, I know that 5D is going down, as partner can ruff hearts. But a double would be more the result of my UI, I felt. So I stoically passed. LHO passed but partner did have AT975 - T9643 T96 so he had reason to double, and we collected 1100. Was it a correct decision to try and act like I knew nothing of partner's hand. Am I allowed to double 5D reasoning that I have two aces, and a well-placed club, as well as shortage of diamonds, meaning that partner could have some diamond tricks? Or could opponents claim that I doubled on the UI that partner was void in hearts?
The Director would probably have applied L16C2(c), allowing the board to be provisionally played, and, as the play on the board transpired, allow the result to stand. Had you doubled 5D, the Director might have awarded an adjusted score
Dave Flower
axm...@hotmail.com
May 14, 2013, 8:13:04 AM5/14/13
to
to play. He owes the damaged pair [you] the return of entry, travel
expenses, a free play, and a beer. Which isn't enough.
regards
axman
dake50
May 14, 2013, 9:20:09 AM5/14/13
to
Trying to keep the spirit of the game. I see that.
But the next question is what adjusted score SHOULD you get?
Playing a 60% game (not an aberration) should you not get a 60+% by stating your play/defense that would get that 60+%?
That seems equitable - the assignment for a director is to adjust to equity.
OR should you be penalized for being a playing director?
I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played yet.
But the next question is what adjusted score SHOULD you get?
Playing a 60% game (not an aberration) should you not get a 60+% by stating your play/defense that would get that 60+%?
That seems equitable - the assignment for a director is to adjust to equity.
OR should you be penalized for being a playing director?
I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played yet.
derek
May 14, 2013, 9:58:05 AM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:20:09 AM UTC-3, dake50 wrote:
>
> I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played yet.
As usual, you're counselling an illegal ruling. It is NOT a no-play.
>
> I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played yet.
derek
May 14, 2013, 10:01:35 AM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:41:23 AM UTC-3, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yesterday when I played Matchpoint pairs, I had the following hand during the last round, non-vul vs vul:
>
> 86 AJT762 A Q873
>
> OK, now the problem:
>
> The TD had been called to a table the previsous round. There had been a heart lead OOT, and declarer required the correct defender to lead a heart.
>
> Unfortunately the correct defender was void in hearts so she played some other suit. Declarer with KQxxx of hearts now wanted to change her mind, but was of course not allowed to do that.
>
> Unfortunately I as a TD had been consulted about the not too common albeit simple situation, and I discovered now that this was the board in question.
>
> I now knew that partner is void in hearts and that LHO has KQxxx.
>
> I could have called the TD and claimed that I could not play the board and score 60%, but as we needed a better board than that I decided to stand my ground and try not to use this knowledge.
You really don't get to make that decision. An irregularity has occurred, you know it, and you need to call the director. It's the director's decision whether or not you should be allowed to play it. At this point, I'm not inclined to let you even have the 60% (that is, you're entitled to equity - but your failure is egregious and deserves its own penalty).
> Yesterday when I played Matchpoint pairs, I had the following hand during the last round, non-vul vs vul:
>
> 86 AJT762 A Q873
>
> OK, now the problem:
>
> The TD had been called to a table the previsous round. There had been a heart lead OOT, and declarer required the correct defender to lead a heart.
>
> Unfortunately the correct defender was void in hearts so she played some other suit. Declarer with KQxxx of hearts now wanted to change her mind, but was of course not allowed to do that.
>
> Unfortunately I as a TD had been consulted about the not too common albeit simple situation, and I discovered now that this was the board in question.
>
> I now knew that partner is void in hearts and that LHO has KQxxx.
>
> I could have called the TD and claimed that I could not play the board and score 60%, but as we needed a better board than that I decided to stand my ground and try not to use this knowledge.
I also think you should endeavour not to consult on boards you're about to play - though I realize it's sometimes difficult not to. A couple of weeks ago, I consulted another director about a board, and she even asked me if she'd played it yet, and I told her (wrongly) that she had... (and yes, Axman I returned her entry and gave her a free play [OK, she's the club owner...] but I probably owe her a beer).
> RHO opened 1S and I called 2H.
> LHO bid 3D and RHO bid 3C(!).
>
> I did not accept this and he corrected to 4C.
>
> His partner tried to end the bidding with 4 NT, but RHO bid 5D.
>
> Now, I know that 5D is going down, as partner can ruff hearts. But a double would be more the result of my UI, I felt. So I stoically passed.
>
> LHO passed but partner did have AT975 - T9643 T96
> so he had reason to double, and we collected 1100.
>
> Was it a correct decision to try and act like I knew nothing of partner's hand.
> Am I allowed to double 5D reasoning that I have two aces, and a well-placed club, as well as shortage of diamonds, meaning that partner could have some diamond tricks? Or could opponents claim that I doubled on the UI that partner was void in hearts?
dake50
May 14, 2013, 11:45:42 PM5/14/13
to
I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played yet.
As usual, you're counselling an illegal ruling. It is NOT a no-play.
**** So you claim the integrity is to play as if I didn't have UI???
As usual, you're counselling an illegal ruling. It is NOT a no-play.
That's surely equitable without question.
Message has been deleted
Dave Flower
May 15, 2013, 4:15:52 AM5/15/13
to
On Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:45:42 UTC+1, dake50 wrote:
> I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played yet. As usual, you're counselling an illegal ruling. It is NOT a no-play. **** So you claim the integrity is to play as if I didn't have UI??? That's surely equitable without question.
I am playing Director an Banbury; what I do whan such a situation arises is to announce at the start of the hand that I have UI, and say that I will explain what it is after the hand has been played, planning to discuss the possibility of an adjusted score.
> I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played yet. As usual, you're counselling an illegal ruling. It is NOT a no-play. **** So you claim the integrity is to play as if I didn't have UI??? That's surely equitable without question.
Dave Flower
derek
May 15, 2013, 1:14:00 PM5/15/13
to
Ed Reppert
Jun 22, 2013, 4:02:11 AM6/22/13
to
In article <db3c9401-44ba-430e...@googlegroups.com>,
you award yourself an artificial adjusted score.
dake50 <dak...@aol.com> wrote:
> I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played
> yet.
This is illegal. If you can't play a board you were scheduled to play,
> I always take a 'no play' when I am called to rule on a hand I haven't played
> yet.
you award yourself an artificial adjusted score.
0 new messages