[RunemPard]

Think I fixed most of the boards...had them backwards and all goofed up...


Mostly venting...Just got done playing with my beginner gf who is still learning, but a very good player for playing off and on for over a year. We managed to get #7 out of 24 tonight, finishing with 56.01%(55.54% w/ HCP). This is good, but these 4 boards are haunting me! Two of the boards were extremely silly boards where we managed to get bottoms instead of tops, one was probably a silly lead by me, and the last was on a lead. If we had done better on the two outrageous boards we would have finished around 60%+ and won. If we had done all 4 correctly, we would have finished with 66.72% and a great night. I will put the hands below (give me time, going to use the hand editor for all 4).

As always I appreciate all advice.

Don


Note..we had some pretty good boards as well. I may post them below if I have any time. We didn't do all bad!

[Phil]

What matters is if you got any after the game

[RunemPard]

---

Partner alerted my 2D bid as inverted...I had no clue how to handle this regarding the laws...but 3NT-1 undoubled would have been 21/22 MP. I was hoping to go -3 with 3NT making, but went for -4. I was shocked that my partner forgot that inverted is only for opening bids.

Out of curiousity, and I can take this to the other forum, what are my legal actions and how should I handle the MI? It appears that the opponents figured out that the 2D bid was natural and gambled on a 3NT game.

[RunemPard]

---

Probably the weakest 1st seat opening I have ever done...but at the time I really liked the hand for 10 points and wanted to get involved early. I bid in good tempo, and based on the bidding, I should probably pass 3d as this is not forcing. I gambled on 3NT and was absolutely shocked when partner had these cards after. 3NT+1 for a shared top should have been no issue based on the full hand.

[RunemPard]

---

I made a very weak NV/V minor preempt, which partner can expect, but not too often. I found it hard to believe that partner could not find the 5d card in her bidding box. I led the S5 rather than a diamond resulting in 4h+2 rather than 4h+1 for a bottom instead of a 50/50 board.

Was my best lead to go with my suit, or does the bidding suggest trying another play?

[Bbradley62]

Directional issues?

[RunemPard]

The last one...this was more interesting I thought.

---

1D is alerted as 1+D, strong club. Partner is on lead from south...what should she lead?

[Stephen Tu]

 RunemPard, on 2013-January-07, 16:29, said:

Partner alerted my 2D bid as inverted...I had no clue how to handle this regarding the laws...but 3NT-1 undoubled would have been 21/22 MP. I was hoping to go -3 with 3NT making, but went for -4. I was shocked that my partner forgot that inverted is only for opening bids.

Out of curiousity, and I can take this to the other forum, what are my legal actions and how should I handle the MI? It appears that the opponents figured out that the 2D bid was natural and gambled on a 3NT game.

What to do when you have unauthorized information (UI):
1. Imagine that partner *had not* given misinformation. Pretend she had described your raise as exactly what you have: "standard raise, perhaps very light at this vul".
2. Determine what your logical alternatives (LAs) are had partner not given misinformation, for you & peers of your level. Here, for me pass is the only LA, but maybe you feel 4d is also an LA, it doesn't matter on this particular auction. (It would only matter if you are trying to claim that pass is not an LA, that no one of your peer group would ever consider passing in situation where partner correctly explained rather than misexplained. But clearly you should see pass is an LA here.)
3. If there is only one LA, take it. If there is more than one LA, determine what the unauthorized information suggests you do. Here, the UI suggests partner thinks you are stronger than you actually are, and might be doubling on that basis. So the UI suggests pulling because you are understrength. Since the UI suggests pulling over passing, the laws dictate that you cannot pull.

Here, your pull to 4d is against the laws. And here the game punished you without need for director rectification, since 3nt goes down. If 3nt was making, and 4d was a successful sac, a director would rule it back to 3nt-x making, whereas if 4d-x went for more than 3nt-x you'd get to keep your score in 4d-x. So you can see there is no way that pulling 3nt-x can ever work out for you, either it's wrong and you keep your score or it's right and the director reverts it to 3nt-x. So your only chance was to leave it in and beat it, and is the ethical option you are supposed to take.

[edit: correct some typos, misuse of UI vs. MI]

This post has been edited by Stephen Tu: 2013-January-07, 17:30

[RunemPard]

 Stephen Tu, on 2013-January-07, 16:52, said:

What to do when you have misinformation:
1. Imagine that partner *had not* given misinformation. Pretend she had described your raise as exactly what you have: "standard raise, perhaps very light at this vul".
2. Determine what your logical alternatives (LAs) are had partner not given misinformation, for you & peers of your level. Here, for me pass is the only LA, but maybe you feel 4d is also an LA, it doesn't matter on this particular auction. (It would only matter if you are trying to claim that pass is not an LA, that no one of your peer group would ever consider passing in situation where partner correctly explained rather than misexplained. But clearly you should see pass is an LA here.)
3. If there is only one LA, take it. If there is more than one LA, determine what the misinformation suggests you do. Here, the MI suggests partner thinks you are stronger than you actually are, and might be doubling on that basis. So the MI suggests pulling because you are understrength. Since the MI suggests pulling over passing, the laws dictate that you cannot pull.

Here, your pull to 4d is against the laws. And here the game punished you without need for director rectification, since 3nt goes down. If 3nt was making, and 4d was a successful sac, a director would rule it back to 3nt making, whereas if 4d-x went for more than 3nt-x you'd get to keep your score in 4d-x. So you can see there is no way that pulling 3nt-x can ever work out for you, either it's wrong and you keep your score or it's right and the director revers it to 3nt-x. So your only chance was to leave it in and beat it, and is the ethical option you are supposed to take.

Thank you...I had no idea what to do. What about calling the director? At what point should this be done?

[Stephen Tu]

 RunemPard, on 2013-January-07, 16:59, said:

Thank you...I had no idea what to do. What about calling the director? At what point should this be done?

BTW in my first attempt at post I used "MI" misinformation, when I really meant "UI" unauthorized information. Partner giving wrong info the opponents about the strength of the raise was misinformation. You knowing that partner thinks you are stronger than you actually are is the "UI". I went back and mostly fixed this. Opps have right to corrected MI (before or after play depending on which side declares, see below), and you have responsibility not to take actions suggested by UI. UI can be created by MI and also other things, most often breaks in tempo.

If your side said nothing (but see below), the opponents would generally call the director when dummy comes down since dummy clearly used UI to pull 3nt-x, though they can still call for adjustment after end of the play. Director would then say "play on, call me back when finished if you think you were damaged". Experienced opps might then not bother to call the director back after you went for 800, but if you went for 500 they'd bring the director back to determine whether 3nt makes or not. Less experienced players are best off to just always get the director for final consult.

Also:
- if your side ends up on offense, and your side gave misinformation, at the end of the auction, you must call the director over and explain the misinformation to the opponents, because the MI might have affected their calls. The director will often give the opponents the right to take back their last pass and do something else. On this particular deal the opponents would presumably still defend 4d-x, you'd play it out, and then it's ruled back to 3nt-x or not as described before.
- if your side ends up on defense, and your side gave misinformation, *you must keep quiet until play is over*. After play is over, you then inform opps of misinformation, and they call director if they feel they were damaged (would bid different and/or play differently for superior result).

[Bbradley62]

 RunemPard, on 2013-January-07, 16:29, said:

I cannot figure out how to adjust the vulnerability...

Initially, your coding included "v=0", meaning none vulnerable. It looks like you were playing with it and ended with "v=1". The codes are: v=e for e/w vulnerable, v=n for n/s vulnerable and v=b for both vulnerable.

PS: 640|480 is way too big; 400|300 is more standard.

[Bbradley62]

 RunemPard, on 2013-January-07, 16:29, said:

It appears that the opponents figured out that the 2D bid was natural and gambled on a 3NT game.

Or maybe they just looked at their own hands and bid accordingly

[Codo]

Please but one hand in one thread, it is too hard to answer.

1. You need to pass 3 NT and it serves you right to get a bad score this time.

2. I hate your system. But 5 ♦ was stupid.

3. Passing was silly, but maybe influenced by some former weak openings?

4. Lead a heart, no reason to expect a cross ruff so much that a trump from this holding is necessary. Partner usually bids 1 Heart for a reason.

[RunemPard]

Sorry, mostly just venting about a badlesser result and putting our 4 huge mistakes into the thread. I didn't want to take up 4 spots on the forum for some hands that may not be so interesting.

 Codo, on 2013-January-07, 17:46, said:

Please but one hand in one thread, it is too hard to answer.

1. You need to pass 3 NT and it serves you right to get a bad score this time.
Me:I actually thought 4D was a legal action and had no clue how to act. My thoughts were that if I pass and it goes down that this would have been bad as well. My main issue was getting into this situation to begin with. Our club does not offer many ways to learn bridge rules, and I try my best to learn what I can on the forums here.

2. I hate your system. But 5 ♦ was stupid.
Me:The bidding didn't really follow our system, although it is basically natural. Partner's 3D bid was not really an option with the hand she held.

3. Passing was silly, but maybe influenced by some former weak openings?
Me:Our 3 minor opening typically have something, can be as short as 6 cards, but usually on a good suit. With partner holding the AQ, she should be expecting a 7 card diamond suit here.

4. Lead a heart, no reason to expect a cross ruff so much that a trump from this holding is necessary. Partner usually bids 1 Heart for a reason.
Me:IMO, the auction does not seem to dictate a heart lead immediately. The bidding suggests that we can afford to try something else.

[Fluffy]

first one: all you have to do is act as if you didn't hear anything from partner. Wich you failed to do, you might be shocked to hear that had 4♦ bid worked, it owuld had been taken back and 3NTx= would be the final result. Removing partner's penalty doubles is a very bad tactic regardless of legal issues.

second one: when a player looks at AKQxxxx in a minor, 3NT is the objective, and all that matters is how to reach that contract, scaring away from it is ludicrous.

third: doubleton leads on unbid suits are bad in general, passive in general also, a bit better when you have Ax(x) or Kxx in trumps but still bad. Long suit>> doubleton.

But nothing compared to partner's passivity, she should bid 5♦ ASAP, but note that it owuld only mean opponents owuld play 5♥ and you would score 50/50


fourth: leading the suit you fit during the bidding when you don't have unsupported ace is obvious, few things have priority over it (side AK, side KQJ, some singleton and some rare biddings that totally ask for a trump lead)

[broze]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-07, 18:04, said:

third: doubleton leads on unbid suits are bad in general

I have heard this a thousand times and am still unconvinced. Whether that lead is objectively bad on that hand I won't comment on but I really don't agree with your statement. Hopefully David Bird will discuss this in his upcoming book - I will be interested to see what he has to say.

[petterb]

#4

South is on lead when West is declarer?

[RunemPard]

 petterb, on 2013-January-07, 18:50, said:

#4

South is on lead when West is declarer?

Fixed thanks.

[Codo]

 RunemPard, on 2013-January-07, 17:56, said:

Sorry, mostly just venting about a badlesser result and putting our 4 huge mistakes into the thread. I didn't want to take up 4 spots on the forum for some hands that may not be so interesting.

Please but one hand in one thread, it is too hard to answer.

1. You need to pass 3 NT and it serves you right to get a bad score this time.
Me:I actually thought 4D was a legal action and had no clue how to act. My thoughts were that if I pass and it goes down that this would have been bad as well. My main issue was getting into this situation to begin with. Our club does not offer many ways to learn bridge rules, and I try my best to learn what I can on the forums here.

2. I hate your system. But 5 ♦ was stupid.
Me:The bidding didn't really follow our system, although it is basically natural. Partner's 3D bid was not really an option with the hand she held.

3. Passing was silly, but maybe influenced by some former weak openings?
Me:Our 3 minor opening typically have something, can be as short as 6 cards, but usually on a good suit. With partner holding the AQ, she should be expecting a 7 card diamond suit here.

4. Lead a heart, no reason to expect a cross ruff so much that a trump from this holding is necessary. Partner usually bids 1 Heart for a reason.
Me:IMO, the auction does not seem to dictate a heart lead immediately. The bidding suggests that we can afford to try something else.

1. you may thought so, but you are just wrong. 4 ♦ is a lose lose action.
2. I really prefer a system where I can rebid 2 ♥ with your hand,to bid 2 NT with 10-14 counts is just bad.
3. yes
4. Why do you bid a suit? To hear yourself talking? No. You do it to disturb opps bidding and to show a suit so that the partnership can decide if they should bid on, maybe sacrifice, maybe for a make and last but surely not least: to show what to lead if in doubt. Here is no reason NOT to lead a heart, so it is really obvious.

[mgoetze]

 RunemPard, on 2013-January-07, 17:56, said:

The bidding suggests that we can afford to try something else.

You can "afford" to try something else when it is not likely to cost matchpoints. A black suit lead has a good chance of blowing a trick immediately. A diamond is not quite as risky, but then again, what is the upside? What hand could partner have where a diamond is a better lead than a heart? A heart lead is likely to shorten declarer in trumps and thus at least reduce his options.