wildbill@ucbvax.ARPA (William J. Laubenheimer) (10/03/85)
This is a different kind of problem from those usually encountered in this
newsgroup. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, and the result of your
chosen action is not important. Consider it more of a poll than anything
else.
Conditions of contest: IMPs (Swiss teams), North-South vulnerable. Your
partner is of roughly average ability for a Regional field. You, South, hold:
S- xx H- AKxx D- JT8xxx C- x
The auction has been:
South West North East
Pass 3 C Pass Pass
?
What call do you make?
A summary of all answers received at ucbvax by 9am PDT Friday 11 October,
plus a description of the origin and purpose of the question, will be
posted. Comments, although not necessary, are encouraged.
Bill Laubenheimer
----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science
...Killjoy went that-a-way---> ucbvax!wildbill
Remember: You can always tell a bridge player, but you can't tell him much.wildbill@ucbvax.ARPA (William J. Laubenheimer) (10/17/85)
Here are the results of the "What Call Do You Make" hand I posted recently:
IMPs, North-South vulnerable. You, South, hold:
S- xx H- AKxx D- JT8xxx C- x
The bidding has been:
South West North East
pass 3 C pass pass
?
What call do you make?
Action Votes
Pass 10
3 D 2
Double 1
Most respondents saw little prospect for gain (or game)...:
EKP: Who wants to look for a part-score on the 3level, vul?
(Jeff) HALLE: I'd pass. You're not likely to be missing a game.
CARL (Witthoft): I strongly suspect from the bidding that the point count
is at best 24-16 in my favor and more likely 22-18 (HCP only).
...and a good chance for giving up the Big Number:
M(ichael) C B(erch): The only conceivable bids could lead to REAL trouble.
A(ndy) LATTO: Any bid is likely to get us into trouble.
PRM: At swiss I aviod looking for disasters...
The usual justification for not bidding was that partner probably had
club values due to East's unwillingness to raise, but did not feel that
he had enough to hazard a 3NT bid. In addition, most thought that they
already had a plus score, and could therefore only justify bidding if
it was likely that a makeable game could be reached while staying out
of an unmakeable one.
Some of the passers, though, were willing to consider the call, and
wished for a different arena:
RAINBOW (Rob Buchner): If I were to take a call, I'd compete with 3D. But
in IMPS theres no purpose to it other than trying to lose the match.
Some had other words, however:
(Jeff) HALLE: A diamond overcall is suicide.
Speaking for the "suicidal" faction:
STRYKER: I would bid 3 diamonds, willing to go down one doubled, as I
have little defense against 3 clubs.
All by himself on this problem was:
STEW: I double, and bid 4D when partner makes the expected 3S call ... I
would be very surprised if partner shows up with fewer than four honors
in spades and diamonds.
But what are you going to do when partner bids 4 spades instead? And yes,
you do have a surprise coming.
----------------------------------------
Now, for What It's All About:
This hand did *not* come up at my table. I was involved with the hand because
I was a member of an appeals committee which was convened to rule on the
given situation. The issue was whether the South at the table should be
allowed to bid 3 diamonds even after his partner had taken an additional
15-20 seconds beyond the 10 second pause mandated by the skip bid warning
(which was given).
The standard guideline suggested by the ACBL in these situations, known
as the "75-percent rule", is to allow any call which would be considered
"clear-cut", that is, made by at least 75 percent of players whose ability
is comparable to the player faced with the problem. All the players of
comparable ability having gone out to dinner by this time, the committee
decided to adjudicate the issue by polling the committee members for their
opinion on the percentage of those players which would bid in the absence
of the hesitation, and average those percentages, allowing the bid to
stand if the average was over 75 percent.
Another member of the committee and I were interested in what the actual
opinion of a group of players faced with the problem would be. I felt
that the readers of this newsgroup would be an appropriate test set; hence,
the problem.
The results of the survey were drastically at variance with the opinions
of the committee members, which ranged from 60 to 90 percent in favor
of 3 diamonds, as opposed to only 23 percent of the net respondents considering
anything besides pass.
Now, what were the rest of the hands? Well, your partner has:
S- Axx H-QJxx D-Qxx C-KQJ
After the actual South reopened with 3 diamonds, the rest of the auction was
pass - 3 notrump - pass - 4 hearts. Although the committee was not told
the result, the fact that the case was being heard made it obvious that
the contract made, which required only that the club ace be played before
knocking out the ace of spades (diamonds were 2-2 and hearts 3-2). 3 clubs
fails one trick, losing two hearts, two clubs, and a spade. Although it
would not be out of the question for North to double with his hand, this
is not relevant to the problem faced by the committee either.
Thanks to the people responding from the following logins, who voiced their
opinions on the matter:
aeb, alatto, ark, carl, doyle, ekp, halle, mcb, prm, rainbow, stew,
stryker, woods.
Bill Laubenheimer
----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science
...Killjoy went that-a-way---> ucbvax!wildbill