[gwnn]

The following auction took place in a BAM online event.

1♦*-p-p**-2♣
p-4♥-p-p
x-end

*: 10-14 unbal hand (two/three suiter without 5 carded major)
**: in system it is mandatory to pass with a weak (~0-8) hand. however, this pass took just a bit too much than the normal tempo.

4♥ went off, the " ** " passer holding the ace of clubs.

After the board, one of the players incriminated opener's X on:

Scoring: BAM

---

It was supposedly based upon his/her partner's hesitation. Do you agree with this suggestion?

[glen]

Perhaps I don't understand this - the declarer passed over 1♦, then when partner found a reopening 2♣ bid showing ♣s and a limited hand, found a jump all the way to the 4♥ landing spot? Any *** to add to that side of the auction?

Assuming the auction is correct, players who live in green houses should be careful throwing out stones, in case they get returned.

[pbleighton]

I think double at BAM or matchpoints is reasonable.

So is pass.

Peter

[cherdano]

This is a style question. Opponents have had a crazy auction that is extremely unlikely to make any sense. Is that a good reason to double? Not usually for me, but I am sure many players would.

[mikeh]

Agree with Justin... but also with the comment that the posted auction makes zero sense... surely there is no hand on which one would pass a limited 1♦ opening and then leap to 4♥ opposite a balancing 2♣? I suspect that we are missing some (possibly relevant) part of the auction.

[gwnn]

mikeh: no, not really, this is how it happened.. OK, declarer did think a bit before his "giant leap"

[whereagles]

It's not clear the hesitation shows a borderline 6-7 hand. It could also be that it suggests a hand SHORT in diamonds, who's willing to break discipline in order to get to a better contract. That's very common in nebulous diamond auctions and one of the reasons that passing with 0-8 is technically incorrect.

You can, however, make a case for the NS auction making it more or less clear pard's reason for passing is the borderline 6-7 hand.

[cherdano]

whereagles, on Jan 18 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

It's not clear the hesitation shows a borderline 6-7 hand. It could also be that it suggests a hand SHORT in diamonds, who's willing to break discipline in order to get to a better contract. That's very common in nebulous diamond auctions and one of the reasons that passing with 0-8 is technically incorrect.

That still makes a double more likely to be successful.

Btw, I only meant to say that I don't necessarily think that the double was based on the hesitation - it is still disallowed by UI rules. That's the good part about UI rules, that we can prevent the damage of possible use of UI without accusing anyone (here the doubler) of cheating.

[glen]

This one is clear cut - either the event had a TD or not - if no TD, the players keep quiet. If there was a TD, then call the TD, but let's see the four hands just as the TD would.

[gwnn]

Scoring: BAM

1D*-p-..p-2♣
p-4h-p-p
X-p-p-p
+100

---

my thought process was something like "our teammates won't probably find this game. so if 4♥ makes it's all the same if I double it or not. If it fails, our point expectancy only rises - declarer was going to look for the points at me anyway." Of course this thought process is a little flawed, but this was the basis.

On the other table 5♦ fell twice (Dad made the practical direct leap to 4♥ in the first round against a limited (4+) 1♦), so it was always going to be a good score anyway.

Thinking about it again I think adjusting this one to +50 seems only fair (or not to bother at all. At the moment I didn't like being accused, but I have to concede that they're more right than wrong.

Anyhow, I just wanted to thank you all for being kind enough to reply. This is really a one-of-a-kind forum about a one-of-a-kind game!

[glen]

Thanks for posting the full hand. So East broke tempo but had no reason to break tempo - ♦s were likely the best spot, but weak suit makes a jump wrong in case it hits shortness. The ♣ ace was not enough for the set, it was the extras in ♠s that did the trick. However since this is BAM it does not matter whether it was doubled or not given the result at the other table. So call the TD because there might be a tempo problem, they ask players to continue while they study the hand, then they see result from other table, everything is cool, and players can play the rest of the event without a fun reduction.

[the hog]

I would roll it back on account of the hesitation, but I also agree that very little of this auction makes sense. One obvious example is the pass of 1D. What is the name of the Nth player? Casper Milquetoast? In any sensible game the 4H bid shows a H suit and a C fit, and in view of the failure to overcall 1H, maybe only 4 of them.

[gwnn]

Yea, WJO's versus this kind of 1♦ can be quite effective... Usually on 2nd round we can show 2 suits at once, but after a WJO...

[jtfanclub]

Was the director called after the pass of 1♦? In the ACBL world, you don't protect yourself, you can't argue that somebody hesitated 'a little' after the hand was over. There's lots of reasons that a person might take a bit to make his first bid in the round, like the player was studying the previous hand.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 17 2007, 11:51 PM, said:

Agree with Justin... but also with the comment that the posted auction makes zero sense... surely there is no hand on which one would pass a limited 1♦ opening and then leap to 4♥ opposite a balancing 2♣? I suspect that we are missing some (possibly relevant) part of the auction.

There was a famous problem from the English trials a few years ago. I can't remember the exact hand, but I have its salient point right.

You are on lead against the auction 1♦ passed out. What is the best lead?

Oh yes, your hand:

x
AKQJ10xxxx
xx
x

[the hog]

"Oh yes, your hand:

x
AKQJ10xxxx
xx
x

Who held this, John Collings?

[glen]

jtfanclub, on Jan 18 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

...In the ACBL world...

I think I will faint the first day I see an ACBL online BAM event

[SteelWheel]

Quote

I think I will faint the first day I see an ACBL online BAM event

Why? Given the current status of ACBL-sanctioned online bridge, BAM would be easier to implement than, say, a Swiss team type game.

People are willing to play an online ACBL game since if they do well, they get a section award that is as much as 1.xx masterpoints (I don't remember the exact cutoff number). There's no equivalent type of "section" award that you could give in a Swiss team game online. I would imagine that only match awards could be given, and those would be pretty puny.

OTOH, BAM runs just like a regular matchpoint event. The real difficulty is only in the typical problems of online bridge--people who have to (or choose to) leave, people whose 'net connection craps out on them, etc.

Otherwise, I see no reason why a BAM ACBL online event is not (at least theoretically) feasible.

[FrancesHinden]

The_Hog, on Jan 18 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

"Oh yes, your hand:

x
AKQJ10xxxx
xx
x

Who held this, John Collings?

Steve Barnfield
(who doesn't seem to play any more)