[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2011-October-10, 10:49, said:

Was it not carefully-constructed?

No, I made small errors with the pips and also rotated the diagram accidentally. And I discovered that there were around a million similar hands where 3NT was cold. Essentially whenever there are six club tricks and two heart tricks, and the opponents cannot take four diamonds and the ace of spades. As with monkeys and typewriters, a tiny amount of thought was needed. No doubt there are a lot more hands that fit the bill.

I would almost go so far as to say that doubling 3NT would be SeWoG. It would be amusing if doubling was SeWoG and not doubling was a red fielded psyche. Almost like VixTD's imposition of a SeWoG 3♠ on one hand, after polling half a dozen drunken revellers in the bar. In his defence, they were there for a wedding, not for the bridge.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2011-October-10, 10:59, said:

No, I made small errors with the pips and also rotated the diagram accidentally. And I discovered that there were arouund a million similar hands where 3NT was cold. Essentially whenever there are six club tricks and two heart tricks, and the opponents cannot take four diamonds and the ace of spades. As with monkeys and typewriters, a tiny amount of thought was needed. No doubt there are a lot more hands that fit the bill.

I would almost go so far as to say that doubling 3NT would be SeWoG. It would be amusing if doubling was SeWoG and not doubling was a red fielded psyche. Almost like VixTDs imposition of a SeWoG 3S on one hand, after interviewing half a dozen drunken revellers in the bar. In his defence, they were there for a wedding, not for the bridge.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that doubling 3NT would be a SEWoG. But if I would be West, I would consider it a Fredin double, which means that for a player of the level of Peter Fredin, it would be a SEWoG.

Rik

[Bbradley62]

 lamford, on 2011-October-10, 10:41, said:

Or is this another carefully-constructed layout?

Right back to smart-ass attitude after being outvoted 11-2. Nice.

[cretinous]

Amber

[lamford]

 Bbradley62, on 2011-October-10, 11:13, said:

Right back to smart-ass attitude after being outvoted 11-2. Nice.

No, I acknowledged that the earlier hand was more likely to open 3♠:

 lamford, on 2011-October-10, 10:41, said:

"I agree partner is more likely to open 3♠ on the earlier example."

Are you suggesting that this one (South in #49) would open anything other than 1♠?

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2011-October-10, 11:10, said:

I wouldn't go as far as saying that doubling 3NT would be a SEWoG. But if I would be West, I would consider it a Fredin double, which means that for a player of the level of Peter Fredin, it would be a SEWoG.

I thought for a Fredin double the opponents were supposed to jump to 7♣ and make it. Here the double might only push them from a no-play 3NT into a cold 5♣.

[Bbradley62]

 lamford, on 2011-October-10, 11:18, said:

Are you suggesting that this one (South in #49) would open anything other than 1♠?

No; I am suggesting that most posters would have dropped the attitude after being outvoted so clearly.

[FrancesHinden]

 lamford, on 2011-October-10, 08:05, said:

I was advised it was adjusted by the award of an artifical adjusted score of +3 IMPs N/S and -3 IMPs E/W. I don't know if there was a 0.5 VP penalty for E/W in addition (WB 90.4.2). I am not aware whether there was any appeal.

When the hand was played at the table it was in a private match and there was no TD call, no 'real life' ruling and no appeal.
That doesn't stop it being used as an example in a training course.

[lamford]

 Bbradley62, on 2011-October-10, 11:52, said:

No; I am suggesting that most posters would have dropped the attitude after being outvoted so clearly.

I did, and substituted a hand that would definitely open 1♠ for one that the majority thought would open 3♠. Exactly as you suggest I should have done. And especially so as everyone now seems to have their bid.

[lamford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-October-10, 15:05, said:

When the hand was played at the table it was in a private match and there was no TD call, no 'real life' ruling and no appeal.
That doesn't stop it being used as an example in a training course.

I asked Mike Amos whether the ruling at the table was that it was a fielded red psyche, and he confirmed that it was, so it seems he is misinformed. In the training course my entry was as follows (exactly quoted):

"I would agree with West that doubling 3NT is wrong; 4♣ is sure to be better and may make. West will place her partner with a minimum with six spades - maybe ♠KQJxxx and the ♦A for example. Amber - no adjustment. Record."

I received 3 out of 5 for that ruling, with "Red not amber" written on my paper, and the EBU is therefore instructing its directors that this example should be classified as red. Do you think this is the correct instruction, and if not should the L&E advise the EBU training team accordingly? Or is that not in their ambit?

[bluejak]

It is not the responsibility of the L&EC to instruct a different department of the EBU, eg County TD training.

[jallerton]

 cretinous, on 2011-October-10, 11:15, said:

Amber

I agree with you, Paul. I suspect that West's pass would be duplicated by some players, but not by the vast majority. West's stated reasoning makes some sense but it is also a very convenient explanation if East does indeed have a habit of opening very light. There again, I'm not too sure what counts as "amber" these days (hence my question on another recent thread).

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-10, 16:52, said:

It is not the responsibility of the L&EC to instruct a different department of the EBU, eg County TD training.

I would have thought it was their responsibility to advise it on matters relating to the Laws. Some of the handouts on the course, such as the paper on Insufficient Bids, originated from the L&E. And the course material included the White Book and Orange Book, both I believe L&E publications.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2011-October-10, 10:59, said:

No, I made small errors with the pips and also rotated the diagram accidentally. And I discovered that there were around a million similar hands where 3NT was cold. Essentially whenever there are six club tricks and two heart tricks, and the opponents cannot take four diamonds and the ace of spades. As with monkeys and typewriters, a tiny amount of thought was needed. No doubt there are a lot more hands that fit the bill.

So, as I understand it, you're telling us that:
- If LHO has ♥A, they'll make 550 instead of 400
- If RHO has ♥A and six clubs, they'll score -100 if they cash out, or --800 if they play to make.
- If RHO has ♥A and five clubs, they'll score -300 if they cash out, or -500 if they play to make.
RHO has 5+ hearts and most of the opposing high cards; LHO has shown 0-2 hearts and not many high cards. It sounds as though double is a big favourite

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2011-October-10, 17:27, said:

It sounds as though double is a big favourite

I would agree; it must be less than 5% to make. But it is not a winner if it causes the opponents to go to a making 4C or even 5C. The chance of 3NTx making is but a small cog in the wheel. When judging the fielding of a psyche, the benchmark is not the same as with UI. It would have to be ludicrous not to double 3NT for you to rule red. As with jallerton's examples in another thread. If you have a ten count and partner psyches a strong NT, there is prima facie evidence of a CPU if you pass, and it is clear to rule red. It does not matter here whether double is a big favourite. West stated she did not double because she did not want the opponents running to 4C. All that has to be is a reasonable decision. Add the ace of clubs to her hand (instead of a small diamond) and her statement would have been a load of codswallop.

[bluejak]

 lamford, on 2011-October-10, 17:12, said:

I would have thought it was their responsibility to advise it on matters relating to the Laws. Some of the handouts on the course, such as the paper on Insufficient Bids, originated from the L&E. And the course material included the White Book and Orange Book, both I believe L&E publications.

I do not disagree. But I was answering a question about "instructing", you apparently about "advising".

[blackshoe]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-10, 16:52, said:

It is not the responsibility of the L&EC to instruct a different department of the EBU, eg County TD training.

Whose responsibility is it?

BTW, Paul's post #50 did ask "should the L&E advise the EBU training team accordingly?" Of course, he may have edited it since the original, although I don't see an indication of that.

[bluejak]

I am not aware that it is the responsibility of any other Department to instruct a Department of the EBU. So, if you ask me "Which other Department should instruct the Tournament Department how to run tournaments?" or "Which other Department should instruct the Accounts Department how to do accounts?" or "Which other Department should instruct the Sales Department how to run the Bridge Shop?" to me the answer is obvious: "None".

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-11, 06:44, said:

I am not aware that it is the responsibility of any other Department to instruct a Department of the EBU. So, if you ask me "Which other Department should instruct the Tournament Department how to run tournaments?" or "Which other Department should instruct the Accounts Department how to do accounts?" or "Which other Department should instruct the Sales Department how to run the Bridge Shop?" to me the answer is obvious: "None".

Neither I nor blackshoe suggested that the L&E should "instruct" anyone, so there was little point you addressing that; I used "advise" in my original post, unedited, and I don't know how you came to change it to "instruct". I believe that assistance and advice on course material for TD Training - whether club or county - should, and does, come from the L&E, and to ignore a possible error in the otherwise excellent course material is counterproductive. Two of the principal TD trainers - John Pain and Mike Amos - are members of the L&E and they stated they welcomed feedback.

[blackshoe]

The L&E Committee is responsible, afaik, for interpretation of the laws (and presumably of regulations made under the laws) in the EBU. If that's the case, should not the L&E Committee advise — note advise, not instruct — those responsible for County TD training that they're doing it wrong? Or should they just ignore it, and then try to deal with incorrect rulings by TDs? Or should the L&E Committee inform the Executive, and rely on the Executive to deal with those doing the teaching?