On 29 Apr, 00:06, darren.cotter...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On 28 Apr, 23:56, darren.cotter...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Apr, 21:15, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 28, 7:29=A0am, darren.cotter...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > > Hi chaps,
>
> > > > I was playing in a level 3 event (UK) yesterday and opened this
hand=
> > > > 1S
>
> > > > AK962
> > > > JT987
> > > > 62
> > > > 2
>
> > > > I understand it doesn't meet the RON requirement. We ended in 3S
> > > > making (Good result opps have 4C).Opps call director and he rules
in=
> > > > their favour - got awarded AV-
>
> > > > This seems wrong to me as my partner didn't field the psych. He
rais=
ed
> > > > the to 3S with
>
> > > > QT83
> > > > K64
> > > > A875
> > > > K8
>
> > > > Anyone have any opinions?
>
> > > 4S has a lot of play, doesn't it? I've read the whole thread and
your
> > > director wasn't up to date on the rules. I would open the hand and
my
> > > partner would get us to game. I don't understand your partner's bid.
>
> > > Opposite your admitted minimum, you need the Queen of Hearts onside,
> > > no Heart ruff before you get in OR no Diamond lead and the Club Ace
> > > onside. If you have one more Diamond and one fewer Club it's way
over
> > > fifty percent and it's over fifty as it is. Unless they find a
double
> > > and you are vulnerable, 4S one down is probably a good result.
Playing=
> > > it in three seems odd.
>
> > > --
> > > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > My partners bid is because of the admitted illegal agreement we had -
> > I understand that now and will change our agreements :-)- Hide quoted
te=
xt -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> As the hand lay both AQ clubs and AQ hearts were offside so 3S was the
> most we could make - as you say 4S down 1 would still have been a good
> result as this was what the rest of the field were in - our +140 would
> have been a top - alas on reflection after this discussion I think the
> director got it right - even though he hasn't understood the updated
> rules.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If anyones interested we were playing in the Cambs & Hunts annual
swiss pairs and this one result would have given us joint first
position - (so David is correct - it's England - not UK - sorry to be
ambiguous there) - after this discussion I'm happy to take the forth
position that we came after this ruling.
thanks everyone for your input
kind regards
Darren
|
