DAILY BULLETIN 2 - b
Monday, February 9, 1998	Editors: Eric Kokish, Richard Colker Special thanks for Internet edition: Mr. N. W. Pedersen

---

THINK OF A NUMBER Perhaps I haven't played often enough in recent years, but I can't remember a session in which there were four very large penalties, all of them the same size. Yesterday's first final session of the OUCHI CUP left the number 800 firmly wedged in my mindlet. Anyone experiencing the same sort of negative reinforcement is hereby invited to pay us a visit in Room 212 of the Pacifico. Since good bulletin material is not always easy to find, we're going to share our sometimes grisly 800s with you. Please bear with us. In MATCH ONE, we shuffled the boards ourselves . . . Bd: OUCHI-FI-22 North Dlr: East 108753 Vul: E/W K108 1072 J4 West East Q6 AKJ AQ965 7432 965 KJ43 K65 107 South 942 J AQ8 AJ9832 TABLE ONE WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Janssen Colker Morozumi Kokish 1 2 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 (1) Pass Pass Dbl. All Pass (1) After some thought TABLE TWO WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Takayama Furuta 1 2 2 Pass 3 Pass 4 All Pass At both tables, East/West found it difficult to limit their hands with any certainty and pushed on to a thin 4 . If you're going to bid aggressively, it's a good idea to sound confident when you do so, making it as difficult as possible for your opponents to double you. When West at TABLE ONE took some time before bidding game, South was pretty sure she was not thinking about slam, and backed his judgment by doubling. He was a favorite to hold three defensive tricks and trumps were not breaking, so prospects seemed quite good. The defense started with two rounds of clubs. Declarer won the king, crossed to the A, and led a trump to the jack, queen, and king. North switched to the 2, jack, queen. South played a third club to allow North to score the 8 in front of dummy, and North continued with the 10, king, ace. South played a fourth club and North scored the 10 on a promotion for three down, minus ________ (fill in the blank space). That proved to be 12 IMPs to JAPAN-YOUTH when Masaaki Takayama was not doubled in 4 and escaped for two down, minus 200.

Bd: OUCHI-FI-19 North Dlr: South A10653 Vul: East/West 87642 6 A93 West East Q842 K9 AJ9 K105 J4 AQ109 K752 64 South J7 Q3 K7653 QJ108 TABLE ONE WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Janssen Colker Morozumi Kokish 1 Pass 1 Pass 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3NT (1) Dbl. All Pass (1) After some thought TABLE TWO WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Takayama Furuta 1 Pass 1 Pass 1NT All Pass Three boards later, we experienced a moment of deja vu when East took his time before pushing on to 3NT. South, with a good lead and reason to believe that both spades and diamonds would not produce vast numbers of tricks, decided to raise the stakes. And again, his speculative double succeeded well beyond his expectations. Declarer put up the K early and after the defenders cashed four club tricks, South switched to the J, which ran to the king. When he regained the lead with the K, he played a second spade, and the defense took a total of seven tricks for three down, minus _______ (fill in the blank space). Kazuo Furuta - Takayama stopped at 1NT and made two for plus 120 and JAPAN-YOUTH gained 14 IMPs en route to a first-round blitz. However (comma) . . . it was not all sweetness and light for JAPAN-YOUTH (do Colker and I make it JAPAN-YOUTH PLUS CREEPING OLD AGE?) A slopped undertrick cost them the next match, and in ROUND THREE, they met the dread HACKETT team, with both teams aiming to make a positive move in the standings. In retrospect, we should have stayed in bed. On the first deal, we defended 2 too aggressively and allowed Justin the Hackett a delightful overtrick. On the second deal, John Armstrong opened a 14-16 point notrump with a good five-card spade suit, missed a nine-card fit, but went plus (90). Although 2 was cold, it was easy to get too high, and I thought this a minus position for us, but our guys went plus 140 so we won 2 imps. On the third deal, we went down in a normal 3NT against solid defense from Justin-Armstrong. Not much going on yet. But then . . . Bd: OUCHI-F3-20 North Dlr: West KJ852 Vul: Both J9853 - 983 West East Q63 A1097 AK4 102 876 K10942 A752 K4 South 4 Q76 AQJ53 QJ106 TABLE ONE WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Justin Colker Armstrong Kokish 1 Pass 1 2 Dbl. (1) All Pass (1) Three-card spade support TABLE TWO WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Takayama Jason Furuta Brigitte 1 1 1NT 2 Pass 2 Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 4 Pass Pass Dbl. All Pass For most of my adult life I have avoided overcalls like the repulsive 2 depicted on the left, but hey, I'm playing ``light initial action'' with Colker-san. Am I liberated or what? Justin's ``Support Double'' achieved a somewhay serendipitous result when Armstrong was both able and willing to pass it, and there I was, going for my wretched life in 2 doubled. ``Where are your trumps, Rich?'' ``You've seen them, and it doesn't get any better after that either.'' ``Thank you. That's a very disappointing dummy.'' Amid the general jocularity, the defenders lost one of their ruffs and I was eventually able to draw trumps and score a heart trick for a mere three down, minus ________ (you fill in the blank space). Little did we know that this was to be our best board of the round (a sad reflection on the state of modern bridge). At the other table, Jason the Hackett committed a one-level overcall with the shapely North hand, and Brigitte Mavromichalis took him seriously. Four hearts doubled was beyond the capabailities of young Jason, and he finished four down, minus 1100 (we have filled in the blank space for you this time since it was not _________). 7 IMPs to JAPAN-YOUTH. As luck would have it, I was vulnerable again on the next deal against vulnerable opponents. Armstrong on my right opened a strong artificial 2 after a bit of thought (perhaps he had run out of fingers and toes with which to count his points). I was dealt: A2 9 K106 Q1096543. Well, would you bid or not? Shrewd table feeler that I am, I thought that Armstrong's deliberation was likely to be based on an unbalanced hand, and that we might be able to do some business if I hit a fit. I tried 3 , and Justin's double ended the auction. ``Penaltty?'' I asked. ``Don't know,'' Armstrong replied. That left me with some hope, but the appearance of dummy took care of that. This was the full deal, I think . . . Bd: OUCHI-F3-21 North Dlr: North 109875 Vul: N/S J862 7543 - West East J43 KQ6 A105 KQ743 J92 AQ8 J872 AK South A2 9 K106 Q1096543 ``Thank you. That's a very disappointing dummy.'' Justin led the A and switched to a spade to the queen and ace. A low trump ran to the king and Armstrong tried the Q. I ruffed and led another low trump around to the ace. Armstrong led the K. I ruffed again and played queen of trumps, trump. Justin won the jack and exited safely with a spade, but with the J established in dummy, he had to play a third spade. I discarded a diamond and now Justin had to play a diamond for me. Just three light. Minus ______________ (are you getting a feel for this yet?). For those of you attending the NEC Bridge Festival's closing ceremony, Colker will be accepting his award for the two worst dummys, back-to-back, in the modern history of bridge. A few more triumphs of this nature and we'll be hard pressed to find teammates. Brigitte managed to stay out of trouble with my cards at the other table and the boys fetched up in 4 from the East side. Brigitte led a club, which Jason ruffed. He returned a spade and not a diamond, so he got a second ruff, and the K was the setting trick. One down, minus 50. 13 IMPs out. Losing Match Three by 4 IMPs earned us the right to play our Indonesian freiends and former teammates in Match Four. How revolting. We won that one by 5 IMPs to finish the afternoon in fair shape, but the trauma of those four 800 numbers lingers on.

HAMMAMET: APPEAL CASE TWO Venice Cup, Round 7: France vs USA I Appeal Committee: Steen Moller (Chairman, Denmark), Bill Pencharz (GB), Eric Kokish (Canada). Bd: 2 Meyers Dlr: East AQ4 Vul: N/S KQJ9732 J83 - Saul Bessis K8 J97653 865 4 109 64 K108753 AJ96 Montin 102 A10 AKQ752 Q42 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1 Pass 1 2 3 3 5 Pass 5 Pass 5 Pass 5NT Pass 7 All Pass Result: Made seven; N/S +2210. Facts: West called the TD to the table at the end of the next board. Before the lead South told West (in writing) that 5 was probably Exclusion Blackwood. North had given this information to East during the auction. West argued that if she had known about this in the bidding, she might have bid 6 over 5 , since her partner figured to hold at least four clubs. The TD ruled that South's failure to Alert constituted an infraction of Law 75 (Example 1); when this results in damage to the opponents, ``the TD shall award an adjusted score.'' However, in this case the TD determined that E/W had not been damaged. Under Law 9 players must summon the TD at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. Both West and South should have done this as soon as South explained her uncertainty about the 5 bid - not after the next board. TD's Ruling: The table result stands. Appeal: E/W appealed. West told the Committee that when 5 was not Alerted she thought the bid was natural, showing six-five or six-six in the rounded suits. Otherwise, she would have bid 6 , which might have led to a cheap sacrifice in 7 . She said that because South had looked uncertain about the bid, she didn't want to ask and give away information for the play. N/S explained that Exclusion Blackwood had never before come up in a competitive auction. 4 by North would have been natural. They suggested that if West was thinking of bidding she should have asked. South wasn't sure whether 5 was Exclusion Blackwood or a splinter, but in either case 5 was the correct bid: 0 or 3 Keycards in the first case; a heart cue-bid in the second. South had forgotten to Alert the 5 bid because of her uncertainty about this, and in the confusion she also forgot to Alert her own 5 bid. Committee's Decision: The Committee believed that West should have done more to protect herself over 5 . She should have called the TD as soon as she believed that she had been prevented from taking the desired action over 5 . The Committee also believed that a 6 bid by West was far from obvious, even if she had been Alerted and given the correct explanation. East's failure to double 5 or to bid 6 over 5 herself (she also knew of the big club fit) supported this view. The Committee believed that South should have called the TD before the opening lead and explained her uncertainty about the 5 bid, as required by Law 9. Her failure to do so likely contributed to the problem. The Committee allowed the table result to stand and penalized N/S 0.5 VP for failing to Alert properly and for not informing E/W about the ambiguous 5 situation before play began. This penalty was in accordance with the WBF policy for penalizing minor offenses when they cause contentious difficulties, as happened here. Analysis: This was another good Committee decision. While it is true that South failed to properly Alert West and explain the possible meaning of her partner's 5 bid, as well as her own 5 bid, West was obligated by law to summon the TD when it was first discovered that there had been an infraction (Law 9B1(a)). In this case, had the TD been called promptly he could have determined at once, before West saw the dummy and knew the result on the hand, what she would have done had she been properly informed of the meanings of the two bids. Thus, even though South had committed an infraction, West was not entitled to the benefit of knowing the entire hand before she committed herself to an action which she would have had to make before the end of the auction in any circumstances. To wait until the hand was over was what Committee's call ``looking for a double-shot'' - seeing what the result on the board is so that, if it is favorable (say 7 had gone down) West could simply say nothing and keep it while if it was poor (as 7 making was) she could claim that she would have bid and thus led her side to a profitable sacrifice. The Committee properly did not allow West this ``double-shot'' opportunity. The fact that West's proposed 6 bid was found to be ``far from obvious'' only added to the certainty of their decision. On the other hand, the South player had committed an infraction which could have benefited her side. While the connection between this infraction and the result was never demonstrated, players cannot be permitted to ignore their obligations under the laws and proper procedures established for the event (in this case a World Championship). Therefore, the Committee, in accord with WBF policy, assessed a (0.5 VP) penalty against N/S for their infraction and the problems which it created.

Times 10:00 MATCH ONE 12:20 LUNCH BREAK 13:20 MATCH TWO 15:40 BREAK 16:00 MATCH THREE 18:20 BREAK 19:40 MATCH FOUR TOMORROW'S SCHEDULE Play will be held tomorrow on the fourth floor Pacifico, Rooms 401 and 402. Two-hours and twenty-minutes are allotted for each 16-board match, with a one-hour lunch break, a twenty-minute break between matches two and three, and a one-hour twenty-minute dinner break.

TODAY'S PARTNERSHIP QUIZLET (1) 2 - (DBL) - 3 - (4) ??? (A) Is opener invited to bid 4 ? ___________________ (B) If not, might he bid 4 anyway? ________ When? ________________________ Does the vulnerability matter? ________________________________________ Provide an example hand for 4 (choose the vulnerability yourself): _________________________________________________________ (C) Is opener invited to double? ________________________ (D) If not, might he double anyway? ________ When? __________________________ Does the vulnerability matter? ___________________________________________ Provide an example hand for double (choose the vulnerability yourself): __________________________________________________________ (2) Pass - (Pass) - 3 - (DBL) 4 - (4) - ??? (A) Is this different from (1) above? ________________________________________ (B) Are your agreements different for minors and majors? _______________________ ___________________________________________________________________ (C) Given that the preemptor might double, would this be: (i) Penalty? ___________________________ (ii) A maximum 3 bid? ______________________ (iii) Lightner style? ______________________________ (iv) Interest in a save? _______________________________ (D) Is 4 bidder 100% the captain? __________________________________