You be the judge?

[inquiry]

The ruling is utter non-sense. There is no ground for such an adjustment on this hand. I think the "serious" consideration given by East over 5♥ had more to do with going back to ♠ than playing exactly 5♥. In fact, I find North's pass over 5♣ and over 5♥ both remarkable, given his partner couldn't do more than bid 3♠ over the 3♥ bid showing spades. The pass over 5♣ was "forcing" suggesting a mixed defensive/offensive hand. The 5♥ bid should be a slam try, denying a diamond control. I can't imagine North, with ♦King, not bidding the slam in spades over this auction. But biddign slam (or assigning slam) as the final contract doesn't mean it will make. The possibility exist declarer might take a spade hook losing the stiff spade queen, especially after ♦ACE at trick one.

 

There was, however, enough violations on this hand to warrent some director actions. For instance, assume, for a moment, that 2NT had been properly alerted. Over 3♠, West might have cue-bid 4♣ (presumably accepting spades). If so, north's 4♦ cue-bid would set the road to slam. As it is, East has no club control, and West has no Diamond control, so slam bidding is a guess at best. However, if properly alerted, West would "probably" not get a chance to cue-bid 4♣ as EAST would surely bump up to 5♣.

 

There should be some penalties here, however.

 

1) NS didn't know their system over a forcing club. Very odd

2) North's Five club bid at unfavorable vul seems based upon UI that his partner didn't understand his 2NT bid as "for the minors". If his partner had properly alerted, would he have bid 5♣? The answer is no, that bid would have been much less attractive (else he would have bid 4NT over 1♣, not 2NT, QED.

 

As director, I would let the EW score stand (5♥ making whatever it made). They had an opportunity to protect themselves in the auction, and did not.

 

The NS result will be, however, be an assigned average minus (lose 3 imps or 40%) on this hand, plus an additional minus 3 imp procedural penalty. I would return EW's deposit.

[hrothgar]

What kind of Wakeup call? 5♣ he has a lot of shape and both minors so he is free to make a bridge decision and bid 5♣

North has a number of different bids available once 4♠ has been passed arround to him including Pass, Double, 4N, 5♣ and 5♦

 

Different partnerships have different agreements regarding how these bids should be treated. For example, I prefer

 

5♦ = Diamonds are MUCH better than Clubs

5♣ = Takeout: Prefers Clubs to Diamonds

4NT = Takeout: No preference between Clubs and Diamonds

Double = Takeout: Prefers Diamonds to Clubs

 

Using this set of agreements, I think that I have a clear double. We're I to chose a bid other than double, it would be 4NT.

 

Of course, its perfectly reasonable to invert several of these bids...

 

From my perspective, there are two reasonable explanations for the 5♣ bid:

 

1. North is cheating. He is attempting to signal partner that he has Clubs and Diamonds rather than Diamonds and Hearts.

2. North / South have an agreement that the 5♣ bid shows a takeout oriented hand with either no preference between the minors or better Diamonds than Clubs.

 

If North / South were able to document the second of these two cases, then it would be appropriate to permit the 5♣ bid. In the absence of said documentation, I would (unfortunately) be forced to concluded that North was attempting to signal partner that he actually holds the minors.

 

It is, of course, possible that North believes that his partnership is psychically attuned and that South will be able to derive the meaning of the 5♣ call from first principles. Then again, any partnership good enough to do so probably would have gotten the explanation right for the 2NT bid...

 

In short...

 

Once you screw up, your options become more limited

[luis]

I can't believe many of you guys. You hold 8 hearts in your hand and you believe North can have a diamonds+hearts 2 suiter? And the suit is 8-5-0-0 and everybody is bidding calmly. This is really bridge-insulting.

 

Even then assuming West is silly enough to believe hearts are 8-5-0-0 bidding 3♠ accepting the transfer with 8 hearts and then passing 4♠ is completely criminal.

 

N&S can be doing bad things but they didn't do anything to let EW get a result they really don't deserve at all. There are at least 4 or 5 criminal bids by EW.

[inquiry]

I can't believe many of you guys. You hold 8 hearts in your hand and you believe North can have a diamonds+hearts 2 suiter? And the suit is 8-5-0-0 and everybody is bidding calmly. This is really bridge-insulting.

 

Even then assuming West is silly enough to believe hearts are 8-5-0-0 bidding 3♠ accepting the transfer with 8 hearts and then passing 4♠ is completely criminal.

 

N&S can be doing bad things but they didn't do anything to let EW get a result they really don't deserve at all. There are at least 4 or 5 criminal bids by EW.

Well, I think we agree on how the ruling should go on this hand. But WEST knowing North doesn't have ♥'s actually hampers the auction, not helps it.. becasue while WEST knows, he also knows

 

1) His partner will be short in hearts

2) If he bids (say 4♥) over 3♥, his partner will will not take this as a heart suit, and will clearly bid again.

 

This second item, is probably why a tame 3♠ bid with an eight card heart suit.

[hrothgar]

I can't believe many of you guys. You hold 8 hearts in your hand and you believe North can have a diamonds+hearts 2 suiter? And the suit is 8-5-0-0 and everybody is bidding calmly. This is really bridge-insulting.

Luis, how many partnership agreements do you that are explictly based on the assumption that the opponents have lied or screw up thei alerts?

 

The issue is NOT whether West has reason to believe that North holds a 5 card Heart suit, but rather, whether the misinformation caused damage to the partnership.

[han]

North should be penalized for cheating (5♣ bid is obvious use of UI), and EW should keep their result because they weren't damaged by the missinformation. I would had let them play 4♠ +1 If 5♥ didn't score better.

I absolutely agree that NS should be penalised for the use of UI, 5C would never have been bid after a correct explanation (but 4NT instead). The fact that NS don't know their system is an extra consideration.

 

I think the actual ruling is nonsense.

[arrows]

If I read this thread right, the majority here think the ruling make little

sense, but N-S should be penalized for misinformation.

 

At the table, East's bid of 3 hearts, which obviously was not a general cuebid,

was not alerted. And after the play, E-W called director and claim they were

damaged by the misinformation but failed to suggest a reasonable way to reach

the slam if there were no misinformation.

 

Since without misinformation, how to bid slam is really still a

tough problem. I guess it's might be better if the director cancel this

board, and award E-W team some IMPs.

 

I was the North, my partner is basically a rubber player. We are casual

partnership and play a vanilla SAYC with only a few conventions.

In retrospect, I agree that I failed to realize that bid 5 clubs could be

interpreted as using of UI.

 

East-West are world class players and seasoned partnership. I don't know,

I think after 5 clubs, the situation should be clear for players of their

caliber. I don't think it's fair to adjust the result to 6 hearts make while

they judged to stay out of the slam in auction.

[luis]

If I read this thread right, the majority here think the ruling make little

sense, but N-S should be penalized for misinformation.

 

At the table, East's bid of 3 hearts, which obviously was not a general cuebid,

was not alerted. And after the play, E-W called director and claim they were

damaged by the misinformation but failed to suggest a reasonable way to reach

the slam if there were no misinformation.

 

Since without misinformation, how to bid slam is really still a

tough problem. I guess it's might be better if the director cancel this

board, and award E-W team some IMPs.

 

I was the North, my partner is basically a rubber player. We are casual

partnership and play a vanilla SAYC with only a few conventions.

In retrospect, I agree that I failed to realize that bid 5 clubs could be

interpreted as using of UI.

 

East-West are world class players and seasoned partnership. I don't know,

I think after 5 clubs, the situation should be clear for players of their

caliber. I don't think it's fair to adjust the result to 6 hearts make while

they judged to stay out of the slam in auction.

I agree with most of what you said but you already know this from my posts.

[Fluffy]

I am really confused, why 5C bid could be using of UI?

 

And in this situation, what is the appropriate action of North?

If you want partner to compete you bid 4NT, 5♣ means 6♣+4/5♦, that bid was jsut made to help partner because he was mistaken

[han]

Exactly, as Fluffy said. 5C is crazy without the UI.

[dburn]

I am very surprised indeed at the number of strong disagreements with this ruling.

 

The point is that once 2NT is explained as clubs and hearts, West cannot bid his eight-card heart suit not because he believes North has five of them, but because he knows that East will treat 4♥ as a cue bid agreeing spades. In short, the misinformation has seriously prejudiced East-West's chances of reaching the right contract.

 

Whether or not they actually would have reached the right contract is far from clear. I would expect a director to award 6♥ making, and for an appeals committee to adjust to some percentage of 6♥ making and some percentage of 5♥ making six (the table result).

 

I would also expect the director and / or the appeals committee to have at least a stern word with North regarding his 5♣ bid, which seems to me a clear case of illegal use of extraneous information (from South's explanation of 2NT). If North were a player of any experience, I would expect a procedural penalty to be awarded.

[cherdano]

I am very surprised indeed at the number of strong disagreements with this ruling.

 

The point is that once 2NT is explained as clubs and hearts, West cannot bid his eight-card heart suit not because he believes North has five of them, but because he knows that East will treat 4♥ as a cue bid agreeing spades. In short, the misinformation has seriously prejudiced East-West's chances of reaching the right contract.

 

Whether or not they actually would have reached the right contract is far from clear. I would expect a director to award 6♥ making, and for an appeals committee to adjust to some percentage of 6♥ making and some percentage of 5♥ making six (the table result).

 

I would also expect the director and / or the appeals committee to have at least a stern word with North regarding his 5♣ bid, which seems to me a clear case of illegal use of extraneous information (from South's explanation of 2NT). If North were a player of any experience, I would expect a procedural penalty to be awarded.

I agree with all this, and strongly this agree with Luis this time. Sorry, Luis, do you really play 1♣-(2NT= red suits)-3♠-4♥ as showing hearts? Everybody and their aunt plays this as spade support. 5♥ would be splinter/exclusion according to your liking. The only thing you can do is to hope the opponent's mess will sort itself out, so that you can bid hearts later (and the criticized tame 3♠ bid did exactly that). By that time you are in a very muddy area with regards to strength.

 

I also disagree with Gerben. If opponent's don't know what they are playing over 1♣, they have to say so. If they claim 2NT shows the reds, then you are entitled to believe that, and if it is wrong (that this is the agreement), then there was MI.

 

Arend

[Finch]

After Arrows' comment in another thread, I was going to write a long reply here, but David (dburn) has said virtually everything I was going to more concisely. Still, the fact that other people say things better than I do never manages to shut me up!

 

There are two rulings involved on the hand.

 

1. MI

i) Has there been misinformation? Yes, it appears that the correct explanation for 2NT was either "minors" or "no agreement" [if it can be proved that the agreement over a strong club is 2NT showing the reds that's a different matter]

ii) Have EW been damaged? The TD should ask EW how they have been damaged rather than make it up himself, but an answer such as "I couldn't bid my 8-card suit because partner would take it as a cue bid" is enough.

iii) In Europe, the suggestion of a weighted score using 12C3 is fine, in the US where this isn't allowed, I expect NS to be given -980 and EW probably +980, possibly 480 (it is 'at all likely' that they will reach slam, but I'm not sure if it's 'probable' or not).

 

2. UI

I would ask North why he bid 5C. Unless he gives a compelling answer, I can't see any reason other than using the information that partner thought he had the reds. I would ask South why he passed 5C. His partner overcalled 2NT showing the reds, then bid 5C. What does that mean? If he's immediate reaction is that partner didn't have the reds after all, then he is admitting that he knows his explanation the round before was wrong. I also would usually give NS a PP, and possibly a large one, unless they really convince me they have no idea of the laws of bridge in which case they get a strict talking to.

[arrows]

I had my reason to bid 5C, I showed 2 suiter, whatever partner thought they are,

Can't I start to compete from the lowest suit? Not allowed?

[cherdano]

I had my reason to bid 5C, I showed 2 suiter, whatever partner thought they are,

Can't I start to compete from the lowest suit? Not allowed?

Not in this case.

1. You have UI: The fact that partner explained 2NT as showing the red suits is unauthorized information to you.

2. You have logical alternatives: Maybe YOU would always bid 5♣ in this case, but this doesn't matter. A majority of your peers would pass over 4♠, certainly way more than enough to make it a LA.

3. The UI clearly suggests bidding 5♣: If partner had understood 2N as minors, he would be certain not to have a big club fit. If he understood it as red suits, there is a good chance to have a big club fit.

 

Maybe you have heard that "you may not choose among logical alternatives one that is demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information". If there is a more clear-cut UI case, I have not seen it.

 

As far as your result is concerned, I think you were lucky that you didn't get a harsh procedural penalty for your 5♣ bid in addition to the -980.

 

Arend

P.S.: I think the only debatable part of the ruling is whether EW would have found 6♥ without the MI. I think it is pretty realistic (but it's a judgement calll, of course):

1♣-(2N=minors)-3♦=good spades-P=didnt know what 2N meant

4♥=big suit-P-5♦ etc.

Or

1♣-(2N=minors)-3♦=good spades-5♣

5♥-P-6♥

[kenberg]

As far as the misinformatin is concerned, these things happen and I leave the decision to the director or possibly a committee if I really feel abused. I have never been able to grasp the convoluted logic of many of the rulings. I do however have strong feelings about the 5C bid. I believe letting such a call go unpunished is really bad for the game.

 

The original posting says that 2NT was intended to show the minors. The later explanation refers to 2NT as a two-suited bid. I assume the more precise statement that it showed the minors rather than some two suits is what the intent was. Through the alert, the 2N bidder comes to understand that his partner has misinterpreted his call. Can he act over 4S? Yes, I think so as this is a particularly strong and shapely two-suiter. If he were to call 4NT, saying partner I really want you to choose one of my two suits, I wouldn't say a word. If he called 5C and showed up with six clubs and five diamonds I wouldn't say a word. To bid his five card club suit after he has become aware through the alert procedure that his partner believes his earlier called showed the reds? I really don't think this can be defended.

 

I wish the players here had remained anonymous since it is not my wish to attack anyone personally. I hope this can be thought of as a general statement to those who direct games as to my views on protecting the integrity of the alert procedure.

 

Ken

[arrows]

I bid 5C because its lower suit and stronger for lead.

I didn't see why that would incriminate me, but I said earlier I would

accept procedure penalty, no problem.

 

Just want to show how they got to the slam when anyone could clearly read

the situation. BTW, 3♥, seems intended as transfer ♠, was never alerted.

 

That's all I have to say.

[Fluffy]

I bid 5C because its lower suit and stronger for lead.

I didn't see why that would incriminate me, but I said earlier I would

accept procedure penalty, no problem.

 

Just want to show how they got to the slam when anyone could clearly read

the situation. BTW, 3♥, seems intended as transfer ♠, was never alerted.

 

That's all I have to say.

I think (in fact I am sure) that You bid 5♣ because you wanted to wake up partner fro his missinformation, you can try to convince yourself or another thing if you want. Yet you will still know what really happened. You bid based on a UI, that doesn't mean anything wrong, in fact I know no player that is able to bid/play 100% the same way he would do without an UI. I don't think he exists, humans jsut will try to use the information they have, you can't tell your mind to think without it.

[kenberg]

I accept the explanation of the 5C bid. Given the situation, I think you cannot do it, but the lead directing feature makes it a more plausible call than I first thought. As to the non-alert of the 3H bid, this gets into rules I am unsure of. Generally, cue bids are not to be alerted. Your partner explained that the 2NT bid shows diamonds and hearts. That makes, I believe, the 3H bid a cue bid. If they are playing some version of unusual/unusual, it probably shows both spades and strength but whether it is to be alerted I don't know. The presumption is that if 2NT shows hearts and diamonds then 3H alerts itself as an artificial bid, or so I understand. I imagine this places the opening bidder in a mild pickle. By looking at his hand he thinks it unlikely the 2N bid really showed the reds. He probably would like to have alerted and explained with somethng like: "On the off chance that the 2NT bid really did show the reds, which I doubt very much, the heart bid would show spades". He restrained himself. My guess is that silence was exactly what was called for, but I am definitely not an authority on such things.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the comment about clubs being the desired lead. It's a bad choice however since if it works out well the result may still be rolled back and if it works out poorly (for example if they now find their heart slam) then it works out poorly. And it looks bad.

 

Ken

[hrothgar]

I bid 5C because its lower suit and stronger for lead.

I didn't see why that would incriminate me, but I said earlier I would accept procedure penalty, no problem.

Awful convenient that partner chose to pass that "lead directing" 5♣ bid?

 

I don't know what bothers me more: The blatant use of UI, the ignorance of the laws and proprieties, or your complete inability to learn from your mistake...