How would you rule?

[fanny4]

[hv=n=sa643h3dakq43ca87&s=sj10haq10862d987c43]133|200|[/hv]

 

Biddding: South North

2D 2NT

3H 4S

5H Pass

11 tricks made

 

2D = Multi, weak in 1 major

2NT= inquiry

3H = alerted, and explained as maximum weak 2 in SPADES

4S = obvious

5H = ????

 

No screens used. 1) Is South entitled to bid again here.

2) Also, the defence was terrible, should have beaten 5H 2 tricks. How would you rule then?

[Miron]

I'm not an TD, but I "think":

 

1) Yes, south can bid again. After 4♠ he can easily know that he misbided. Also his partner can find out what happened. Especially if it is not an expert level bridge (they don't make mistakes :P ) These things sometimes happens to me also. And I always select the less favourable of sensible bids for us. But to stay in 4♠ is clear non-sence. I think that the information was of low use here. (I don't think that 4♠ should be taken as shortage, but if yes imho in this case 5♥ is also right bid)

 

2) Nothing to rule. If they play 5♥, everyone should know what happened. I don't even think that the declarer should warn you before lead (but it would be kind). I make an exception to this: I would adjust score if the opponents were really begginers and there is suspicion that they could not find out what happened.

[Sigi_BC84]

What I find highly suspicious is that North did not go for slam with that hand. Opposite a maximum weak two in Spades, slam is almost guaranteed. Certainly a wacky auction. But after souths pull to 5♥ I think it should have been clear that North got something wrong here.

 

If proper defense wasn't hampered by the misinformation by South I think there was no damage to E/W. 5♥ was an overbid and if they misdefend it's their problem.

 

--Sigi

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: Can North/South provide any materials coumenting their actual agreements? It would be useful to understand where South made a misbid or North erred in making his alert.

 

Comment 2: Lets consider this hand from the perspective of South.

 

South opened 2♦

North bid 2NT asking South to describe his hand.

South bid 3♥ showing a maximum opening with Hearts

North jumped to 4♠, bypassing 4♥. North MUST be making some kind of artificial ask. (Absent a copy of N/S's bidding system is no way of knowing whether this would be kickback or exclusion or what).

South rebids 5♥ as an answer to 4♠. this answer doesn't excite North who passes

 

Comment 3: Lets consider this hand from the perspective of North

 

South opening 2♦

North bid 2♥ asking South to describe his hand

South bid 3♥ showing a maximum opening with Spades

North bid game

South cuebids 5♥

North then decides to pass holding first round controls of both minors, the Ace of Spades, and a stiff Heart opposite south's Ace...

[pigpenz]

something smells rotten here :P

[paulg]

I think most of you are looking at this in the wrong way - ignore North's bidding but look at what South has seen.

 

North has asked him to describe his hand. He has shown a minimum hand in hearts - partner has now bid 4♠. If you asked most (average) multi-2♦ players in the UK what this showed, they would say sign off and that partner was clearly interested in a slam if you had a better hand.

 

I believe Pass is clear with the South hand.

 

However, if N/S could convince me that 4♠ is never natural, then I would ask why South has bid 5♥ when he has a maximum 'minimum 2♥' when I'd have expected this to show a very minimum hand. This seems to be the bid that will most obviously correct the misunderstanding when, perhaps, 4NT is the expert bid. If they are so sure of their agreements over 4♠, then 5♥ is clearly not permitted.

 

In essence, I think that South has blatently used UI and I would adjust - either to 4♠ or 6♥ going down.

 

Defending contracts with misinformation is never as easy as it seems it should be. You never know how wrong the information is, so I tend to be more lenient here.

 

Paul

[PeterE]

Amen !

 

Peter

[fanny4]

I see it like this: North should have been making a slam try over 3H, but that was just misjudgement. These were very average level players.

North's explanation was correct - 3H showed a maximum weak 2 with Spades. So surely this is the most obvious case of unauthorised information? Behind screens South would have had no reason to remove 4S.

 

Secondly, the defence was not tricky or anything, just plain shocking. The defence threw away 2 tricks in cold blood to let 5H make. Surely that affects things?

[Gerardo]

Disclaimer: I'm not a TD

 

I would assign NS a ♠ contract, North keeping correcting South ♥ bids to ♠ as per agreement and his hand.

How high would South keep correcting to ♥? That level, in ♠, probably doubled, as many down as good defense would set them.

 

On EW, I don't think playing bad bridge is enough, but, when was TD first called?

• During the bidding? ♠ contract, may be not as many down as assigned to NS, if actual play at table can be translated to a ♠ contract
  
• After the play? Smells like a double shot, they get 5♥=
  

Sounds like the fairest thing for me, but, is it legal?

[pigpenz]

there was misinformation given north bid his hand correctly and south has no reason to assume that north does not have alot of spades.

 

I would set contract to 5♠ N/S down whatever

 

also:

on the information of the bids, were these

1.given as alerts at the time they happened

2. at end of auction

3.or when TD called

 

this was always what Bobby Wolff got into with active ethics about 20 yrs ago in ACBL land. He always felt if you know partner didnt alert or gave wrong information you had to bid just as if partner really took your bid for what is was. It might not work for your score but will get you an ethics medal ;)