Complicated Problem

[kenrexford]

An interesting issue came up which caused quite a bit of discussion on many fronts.

 

South opened 2♣. E-W passed throughout. North responded 2♦, GF. South then noticed that he had grabbed the 2♣ card by accident, intending to open 1NT instead. He blurted out the error. The TD was called.

 

The next action was strange and caused the discussion. South bid 3NT.

 

As North-South were playing Kokish, they had no agreement as to what 3NT showed. With no agreement, North was hard-pressed to "take inference," because 3NT had no meaning. He opted to pass, which was "right" but "wrong" from a UA perspective. However, IMO he should have bid 4NT or 5NT, either of which makes. The committe forced 6NT, which changed the winner of the event.

 

So, playing Kokish, what is the normal expectation for the alternative 2♣-P-2♦-P-3NT?

 

Another strange question also came up. If 3NT is a useless bid in this auction, could a partnership agree to use 3NT here to show a balanced 15-17? Why? 1NT and 2♣ are next to each other, such that you could actually grab wrong. If 3NT has no other meaning, could it actually expose the mis-grab, by definition? If so, would a 2♣ opening have to be alerted as "either 21+ or 15-17 if he grabbed the wrong card"? Of course, we were drinking by the time this second question came up, and of course the alert would clue partner in that he had grabbed the wrong card, but so would the failure to announce the 1NT range.

[SoTired]

playing Kokish, 2C 2D 3N= gambling 3N hand, stronger than opening 3N, stronger than opening 1m and rebidding 3N, but weaker than 2C 2D 2H 2S 3N. I play it 8.5 to 9 tricks

[Finch]

Playing Kokish, the archetypal 2C - 2D - 3NT looks something like

 

Ax

Kx

AKQJxxx

Ax

 

i.e. long running minor, enough controls to be certain making game and thus not prepared to open at the 1-level, but minimum in terms of HCP for a 2C opener.

 

(How 'certain' you need to be is a matter for partnership discussion. I prefer to play this as promising 3NT is making, not hoping 3NT is making, which makes slam bidding easier.)

[kenrexford]

If 3NT shows 8 1/2 to 9 tricks, with a running minor, this creates an interesting problem for the committe (as actually happened).

 

North held a relatively balanced hand with three honors -- A-K of diamonds and Q of clubs. This looks like, then, two covers (A-K of diamonds) and one-half cover from the club Queen (covers the AKJxxxx 1/2 loser). This adds up to 8 1/2 + 2 1/2, or 11 tricks. Hence, 6NT does not seem to be a "reasonable alternative" unless 3NT shows 9 1/2 tricks.

 

If 8 1/2, then 4NT does seem to be reasonable, as a stray Q of diamonds or other card might produce 12 tricks. 4NT would be passed, for the same score.

 

Thus, IMO, the committee should have adjusted the score to 4NT+1 rather than 3NT+2 (same result of course) but imposed a procedural penalty on North-South. The diplomat in me suggests that the PP be exactly that necessary to tie the event.

 

Thoughts on this?

[pclayton]

If 3NT shows 8 1/2 to 9 tricks, with a running minor, this creates an interesting problem for the committe (as actually happened).

 

North held a relatively balanced hand with three honors -- A-K of diamonds and Q of clubs. This looks like, then, two covers (A-K of diamonds) and one-half cover from the club Queen (covers the AKJxxxx 1/2 loser). This adds up to 8 1/2 + 2 1/2, or 11 tricks. Hence, 6NT does not seem to be a "reasonable alternative" unless 3NT shows 9 1/2 tricks.

 

If 8 1/2, then 4NT does seem to be reasonable, as a stray Q of diamonds or other card might produce 12 tricks. 4NT would be passed, for the same score.

 

Thus, IMO, the committee should have adjusted the score to 4NT+1 rather than 3NT+2 (same result of course) but imposed a procedural penalty on North-South. The diplomat in me suggests that the PP be exactly that necessary to tie the event.

 

Thoughts on this?

3N does not show 8 1/2 - 9 tricks. Look at Frances' post; its more like 9 1/2 - 10 tricks.

 

If I'm holding ♦AK - ♣Q and my pard opens 2♣ and rebids 3N, I'm probably setting this down in 6♣. This may not be a consensus call, but its certainly a LA.

 

To adjust to 4N + 1 instead of 3N +2 seems amazingly lenient to a NS that blurted out a misbid a round too late.

[Codo]

If 2♣ 2 ♦ 3 NT shows a hand with 9 1/2 tricks including a running minor, how is it possible to look at your own hand and find 3 Honours in the minors?

I doubt that you can seriously belive that pd bid something like

AK, AK, Qx, AKBxxxx in this way?

 

So in my opinion, openers partner should be allowed to pass 3 NT as he was able to see through legal informations, that something went wrong in the bidding. 6 NT or 6 ♣ is surely no alternative, if you can proofe that this bidding should show 9-10 tricks with a running minor.

 

I don´t know if there are penalties in your country, which limits the score for the guilty side to 40 %, or if there are any procedual penalties, but I doubt that the given score was the correct descission. I had voted for 3 NT+2 for E/W and a penalty for N/S.

[pclayton]

If 2♣ 2 ♦ 3 NT shows a hand with 9 1/2 tricks including a running minor, how is it possible to look at your own hand and find 3 Honours in the minors?

I doubt that you can seriously belive that pd bid something like

AK, AK, Qx, AKBxxxx in this way?

 

So in my opinion, openers partner should be allowed to pass 3 NT as he was able to see through legal informations, that something went wrong in the bidding. 6 NT or 6 ♣ is surely no alternative, if you can proofe that this bidding should show 9-10 tricks with a running minor.

 

I don´t know if there are penalties in your country, which limits the score for the guilty side to 40 %, or if there are any procedual penalties, but I doubt that the given score was the correct descission. I had voted for 3 NT+2 for E/W and a penalty for N/S.

So the fact that responder has honors in diamonds allow him to field the misbid, but if these cards were in a major, he has to make a slam try? Rubbish.

[mikeh]

Playing Kokish, in my view, the auction 2♣ 2♦ 3N is simple arithmetic, albeit very rare arithmetic:

 

2N = 22-23

2♥ then 2N 24-25

3N 26-27

2♥ then 3N 28-29

 

With the powerful 1 suiter minor, my preference is either to bid 3minor (which systemically is very strong) or to value it as some range of NT and bid accordingly.

 

If I were to treat France's example as balanced, I'd treat it as 23-24, so I'd have slightly better hand for 3N...

[david_c]

So in my opinion, openers partner should be allowed to pass 3 NT as he was able to see through legal informations, that something went wrong in the bidding.

No way, sorry. Even if we believe that responder could tell there had been a misbid, you're not supposed to know which misbid has been made. What if opener had forgotten they were playing Kokish and had 25 HCP balanced? 6NT is obvious opposite that hand.

 

I agree with the committee. With no agreement, it's not clear what 3NT means, but responder has no reason to suppose that it's not a genuine 2♣ opener - and presumably quite a good one, for the jump. With an ace, a king and a queen, all in the minor suits (which must be useful), forcing to slam has to be a LA.

[pclayton]

Playing Kokish, in my view, the auction 2♣ 2♦ 3N is simple arithmetic, albeit very rare arithmetic:

 

2N = 22-23

2♥ then 2N 24-25

3N 26-27

2♥ then 3N 28-29

 

With the powerful 1 suiter minor, my preference is either to bid 3minor (which systemically is very strong) or to value it as some range of NT and bid accordingly.

 

If I were to treat France's example as balanced, I'd treat it as 23-24, so I'd have slightly better hand for 3N...

Hmm; I've been taught that 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N = 22-24 and 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠- 2N = 25+.

 

2♣ - 2♦ - 3N = source of tricks

 

I don't know what 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3N means. I guess it should be something; maybe a choice of games between 3N and 4♥ with a 6322?

[Guest Jlall]

...

[cherdano]

Joe Grue and I will be on the cover of the april Maxim issue.

Interesting, but what does this have to do with 2♥ Kokish misbids?

 

(If you meant to post in the other thread, that was about advertising bridge, not just about getting publicity <_< )

[Guest Jlall]

Joe Grue and I will be on the cover of the april Maxim issue.

Interesting, but what does this have to do with 2♥ Kokish misbids?

 

(If you meant to post in the other thread, that was about advertising bridge, not just about getting publicity :D )

haha nice... i posted on the wrong thread.

[kenrexford]

Some of the thoughts on this also caused me to think that another call was a "more logical" alternative. (BTW -- I was not part of this occurrence, as I arrived at the tournament after this hand came up.)

 

N-S were very clear that this auction had no established meaning, and the committe accepted this. This was not showing a balanced 25-27 or something.

 

So, even if you assume that Responder "must force slam," 6NT makes no sense. Having no idea what 3NT showed, Responder should perhaps bid 5NT (choice of slams), which also is passed and amazingly makes.

 

Sure, 3NT was obviously based upon some UI, and should result in a procedural penalty. Maybe 4NT is the "right" logical alternative. Maybe 5NT is another logical alternative. But, 6NT makes no sense, IMO.

 

Further, if 3NT has no established meaning, this is another cause for a procedural penalty. Opener should not have bid 3NT under the circumstances if the call had no meaning. But, how can you force North to make a "logical" call if 3NT has no meaning? Why, for instance, is not 7♥ a logical alternative? What about 4♦, as a transfer to hearts, or 4♦, answering Baby Blackwood? If compounding infractions makes continuation of the auction impossible, how can you force a specific result that fails?

 

Maybe average minus plus a procedural penalty even makes sense, which would at least give North-South a point or two from the hand.

 

For that matter, why is E-W entitled to a top board here? They defended a normal contract like fools, even after knowing what was occurring. As an aside, they did not actually call the director until after the game was over, when a disinterested party suggested that they should.

 

More importantly, will the Maxim cover be accessible on line???

[pclayton]

Some of the thoughts on this also caused me to think that another call was a "more logical" alternative. (BTW -- I was not part of this occurrence, as I arrived at the tournament after this hand came up.)

 

N-S were very clear that this auction had no established meaning, and the committe accepted this. This was not showing a balanced 25-27 or something.

 

So, even if you assume that Responder "must force slam," 6NT makes no sense. Having no idea what 3NT showed, Responder should perhaps bid 5NT (choice of slams), which also is passed and amazingly makes.

 

Sure, 3NT was obviously based upon some UI, and should result in a procedural penalty. Maybe 4NT is the "right" logical alternative. Maybe 5NT is another logical alternative. But, 6NT makes no sense, IMO.

 

Further, if 3NT has no established meaning, this is another cause for a procedural penalty. Opener should not have bid 3NT under the circumstances if the call had no meaning. But, how can you force North to make a "logical" call if 3NT has no meaning? Why, for instance, is not 7♥ a logical alternative? What about 4♦, as a transfer to hearts, or 4♦, answering Baby Blackwood? If compounding infractions makes continuation of the auction impossible, how can you force a specific result that fails?

 

Maybe average minus plus a procedural penalty even makes sense, which would at least give North-South a point or two from the hand.

 

For that matter, why is E-W entitled to a top board here? They defended a normal contract like fools, even after knowing what was occurring. As an aside, they did not actually call the director until after the game was over, when a disinterested party suggested that they should.

 

More importantly, will the Maxim cover be accessible on line???

I agree with most of this. I hope committees severely seek to penalize pairs that try to wriggle out of aborted auctions by making 'impossible' bids.

 

By the way, you never showed the actual hand or the table result. If EW defended like idiots, a split score is appropriate.

[kenrexford]

I agree with most of this. I hope committees severely seek to penalize pairs that try to wriggle out of aborted auctions by making 'impossible' bids.

 

By the way, you never showed the actual hand or the table result. If EW defended like idiots, a split score is appropriate.

 

I never did see the actual deal. All that I know is that North held Qxxx-AKxx in the minors and nothing else of note. I also only have the field result that no one made 5NT except this pair and a claim that E-W defended like morons.

[whereagles]

Awarding a PP because South picked the wrong bidding card seems unfair. Same thing for the undiscussed 3NT bid whose objective was simply to try and correct the previous error.