misinformation

[gwnn]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sxxhatxxdxcaqxxxx&w=sakqthkxd9xxxxcxx&e=sxxhqxdakjxxckjtx&s=sjxxxxhjxxxxdqxcx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

1♦-X(alerted, not asked)-2♦-2♥

East asks about the double and N explains "this shows 0-16 hcp with 4+ spades OR any strong hand" (has anybody ever seen this silly convention?) Furthermore, S explains his partner's bid as "4+hearts, probably some sort of spade tolerance".

 

3♦-3♥-p-

 

now North asks E about 2♦. E describes it as "just fit-showing, a weak NT is required to pass".

 

So N bids 4♥. W doubles it on the way out.

 

The whole auction:

 

1♦-X-2♦-2♥

3♦-3♥-p-4♥

p-p-X-end

 

E leads the ♦A, and then switches to a spade.

 

♠Q,K,A, trick 4 overruffed, K of ♦ ruffed by N. Now North leads the Ace of hearts and another. The second E discards, N throws his cards aggressively on the table, turns W's played cards upwards and tears the unplayed ones out of her hands and screams for the TD, while shouting "look at that. she had 12 hcp!".

 

EW had no convention card. E argued that there would hardly be room for all conventional doubles over opening bids, but N replied "W hadn't asked what the X meant at the time she made the 2♦ call".

[blackshoe]

The second E discards, N throws his cards aggressively on the table, turns W's played cards upwards and tears the unplayed ones out of her hands and screams for the TD, while shouting "look at that. she had 12 hcp!".

 

EW had no convention card. E argued that there would hardly be room for all conventional doubles over opening bids, but N replied "W hadn't asked what the X meant at the time she made the 2♦ call".

Full board disciplinary penalty for North, and I require him to apologize to West. If he refuses, he's gone. Banned for thirty days. If he gives me any crap about that, he's banned permanently, and reported to the NBO.

 

Heh. Did West psych? Sure looks like it. If so, and the agreement was as East described, there was no infraction of law by EW, and the score stands. I'm inclined to let the score stand anyway, because that kind of behavior really pisses me off.

[matmat]

hope the TD kicked his sorry ass out of the club...

[helene_t]

N must learn to rely on his p's bidding. Especially when opps are messing up ad-hoc defenses against NS' own bizare conventions (without even asking for explanation).

 

Result stands and a serious warning to N.

[mycroft]

1. To be nice to readers, please post the auction with West to the left of East, as it is in the hand diagram. It was really hard for me to wrap my head around who bid what. So the auction is:

..........1♦-X

2♦-2♥-3♦-3♥

p -4♥- p- p

X- All pass

 

2. Make sure from West that their agreement was truly as stated by East. Of course, if it weren't, he wasn't allowed to correct until the end of the hand. If it isn't their agreement, then rule on the MI, but it's not likely that there's going to be a favourable ruling...

 

3. You aren't allowed to touch another's cards, never mind yank them out of that player's hand. That's a penalty.

 

4. Throwing your cards on the table is another penalty. If I was feeling mean, I'd say he didn't "manifestly not intend to claim" and treat it as a claim. Of course, trying to see an opponent's cards makes it impossible to play it normally, so that just strengthens my judgement that it was a claim.

 

5. They're playing something really weird. No worries, but realize that people will come up with insane defences to it - even if they don't know what it is. Maybe West thought that with no round suit help, they're going to need lots of high diamonds to make any contract at all - it might be a 12-count, but he doesn't want to play 3NT opposite a 2344 random 13. Maybe he thought that with South showing strength (who'd have thought that a double could be a zero-count?) and all the points except the HK under the strength that this hand devalues - a lot? Maybe he thought the Alerted double was what it "always" is - "we play Italian doubles, so could be an off-shape 13". Maybe they were playing the "Nuttin' System". Maybe he'd played against these guys before - or even had a bar discussion with a pair who did, so he knew what the Alert meant. Who knows? Who cares? He chose to make an NF 2D call with a very strong hand for "fit-showing". If that had burned him, N/S would have a system win. It didn't.

 

Provided there was no MI, and West chose to devalue his hand, E/W did nothing wrong. If there was MI, we'll look at that as we always do. However, North had better apologize immediately - and mean it - or he's gone. Note that that's part of the penalty - the apology isn't going to remove the penalties, just the immediate disqualification. I'd also warn North that had they been misinformed, West couldn't do anything until end of hand, and he's probably now out of luck.

 

Oh, and this is being reported to management/recorder/whatever. If he does this again, even if I'm not the TD this time, I want him *gone*.

 

Michael.

[pclayton]

North is a cancer. I'd be tempted to boot him on the spot.

[gwnn]

Well. W thought 2♦ showed inv.min. values, E thought it was what he had described. The TD had no access to a convention card because EW had no such thing.

[mgoetze]

Am I missing something? The explanation of 2♦ included that "Weak NTs are required to pass", and then declarer is upset that West, with 12 HCP, did not pass. But since when is a 5-4-2-2 shape with any amount of HCP a "weak NT"? How many players would open that hand 1NT playing a 12-14 NT opener?

 

I second the motion to eject North...

[Elianna]

Am I missing something? The explanation of 2♦ included that "Weak NTs are required to pass", and then declarer is upset that West, with 12 HCP, did not pass. But since when is a 5-4-2-2 shape with any amount of HCP a "weak NT"? How many players would open that hand 1NT playing a 12-14 NT opener?

 

I second the motion to eject North...

My initial interpretation was as yours, but on further reflection, I think that East was saying that if HE (East) had a weak NT, he was supposed to pass.

 

This seems like an incorrect explanation (it's not describing the bid, but describing required actions), but that's not so unusual.

[barmar]

My initial interpretation was as yours, but on further reflection, I think that East was saying that if HE (East) had a weak NT, he was supposed to pass.

 

This seems like an incorrect explanation (it's not describing the bid, but describing required actions), but that's not so unusual.

He described the bid AND described opener's expected action. Kind of like the way you would explain a DONT double: shows a single-suited hand, I'm expected to bid 2♣.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, although maybe the terse description of the bid ("it's fit-showing") was not adequate, which is a separate complaint.

[blackshoe]

Technically (although in this case it would seem to make little difference) "I'm expected to bid 2♣' is an illegal communication with partner. You're telling him what you will (probably) do, and what it means. Granted he should already know that, but that's irrelevant - you're still not allowed to tell him.

[barmar]

Isn't that true of all puppet bids? Not to mention transfers? How do you describe these calls without mentioning that it asks you to make a certain bid?

 

Or asking bids, which are generally best described in terms of how you'll respond (e.g. Blackwood "asks me to show how many aces I have").

 

I guess in this case, he could have said "not enough to compete to the 3 level if opener has a minimum balanced hand." Is there really much difference between that and "if I have a weak NT [i.e. a minimum balanced hand] I'm supposed to pass"?

[blackshoe]

Well, I would expect a player who bid 2♦ in that auction to have a simple raise, unless they were playing inverted minor raises, and that those were still on after a double.. This responder has considerably more than a simple raise. If "fit showing, not forcing" is really their agreement, then responder misbid. Nothing wrong with that, btw. If they are playing inverted raises here, then "a weak NT is expected to pass," if that applied to opener's hand, is not, imo, anything like full disclosure, even if they do play it as NF on a weak NT opener.

 

As for BW, "asks for aces (or key cards)" is fine. If you start listing the responses, not fine. Other asking bids? "Asks me if I have any controls in clubs". Ok. "Asks me to bid 5♦ with no control, or 5♥ with 2nd round control, or 5♠ with first round control" (or any part of that) not ok.

[barmar]

Opener and responder clearly had a misunderstanding over whether inverted minors were still on in this auction. Responder thought yes, opener thought no, and they both seemed to bid and alert consistent with their understandings. So the only question about the explanation is whether "a weak NT is expected to pass" is a reasonable way to express the same notion as "not forcing". While it might not be best way to explain it, I think any competent bridge player would understand it, and I don't think it results in any UI.

[jtfanclub]

Well, I would expect a player who bid 2♦ in that auction to have a simple raise, unless they were playing inverted minor raises, and that those were still on after a double.

 

Well, that's interesting and all, but it's hardly required that they play what you expect.

 

This responder has considerably more than a simple raise. If "fit showing, not forcing" is really their agreement, then responder misbid.

 

Eh, he took a position. Assuming that he knew what the X meant (maybe he'd played them before), he devalued his hand a bit for all of his points being in their suit, and while it was still stronger than a "simple raise" (whatever that means), it was probably intended to be non-forcing. It takes a LOT of points to make 5 of a minor, and 3 hcp over 3 suits is not a good sign for 3NT.

 

I'm not sure what you expected the opponents to say. "It shows diamonds, and it's not forcing if and only if across a weak balanced hand. No, I mean it. Really. Listen to what I'm saying. Forget your expectations. This is what it means. Honest". I assume that the explanation was exactly correct. This bid was on the high end. We don't know what bid is on the low end...maybe a 4-1-5-3 7 count.

 

I have the same problem. We play non-forcing two over 1, Precision. So, playing Match Points I open 1 spade, and partner bids 2 clubs. I alert. When asked, I say:

 

"Natural and invitational, should have at least 5 clubs and fewer than 3 spades".

 

If they ask about HCP, I say

 

"Usually 8 to 11, but based primarily on wanting to be in two clubs across a minimum balanced hand and wanting to be in game across a maximum balanced hand".

 

So we end up at 3NT or something, and my partner puts down some monster like:

 

x

xx

AQxx

AQTxxx

 

And they whine about how that's not invitational. "Well, would you want to be in 3NT across an 11 count 5332?" Probably not, they say. "So, what did you want me to say? Across a balanced max, it wants to be in 3NT or 5 clubs. Across a balanced minimum, we'd be in 2 clubs. How can I change my explanation to get that across?"

 

So, how can I? Or how can they?

[helene_t]

Isn't that true of all puppet bids? Not to mention transfers? How do you describe these calls without mentioning that it asks you to make a certain bid?

It really annoys me when players explain how they are going to react to a call. One of my pet peeves is the alertability of Puppet Stayman. Dutch alert regulations explicitly say that Stayman variants that do not guarantee a 4-card major are not alertable. Why then alert Puppet Stayman? It seems to differ from regular Stayman with respect to responses, not with respect to what kind of hands satisfy. (Not quite true since responder will use PS on some hands that would just raise to 3NT playing regular Stayman, but that's not the point).

 

I explain Puppet Stayman as "asking for major suit holdings, does not imply a 4-card major on his own". I refuse to say "asks me if I have a 5-card major", as many people do. And understandable, the regulations seem to encourage that.

[barmar]

I explain Puppet Stayman as "asking for major suit holdings, does not imply a 4-card major on his own". I refuse to say "asks me if I have a 5-card major", as many people do. And understandable, the regulations seem to encourage that.

ACBL alert regulations say that you alert Stayman based on what question it asks, not what it promises. If it asks for a 4-card major it's not alertable; if it asks for a 5-card major it is.

EXAMPLE:      2♣-P-2♦-P- 2NT-P-3♣

3♣ is not Alertable if it asks opener to show a four-card major. If, however, 2♣ or 3♣ ask opener to bid a five-card major (commonly referred to as "Puppet" Stayman) an Alert is required.

 

They don't go into any detail about how you're supposed to answer. But it seems to me that if the significant difference is what question you're asking, then you should explain it in terms of that. Your explanation doesn't make the difference between traditional and Puppet Stayman at all obvious; doesn't regular Stayman also ask for your major suit holdings? And if you play 4-way transfers, regular Stayman doesn't promise a 4-card major.

[jdonn]

I think puppet stayman is a special case that should never be alertable under any regulations. Even though it involves several artificial bids in a row that could be doubled, in practice alerting helps the side using the convention far more than their opponents because it wakes up partner to what kind of stayman is being played, and at no risk. So if responder bids 3♣ meaning it as regular stayman and it's alerted, he can 'change horses midstream' to puppet stayman. And vice versa if it's not alerted. I have always felt this way about the alertability of puppet stayman.

[barmar]

I agree with Josh that asking bids that differ from the norm only in the type of responses should not be alertable; but the unusual responses (at least the artifical ♦ response) still should be. But they currently are alertable (in ACBL); it's not always easy to figure out the logic (there may not be any -- some of the rules are haphazard and arbitrary, just to please a certain segment of the ACBL membership).