To adjust or not?

[McBruce]

♠ J3

♥ J974

♦ 875

♣ AK32

 

Matchpoints, opponents vulnerable, sayc-only Individual online tourney (no undos).

 

Partner opens 2♥ in first seat.

 

When you raise to 4♥, partner now bids 4♠.

 

Opponents are silent and it comes back to you.

 

What is the expected sayc call in this situation?

 

------------------------

 

I ruled that a pass was not non-sayc, but I suppose there is a strong case for forcing a 5♥ call. In a normal bridge setting I expect that would be the ruling. Here, without undos, I think that a reasonable explanation of the impossible 4♠ call, taking only the auction (which is always authorized information) is that partner misclicked his opener and meant to bid 2♠. Comments?

[inquiry]

I would take 4♠ as a slam try and showing a cue-bid. I suspect partner is off two quick tricks in one of the minors, has a two suited hand not good for openign 2♣. I would bid 5♣ to show that I have that suit under control, and if partner has two little clubs and a void in diamonds, we are in slam or grand slam in ♥'s, and if he is void in ♣'s with two little diamonds we rest peacefully in not one level too high in 5♥'s.

[McBruce]

You sure about this? :)

 

You have partners who open 2♥ with four or five spades on the side?

 

To make a slam on this partner has to have at least the AQ♠ and the AQ♥ and a diamond singleton (and even then the missing kings must be onside). This is a 1♥ opener. I don't think it is possible to produce a hand where slam is 50% or more which is not a clear 1♥ opener.

[Dwingo]

After a 2H - 4H auction, Opener does not have a bid. So 4S here is puzzling. As a responder, I can think of only one thing. That my partner is up to some mischief, most like psycyed with short hearts and long spades and trying to find a better spot. I will pass. I am just using common sense, not any implied partnership understanding

[helium]

Agrre i whould pass too.

[Azzkikr]

It is very easy. How often are you distracted in real world and bid the wrong thing happened? its the same with BBO click the wrong thing think the wrong then then you open the wrong thing.

 

I don't mean to be rude here Inquiry but if you slam try after a weak opening then you have no trust in partner or you have opened the wrong thing in the first place. also you are implying parter has values for game? which is absurd, once you open a weak hand you have relinquished all control of the auction.

 

In its simplest let 4S stand no penalties. If it was a psyche then it went awry and they should be punished by the opps not the director. If it was a genuin mistake then they arent getting a good result anyway.

[McBruce]

Try this one: none vulnerable, sayc-only Individual

 

♠ AK9 ♥ KT82 ♦ 7 ♣ AQ754

 

Partner opens 1♦ as dealer. The player holding the above hand decided to bid 3NT. Opener decided to bid 5♦ over 3NT and this player now decided to bid 6♥, catching partner with:

 

♠ 5 ♥ AQJ9 ♦ AQ9853 ♣ K3

 

 

6♥ is cold for 13 tricks, but the opponents have a problem with this auction. Do you adjust?

 

 

I ruled average for both sides, and I am keeping an eye out for further silliness from North.

[mr1303]

I have seen people psyche a pre-empt in a suit that wasn't their suit, to try to kill opponents suit. Generally they have a higher ranking suit to be able to escape to, so this is a possibility. Of course it would appear to have misfired badly, as psyches of this kind have a tendancy to do.

 

I would pass in this situation, and blame partner afterwards. But I wouldn't adjust, however

[helium]

Try this one: none vulnerable, sayc-only Individual

 

♠ AK9  ♥ KT82  ♦ 7  ♣ AQ754

 

Partner opens 1♦ as dealer.  The player holding the above hand decided to bid 3NT.  Opener decided to bid 5♦ over 3NT and this player now decided to bid 6♥, catching partner with:

 

♠ 5  ♥ AQJ9  ♦ AQ9853  ♣ K3

 

 

6♥ is cold for 13 tricks, but the opponents have a problem with this auction.  Do you adjust?

 

 

I ruled average for both sides, and I am keeping an eye out for further silliness from North.

Yes this is a strange action thats obvius, but think about it for a minnut,

North first bid 3 nt, now if he is cheating alone this is a really terrible bid couse in 90%of the time p pass this bid playing sayc. so we have to asume the both vere in on the cheat, but then again why bid like this? my guess is that north was very displeast whit hes partners 5♦ bid,(u dint say scoring but if its mp i really understand his frustration) and bid 6♥ out of anger or frustration, maybe hes having a really bad tourney and this is the 5th partner in a row that mess up for him, we all know what variaty of players u could meet in indys.dont see any need to look closer at norths hability from this game

 

and i whould not adjust

[BurnKryten]

♠ AK9 ♥ KT82 ♦ 7 ♣ AQ754

 

Partner opens 1♦ as dealer. The player holding the above hand decided to bid 3NT. Opener decided to bid 5♦ over 3NT and this player now decided to bid 6♥, catching partner with:

 

♠ 5 ♥ AQJ9 ♦ AQ9853 ♣ K3

 

I ruled average for both sides, and I am keeping an eye out for further silliness from North.

 

An interesting problem! After thinking about this for a few minutes, I have a few ideas. First, it does not appear that North and South are cheating together... It is easy to construct a reasonable sayc auction such as 1D 1H 3H 4NT 5H 6H that completely conceals any appearance of cheating. There is no reason to make illogical leaps like 3NT and 6H.

 

Of course, perhaps no one is cheating. 1D is normal. 3NT is not very good, but at least the suits are all stopped and it will likely make. 5D makes some sense, assuming partner has a balanced hand to bid 3NT. 6H is a total shot in the dark - even 6C must be a better idea than shooting 6H. This bid, more than any other, really looks bad, and stinks of possible cheating.

 

I have a really hard time picturing North bidding 6H on his own, without outside insight. However, if South was in on the caper, the auction would be far better than this. So, my guess would be that North may have received information regarding the hand. However, it is also clear that North did not receive such information early in the hand. Suppose North had information from the start, surely he would simply bid hearts, get raised, blackwood and bid slam. Therefore, 3NT I believe was unassisted. Upon receiving the 5D reply, North was under pressure to make the correct decision (after all, 5D may be going down), and at this point, if North was informed as to the contents of his partner's hand, the only way to get to 6H is to bid it on the spot.

 

Of course, where would such information have come from? Although not out of the realm of possibility, probably not from partner - else they would have a better auction. Perhaps from a kibitzer? A player at another table who has just seen dummy come down? Who knows... This aspect of online bridge cheating inquiries will always be impossible to resolve.

 

Still, you have to consider what evidence you have given, which is simply the bids at the table. I believe you must consider the evidence at hand, and decide whether cheating has taken place - I believe you should be quite sure that there has been cheating to convict a player. If it has, then the guilty party ought to be ejected from the tournament, and the details reported to abuse@bridgebase.com. If, on the other hand, you decide that the evidence is not sufficiently strong, I believe you have no recourse to allowing the score to stand, and perhaps keeping an eye on him going forward.

 

I would not have assigned average to both sides - I believe this to be a refusal to make a decision. Clearly you had considerable doubts about the integrity of North/South. That being the case, I think North should have been removed from the Tourney, and average plus assigned to East/West, and average minus for North/South (Although, I'm not sure what options tournament directors have in this respect). This result may be unfair to South, but no result will be entirely just.

 

After thinking about this for a while, I don't believe North has any bridge reason to stab at 6H, based on his hand and the calls available to him. I would have sent him from the tourney. Still, a tricky problem. Eagerly awaiting analysis of more experienced players!

[mpefritz]

Having actually played in the SAYC-only tourneys, I have seen a large number of really bad bids - some that work out and some that don't. Most of these relate to the INDY culture of grabbing NT first so you get to play it. (I do not play that way.)

 

On the second hand, I would assume the players had no special agreements and blindly fell into a good (but maybe not great if 6NT makes 7) contract. BUT I would have them on my short list of checking their calls and plays on other hands. Something certainly reeks on the auction. However, the only person who bid really strangely was the 3NT bidder who pulled 5♦ to 6♥. If he knew the 2 hands, I do not think he'd make a 3NT call. I'd tell the defenders that i would be watching the opps closely, but without other info, I cannot give an adjust. Maybe he thought the jump to 3NT and pulling from D into 6M meant pass or correct to 6S. Who knows? I would ask the 3NT bidder to try to make SAYC calls in this SAYC tourney or risk not being allowed back in. That is an allowable "adjust" as the Tournament Sponsor!

 

On the first hand, opener misclicked (or psyched). Pass and 5H are 2 possible bids. Opener either misclicked the first time (2♥and not 2♠ -- one click off) or misclicked the second time (2 misclicks -- "4" AND "♠" instead of Pass). I'd go with only one misclick or a psyche.

 

I guess the one other option is that opener unilaterally decided to play strong 2s, and pass could work out very poorly. But the responder cannot field that option.

 

no adjust, whatever 4S did is the result. This is not a legitimate purely SAYC auction.

 

fritz

[newmoon]

♠ J3

♥ J974

♦ 875

♣ AK32

 

Matchpoints, opponents vulnerable, sayc-only Individual online tourney (no undos).

 

Partner opens 2♥ in first seat.

 

When you raise to 4♥, partner now bids 4♠.

 

Opponents are silent and it comes back to you.

 

What is the expected sayc call in this situation?

 

------------------------

 

I ruled that a pass was not non-sayc

It is obvious that opener misclicked here. 4♠ cannot be a slam try. A pass is good judgement. I would let the result stand. As is.

 

This happens in F2F bridge too... :(

 

Newmoon

[newmoon]

Try this one: none vulnerable, sayc-only Individual

 

♠ AK9  ♥ KT82  ♦ 7  ♣ AQ754

 

Partner opens 1♦ as dealer.  The player holding the above hand decided to bid 3NT.  Opener decided to bid 5♦ over 3NT and this player now decided to bid 6♥, catching partner with:

 

♠ 5  ♥ AQJ9  ♦ AQ9853  ♣ K3

 

 

6♥ is cold for 13 tricks, but the opponents have a problem with this auction.  Do you adjust?

He got lucky this time. Next time, he'll be -2.

 

Online bridge tends to favour jovial antics, and I would simply use this hand as an anecdote in a formal supper. No adjustment. Why remove his youthful exhuberance? :(

 

Newmoon

[the hog]

Very peculiar rulings McBruce. I would be extremely interested to know which Bridge laws you are using to justify your rulings.

 

"I ruled that a pass was not non-sayc,"

Are you seriously telling us that this sequence is covered in sayc? :(

 

In answer to an earlier question:

 

"You sure about this? You have partners who open 2♥ with four or five spades on the side?"

Of course with the right hand at the right time. eg xxxx KQJTx x xxx

nv vs vul. Don't you have partners who do this?

[McBruce]

[The Hog's comments in blue.]

 

Very peculiar rulings McBruce. I would be extremely interested to know which Bridge laws you are using to justify your rulings.

 

These are sayc-only tournaments. Participants are warned that I will adjust if they gain an advantage by using a non-sayc call that is fielded by partner.

 

In answer to an earlier question:

 

"You sure about this? You have partners who open 2♥ with four or five spades on the side?"

Of course with the right hand at the right time. eg xxxx KQJTx x xxx

nv vs vul. Don't you have partners who do this?

 

Non-sequitur: read the whole thread. Are you saying you would continue to 4♠ with the quoted hand? If not then what is your point?

[McBruce]

I have to say I am not impressed with the comments on Mr. Six Hearts On Absolutely No Evidence At All.

 

Let's remember this is a one-board partnership in these individual tourneys, so I am not looking for collusion between North and South. It's clear that North alone has a wire here. Either that or he just made a three point shot from the skybox blindfolded. My concern is protecting the others in the tourney, including South who is innocent.

 

I agree my ruling was probably not kosher here, but in an indy what can I do? Why does South deserve a penalty? Probably along with assigning average I should have banned North and waited for an explanation of the bid. Under the limitations of the BBO software, the best I could do to restore equity at the time was to assign average and make a note to check North's other boards for more evidence later.

 

One could even argue that since North denied 4 hearts with 3NT the 6♥ bid cannot be serious and must be an invite to bid 7♦.

 

Anyhow, North has been, let us say, invited to join other people's tournaments, after a few more interesting calls were found. I have not heard a complaint from North about this. It'd be nice to say I had a long discussion with North during the game to find out what was going on, but TDs don't have that kind of time. I have barred kibitzers completely from the Alphabet Points tourneys as well (although we do allow them to come in and watch the last few tables straggle home--in fact, I sometimes think I should let them yell CLAIM, NOW! at the players!).

 

I discussed the hand with an ACBL Director with lots of NABC experience. He said he would take the player aside and ask for a reason for the 6♥ call, but he added that he cannot think of an explanation not involving a wire that he would believe!