gwnn Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Screens in use, butler pairs. [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sxxhak873dajxxcax&w=skjxxxhq962dqxctx&e=sqxxxhdktxxxxcjxx&s=sathjt54dxckqxxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The auction went undisturbed: 1♥-2NT3♦-3♠4♣-4NT5♣-5♦5♥-6♥ 2NT was explained as inv+ with 4 card support3♦ was explained as extras, no shortness3♠ was explained as ♠shortness by N, frivolous by S4♣ was explained as cue by N, cue, denying ♠ cue by S the rest were standard 1430 bids, explained properly. East lead a ♣, N took it, played a high trump, tanked for quite a while and went for the dubious line of playing a low ♥ to the T, took the ♦ return with the ace, ruffed a diamond high, finessed hearts and claimed. East calls you, the TD, after the board and tells you they were mislead by the explanation of "shortness" and that this particular declarer might have gone down after a ♠ lead. You ask NS for a system file, and they give one to you. -2NT is described as inv+ with 4 cards, denies a source of tricks and may only have shortness if too strong for a 10-13 or 13-16 splinter.-3♠ is described as ♠ shortness, exactly limit raise values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 It seems that the opening lead was made by East who, on the same side of the screen as North, was not misinformed. What's the problem? Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Does "3♠ shows shortness" mean a singleton or void in spades, or a singleton or void somewhere, or something else? East appears to be claiming that with different (incorrect?) information he would have lead a spade. I don't buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted May 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 sorry, fixed my original post. spade shortness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Is there a definition what shortness means? I would say 2 cards are a shortness.Seems that NS play mini splinter so that a direct 3♠ would have shown a single/void there. Maybe that should have been disclosed as well. But I don't see a misinformation here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 There was not misinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 There was not misinformation. If there was no MI, then East doesn't have a case. Result stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted May 20, 2008 Report Share Posted May 20, 2008 Isn't this just a case of not bidding what your agreement is, and that is allowed, right? And as long as the explanation matches the cc then there is no problem. Partner is fooled right along with the opps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Yep, east had the right information so east has no case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted May 21, 2008 Report Share Posted May 21, 2008 Very good thanks Han, we were waiting for that. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.