Women's Teams

[VixTD]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s75hkd1097cakqj1098&w=sq82ha765432d53c4&e=sajhj108dkj64c7632&s=sk109643hq9daq82c5]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♠..P..3♣(1)..P

4♠..P..5♣(2)..P

.P...P[/hv]

(1) alerted and explained as a fit-jump (good club suit and 4-card spade support)

(2) allegedly slow

 

Result: 5♣(N)=

 

This was the only major ruling we had to think about in the National Women's Teams tournament this year. EW called the director when it transpired that the North hand did not fit the description. It seems that NS were not a regular partnership and had no agreement about jump shifts, but each appeared to have made different assumptions on this hand.

 

Should the director take any action, and if so, what?

[blackshoe]

Not sure if recording misbids is appropriate or desired here. Also not sure whether an English TD would rule it an amber or green misbid situation. I don't think it's red, but I could be wrong.

 

Regarding the "slow" 5♣ bid: people have all kinds of strange ideas about what constitutes a "hesitation" for legal purposes. Most of them don't seem to realize that the law speaks of undue hesitations — and I don't think taking a little time to think when your second bid will be at the five level, and you have UI, is "undue".

 

The question is whether pass is an LA (it's clearly an option) and if so whether 5♣ is suggested by the UI. If the answer to both those is "yes" we still must consider whether there's damage. If 4♠ makes (and it looks to me like it will) then there's no damage — -400>-420 — so there would be no adjustment even if UI was deemed used.

 

At the time the director is called, "play on, call me after the hand if you feel you were damaged". After the hand, probably "score stands". Somewhere in there NS need to be told to be sure of their agreements. Possibly record an amber misbid (actually, I'm pretty sure it would be green, but I don't do a lot of thinking about this procedure, since I'm not in England. :) )

[gnasher]

Traditionally, 1♠-3♣-4♠ shows a solid suit and not much else. For example, Crowhurst (Precision Bidding in Acol, 1974) gives the example of AKQJ10x xx xxx Qx, and says that adding ♥A to this hand would make it too strong.

 

That makes a pass of 4♠ more than merely a logical alternative: it's blindingly obvious to pass. North had UI that suggests not passing 4♠, so he can't bid 5♣.

 

4♠ is at least one down on a club lead. Two down seems quite likely, so I'd adjust to 4♠-2.

[gnasher]

Somewhere in there NS need to be told to be sure of their agreements.

Which rule requires that?

[StevenG]

Traditionally, 1♠-3♣-4♠ shows a solid suit and not much else.  For example, Crowhurst (Precision Bidding in Acol, 1974) gives the example of AKQJ10x xx xxx Qx, and says that adding ♥A to this hand would make it too strong.

Does it? More to the point, do NS play that? I didn't know this traditional view, and, to me 5♣ looks automatic with no entry to the hand outside clubs.

 

However, what I don't understand is why South passed the 5♣ bid. Surely from his point of view that's a cue with spades agreed. So I'd expect 5♦ or maybe 5♠, but I can't see pass without use of UI. But where does that UI come from? Probably not the hesitation, if there was one, since 5♣ bid in panic would probably be banged out.

 

My instinct is to disallow South's final pass, but, obviously, you need to talk to South to find out why he passed.

[NickRW]

However, what I don't understand is why South passed the 5♣ bid. Surely from his point of view that's a cue with spades agreed. So I'd expect 5♦ or maybe 5♠, but I can't see pass without use of UI. But where does that UI come from? Probably not the hesitation, if there was one, since 5♣ bid in panic would probably be banged out.

 

My instinct is to disallow South's final pass, but, obviously, you need to talk to South to find out why he passed.

That was my thought too.

[gnasher]

Traditionally, 1♠-3♣-4♠ shows a solid suit and not much else.  For example, Crowhurst (Precision Bidding in Acol, 1974) gives the example of AKQJ10x xx xxx Qx, and says that adding ♥A to this hand would make it too strong.

Does it? More to the point, do NS play that? I didn't know this traditional view, and, to me 5♣ looks automatic with no entry to the hand outside clubs.

This was an English event. I imagine that North was an English player (but I expect that the original poster will correct me if I'm wrong). I've quoted one reputable English source. Cohen and Lederer (Basic Acol, 1962) say something similar "The jump rebid shows a self-supporting suit with (given a fair break) no losers."

 

As for what North-South play, it's obvious that they aren't playing the same system. What matters is what North thought they were playing. It seems to me that if North believed they were playing 3♣ as its traditional meaning of a strong jump shift, it is at least a logical alternative for him to think that 4♠ also had its traditional meaning.

[blackshoe]

it seems to me that when you need to know what a particular player thinks his partner's bid meant, you should ask him. the problem with these discussions is that often we don't know if the TD did that, or what the response was if he did.

[ahydra]

Was this a county-level or higher competition? Surely at those levels one would expect both players of a pair to have a fully completed CC, and fit jumps are one of the first things people would write under "Special Responses" to their 1x openings. So if N/S didn't have a CC, I guess maybe the Director should ask North whether they were playing fit-jumps. Of course there is then the possibility that North will lie, but we can hope not :) If this fails to shed any light on the situation then it's probably a case of "assuming mistaken explanation rather than misbid" and the score changed. Fill out a CC before play!

 

I had a thought: Fast Arrival is quite common these days and so 4♠ would be showing a minimum hand, probably 6+ ♠ but not necessarily a solid suit (the examples given from the 1960-70s are rather likely to not be modern bidding style). In which case North's 5♣ is perfectly sensible as most of his clubs may well be going to waste in spades (as they are here). Notice the explanation is "good club suit" - if there's no further qualification as to the maximum length of the clubs, there's every possibility North may prefer to play in clubs to get the most of both suits. However at the end of the day South wouldn't pass 5♣ with a singleton.

 

ahydra

[helene_t]

Was this a county-level or higher competition? Surely at those levels one would expect both players of a pair to have a fully completed CC, and fit jumps are one of the first things people would write under "Special Responses" to their 1x openings.

It was a national green point event, but with open registration so there were a few very weak players. Anyway, everybody had convention cards and almost everybody had quite elaborate convention cards. Although I don't know which pair we are talking about, it would probably be fair to assume that they don't play fit jumps if it is not listed on the CC.

[dan_ehh]

I think both calls were affected by the UI:

 

1. Let's assume north doesn't hear south's explanation, and has to make a decision whether to bid over 4S. Since they don't have agreements, north has no idea what the 4S bid means. It can be strong and slammish (personally I think this is unlikely), or it can be weak with long spades ("fast arrival"-ish). North must consider both of these, therefore I believe passing 4S because it *could* be weak must be a logical alternative.

 

2. South's pass of 5C is, in my opinion, very blatantly affected by the hesitation. Assuming her initial explanation of 3C is correct, 5C can only be a cuebid on the way to slam. Why would her partner choose to play 5C when they have an established 9+ fit in spades? The only reason to pass 5C is to think the initial understanding of the bid was wrong, and the only way this could happen is if something in her partner's behavior (the hesitation in this case), made her "wake up".

 

I would like to add that I do believe there was a hesitation - probably because North was considering whether to pass 4S and risk going down, or bid 5C and risk not being able to keep that score.

 

I would change the result to 5S-2, maybe -3 because I haven't looked closely enough as to whether the defense gets 4 or 5 tricks, and add a procedural penalty for the NS pair, for misinformation. In such an event, the players are expected to know the correct answer to the question asked is "no agreement".

[mjj29]

This was an English event. I imagine that North was an English player (but I expect that the original poster will correct me if I'm wrong). I've quoted one reputable English source. Cohen and Lederer (Basic Acol, 1962) say something similar "The jump rebid shows a self-supporting suit with (given a fair break) no losers."

A 'reputable English source' from 1962 is unlikely to bear much resemblence to what anyone under the age of 70 actually plays these days. In particular, I don't know anyone who plays that definition of a jump rebid; it's generally made semi-limiting with enough for a reverse and no second suit, even if it has broken honours.

 

Matt

[gnasher]

In particular, I don't know anyone who plays that definition of a jump rebid; it's generally made semi-limiting with enough for a reverse and no second suit, even if it has broken honours.

I think you must have misread the auction. Or, at least, I hope you have.

 

The auction in question is

  1♠-3♣ (string jump shift)

  4♠

[bluejak]

A 'reputable English source' from 1962 is unlikely to bear much resemblence to what anyone under the age of 70 actually plays these days. In particular, I don't know anyone who plays that definition of a jump rebid; it's generally made semi-limiting with enough for a reverse and no second suit, even if it has broken honours.

Everyone I know plays it the Cohen-Lederer way, and some of us are under 70. I would assume it was that way with a strange partner.

 

Playing it as possibly a broken suit seems a terrible use for it: how do you get to 3NT now if that is the correct contract? Ok, you could play it as specifically 7+cards, completely minimum, no interest in 3NT, no club fit, and that is useful - but in my view less useful than the Cohen-Lederer way. With the hand described in this paragraph what is wrong with bidding 3♠ then 4♠?

 

Sure, not a lot of Acol is played the Cohen-Lederer way nowadays, but some is, and knowing the age of the reference does not really tell anyone how it is or should be played. Perhaps the phrase "anyone under the age of 70 actually plays" should be replaced by "anyone who lives within seventy miles of London actually plays".

 

I would change the result to 5S-2, maybe -3 because I haven't looked closely enough as to whether the defense gets 4 or 5 tricks, and add a procedural penalty for the NS pair, for misinformation. In such an event, the players are expected to know the correct answer to the question asked is "no agreement".

We do not rule that way these days outside North America. If you are not sure whether it should be -2 or -3, you weight the score, you do not pick one or the other. And a PP for getting your system wrong is unheard-of at this level.

[dan_ehh]

bluejak wrote:

We do not rule that way these days outside North America. If you are not sure whether it should be -2 or -3, you weight the score, you do not pick one or the other. And a PP for getting your system wrong is unheard-of at this level.

Perhaps I misunderstood the OP, but from what I gathered, the NS pair HAD no agreement and they just ASSUMED differently. If there was a clear agreement then we must know what it is, and then perhaps the ruling changes completely, but from this wording:

It seems that NS were not a regular partnership and had no agreement about jump shifts, but each appeared to have made different assumptions on this hand.

it looks very much like the correct explanation of 3♣ is "no agreement", and that the given explanation was the source of all the trouble.

 

Regarding the weighted result, sorry, but what I meant is that I have not given enough time to consider which result(s) are likely for the board other than the fact that I am 99% sure 4♠ is down at least one trick. I am not used to weighted results and so I did not consider this. Apologies for that.

[VixTD]

I wasn't sure exactly what North thought her 3♣ bid showed as it doesn't look like a traditional Acol jump shift "as learned on Sandra Landy's knee and other low joints" (DALB), but let's assume it was natural and game forcing. (I didn't ask because my co-director was giving the ruling - I don't know if she did, and if so what answer she received.) I would assume that a rebid of 4♠ from partner is more likely to be a sign-off than an encouraging move towards a slam. (I don't suppose there would be any point in asking North as they are unlikely to have any agreement.) I thought therefore that pass was a logical alternative to 5♣. Someone else the TD consulted thought a slam move was warranted on the North cards.

 

The score was adjusted to 4♠(S)-1. (I thought it was worth considering small percentages of -2 and even =, but my fellow director was not so minded.)

 

I was interested to hear opinions on whether to adjust on the basis of South's pass of 5♣. If NS really had no agreement and South was just giving what she thought was a likely explanation to try to be helpful (a common but erroneous practice) it's hardly fair to accuse her of fielding a misbid, whatever else she may have done wrong. Does a slight hesitation (assuming there was one) from North before 5♣ indicate to South that the explanation may have been incorrect? I thought this was a difficult decision.

[RMB1]

... Someone else the TD consulted thought a slam move was warranted on the North cards.

Perhaps it was me. I was "consulted" indirectly, by being given the hand while watching BBO.

 

I thought 4♠ was a solid suit and extras, so I made a slam try. It looks as if I was out of touch about the likely (possible) meaning for 4♠ and agree that Pass is a LA for North.

 

Robin

[bluejak]

I did not mean we should adjust: I meant if we adjust then ....

 

One of the problems I have with my job of advising other TDs is that the instinct to weight is not there. But nowadays it should be the norm. So I feel reminding people about weighting is a good thing. :D

[Finch]

I was given the North hand as a bidding problem. I didn't object violently to making a strong jump shift. I thought passing 4S was obvious, because I assumed it showed solid spades with no outside ace or king.

 

I don't think passing 5C is fielding a misbid, because it's not obvious it is a misbid: it seems that NS don't have an agreement about strong jump shifts.

 

I would adjust to 4S making some assorted (weighted!) number of tricks, generally fewer than 10.

[Trinidad]

I was interested to hear opinions on whether to adjust on the basis of South's pass of 5♣. If NS really had no agreement and South was just giving what she thought was a likely explanation to try to be helpful (a common but erroneous practice) it's hardly fair to accuse her of fielding a misbid, whatever else she may have done wrong. Does a slight hesitation (assuming there was one) from North before 5♣ indicate to South that the explanation may have been incorrect? I thought this was a difficult decision.

I would certainly think that 5♦ and 5♠ are LA's. If South has UI indicating that her explanation of 3♣ was incorrect, the pass that South chose was suggested by the UI. In that case, I would rule based on a 5♠ contract, weighing in some doubled scores.

 

Rik

[lamford]

In particular, I don't know anyone who plays that definition of a jump rebid; it's generally made semi-limiting with enough for a reverse and no second suit, even if it has broken honours.

I think you must have misread the auction. Or, at least, I hope you have.

 

The auction in question is

  1♠-3♣ (string jump shift)

  4♠

Does a string jump shift show a broken suit?

[lamford]

I don't think passing 5C is fielding a misbid, because it's not obvious it is a misbid: it seems that NS don't have an agreement about strong jump shifts.

 

I would adjust to 4S making some assorted (weighted!) number of tricks, generally fewer than 10.

 

I agree with the first part of that; North-South clearly had no idea of their methods, but we still adjust as Pass is an LA and 5C is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

As only a low heart lead or the queen of spades lead lets through 4S, and as nothing seems to get a 5th trick, 100% of 4S-1 seems fine to me

[jallerton]

That makes a pass of 4♠ more than merely a logical alternative: it's blindingly obvious to pass.  North had UI that suggests not passing 4♠, so he can't bid 5♣.

What seems "blindingly obvious" to some people is not so obvious to others.

 

For example, it seems "blindingly obvious" to me that the correct personal pronoun to use when referring to a participant in the National Women's Teams is "she", but you and several other posters seem to prefer to use the word "he".

 

So although I happen to agree with your view that passing 4♠ is the correct call on the North hand, the correct course of action for the TD is to poll peers of North after the auction 1♠-3♣[strong jump shift]-4♠ to assess whether pass is in fact a logical alternative for this particular North.

 

I was interested to hear opinions on whether to adjust on the basis of South's pass of 5♣. If NS really had no agreement and South was just giving what she thought was a likely explanation to try to be helpful (a common but erroneous practice) it's hardly fair to accuse her of fielding a misbid, whatever else she may have done wrong.

 

Correct. It is only possible to field a misbid if a player caters for her partner having deviated from their agreement. If there is no agreement in the first place, there is nothing to deviate from. This reminds me of a Brighton ruling posted on this fourm a few weeks ago (the thread seems to have mysteriously disappeared) where the auction went something like (1♠)-1NT-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠)-(P)-3♥-All Pass. 2♥ was described as a transfer, responder had a weak take-out in hearts. Apparently the TD ruled fielded misbid, but I think that this ruling would only have been correct if the TD had established the pair to have specifically agreed the transfer into the opponent's major as showing the suit. The overwhelming likelihood is that the pair had never discussed the situation, in which case there was no agreement and hence no misbid to field.

 

In such cases the TD just needs to consider the UI and the MI (the correct explanation was probably "no specific agreement").

 

Does a slight hesitation (assuming there was one) from North before 5♣ indicate to South that the explanation may have been incorrect?

 

Probably not. In auctions like this a slight hesitation normally just suggests that the player was spending a few seconds deciding what her partner's last bid was supposed to mean!

[MFA]

I would say back to 4♠, probably weighted between down one and down two. Agree with Frances and others.

[gnasher]

For example, it seems "blindingly obvious" to me that the correct personal pronoun to use when referring to a participant in the National Women's Teams is "she", but you and several other posters seem to prefer to use the word "he".

The question I was answering was what a player sitting North in the given situation should do, rather than what a specific player should have done on a particular occasion that they encountered the situation. I therefore followed Fowler's advice that "where the matter of sex is not conspicuous or important he and his shall be allowed to represent a person instead of a man."

 

You'd have been on firmer ground questioning my mixing of tenses.