Off-centre weak 2

[jallerton]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sj8743h972dk108cq6&w=sa952hq83d43cj1054&e=sqhj10654daq9652c9&s=sk106hakdj7cak8732]399|300|Scoring: MP

2♦(1)-3♦(2)-P-3♠

P - 4♠ - P - P

P[/hv]

 

¹ Weak, can be six cards and 5 of another

² N/E: Majors S/W: Asking for stopper

 

Table result: 4♠=(N)

 

West called the director, claiming he could have bid his second suit if he had received the explanation that 3♦ asked for a stopper.

 

TD's ruling: Misinformation, Damage, Score changed to 5♥ doubled, 1 down, N/S +200.

 

N/S appealed.

 

North explained that in fact the explanation he had given should have been the correct one, but that since he was not able to prove this conclusively, he accepted the ruling on misinformation. North asked to consider two other points though: firstly, that he thought it unlikely that East/West would defend up to th five level, and secondly, that he thought 5♥ should go two down, or even three.

East stated that he would certainly have shown his second suit, but was barred from this by the explanation that South held both majors.

 

How would you rule if on the AC?

[helene_t]

If the local rules do not allow a weighted result, I would let the director's adjustment stand.

[aguahombre]

Huh? E/W need to work extra hard to let 4S make. I am not a great defender, but I think I can find a heart or club lead ---or even spade queen lead to beat 4S.

 

we get two spades and two diamonds when a third diamond is led. Is there really a trump coup? oops, I guess there is.....my bad.

[bluejak]

West is certainly not automatically bidding 5♥ over 4♠ with ♠A9xx, so certainly a weighting to include a reasonable percentage of 4♠ making seems routine.

 

10 tricks looks normal enough in 5♥ doubled whether you draw trumps or force declarer - unless you defend ♥A, ♥K, small ♣! ;)

 

4♠ was let through? Maybe so, but how does that affect an adjustment? What are you going to rule as an AC? Incidentally, I think that the leads you mention do not automatically beat 4♠: I think it was a later choice by East that let it through and I am not sure it is completely obvious.

[gnasher]

5♥ seems to be at least two down on a forcing defence. If declarer tries to draw trumps, he loses control: ♣A, ♣Q ruffed, heart, ♣K, and if declarer ruffs that the sky will fall in.

 

Declarer has several lines for -2. In the line given above, he can discard on ♣K. Or at trick two he can play a spade to dummy, diamond finesse, ♦A, diamond ruff, heart, ruff ♣K, play diamond winners, losing three trumps and a club.

 

The forcing defence doesn't look hard to find, so for the proportion of the time that East bids 5♥, I'd make it mainly -2.

[jallerton]

If the local rules do not allow a weighted result, I would let the director's adjustment stand.

This deal comes from a WBF event, so the AC is permitted to award a weighted score.

[bluejak]

Thinking further, 4♥ over 3♠ looks not completely automatic either. So, at the very least, the AC should give a weighted score with a reasonable proportion of 4♠ making and 5♥ doubled -2.

[jdonn]

I think 4♥ over 3♠ is just plausible, but west sacrificing over 4♠ is completely implausible, so I would want to revert back to the table score.

 

If the proper procedure is to poll players on what they would do over 3♠ and 4♠ and award a weighted score, then I guess I would do so? But if, let's say, 3/10 bid over 3♠ and 1/10 bid over 4♠, wouldn't that mean I'm supposed to award 3% (1/10 x 3/10) of 5♥x down whatever, and 97% of the table result? Hardly seems worth it.

[nigel_k]

I think it's highly unlikely that E/W will bid as high as 5♥. As the non-offending side they do get the benefit of the doubt but you also expect that after seeing all four hands anything they say will be completely self-serving.

 

I think it is normal to lead a trump against 5♥ so it would be down one. If giving a weighted score I wouldn't give them more than a 20% chance of bidding 5♥ over 4♠. So 20% of the matchpoints they'd get for -200 and 80% of what they got for -620.

[RMB1]

If the proper procedure is to poll players on what they would do over 3♠ and 4♠ and award a weighted score, then I guess I would do so? But if, let's say, 3/10 bid over 3♠ and 1/10 bid over 4♠, wouldn't that mean I'm supposed to award 3% (1/10 x 3/10) of 5♥x down whatever, and 97% of the table result? Hardly seems worth it.

EBU practice would be to ignore 3% and rule "result stands" / "no damage".

 

Robin

[jdonn]

This hand made me wonder about something.

 

Suppose I did want to poll players about their actions on the E/W hands. I want to see around how many would bid 4♥ as east, and how many would bid 5♥ as west if their partners would bid 4♥. But shouldn't I only poll wests who are partners of players that bid 4♥ when given the east problem? Polling random wests would give their answers opposite what they would expect from partner for a 4♥ bid, which may not be this hand (4-6? better hearts?)

 

I guess I've either never seen or never thought of a hand where two actions require polling, and the polling would only be accurate (unbiased?) if partnerships that play together were given the problems together, rather than two random players given each hand. But that's how this one seems to me.

[jeremy69]

I think far too much credence is being given to East who claimed he would bid 4H if informed properly. You have opened a vulnerable weak two and propose to bid game with no evidence of a fit and when, at this stage the opponents have not bid game and on the explanation you have received may well not do so either. I don't believe any East would bid this on a 4-6 hand.

I would let the score stand.

[Trinidad]

I think far too much credence is being given to East who claimed he would bid 4H if informed properly. You have opened a vulnerable weak two and propose to bid game with no evidence of a fit and when, at this stage the opponents have not bid game  and on the explanation you have received may well not do so either. I don't believe any East would bid this on a 4-6 hand.

I would let the score stand.

I do believe East. It would definitely not be my style, but if I would open the East hand 2♦, I would certainly do that with every intention to rebid hearts.

 

Zia used to advocate a style for weak hands with a 6 card major + 5 card minor: He would open a weak two in the major and then bid the minor at the four level, if he got the chance.

 

I think that the East player took this style to the extreme: Open a weak 2♦, then bid the five card major. I guess East hopes to be able to bid hearts at the three level, but if needed, he would bid hearts at the four level.

 

You -or I- may think that East's style is moronic, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether we believe him. I do, since it is consistent with his style of weak 2♦ openings.

 

And BTW, East has a 5-6 hand, not a 4-6 hand. That does make a difference.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

He does not need to bid 4♥. If they have an agreement that weak twos may have a five card second suit, then double of 3♠ logically shows five hearts: without a five card second suit he will not bid again, with five spades he will not bid again, with five clubs he bids 4♣. This makes it a bit safer since he can stop at 4♦.

[gnasher]

He can also bid 3NT to show hearts. How nice to have two ways to show the same hand. And what a pity that most of us don't need either of them.

[jdonn]

He can also bid 3NT to show hearts. How nice to have two ways to show the same hand. And what a pity that most of us don't need either of them.

Just two bids? What else could 4♦ mean?

[Finch]

I guess I've either never seen or never thought of a hand where two actions require polling, and the polling would only be accurate (unbiased?) if partnerships that play together were given the problems together, rather than two random players given each hand. But that's how this one seems to me.

This is why polls sometimes have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

There was a lead problem given on another forum as a poll. I made my choice of lead. It then turned out (not unexpectedly given the context) that partner had thought for a long time in the auction, which may have influenced the lead.

 

However, when I found out what partner's hand actually was, I had to disqualify my answer from the poll, because I don't play with anyone who would have bid that way (hesitation or no hesitation).

[Finch]

I haven't really thought about the play in 4S, but you also have to consider if the defence and/or play would be different if East had shown his red 2-suiter.

[aguahombre]

I haven't really thought about the play in 4S, but you also have to consider if the defence and/or play would be different if East had shown his red 2-suiter.

the play in 4S is automatic, once the sixth diamond is known to be with declarer's lho, and the spade queen pops. As I pointed out earlier, my belief that the def can get two diamonds and two trumps was just plain wrong....the trump coup just happens even if declarer doesnt know what a trump coup is

[mycroft]

He can also bid 3NT to show hearts.  How nice to have two ways to show the same hand.  And what a pity that most of us don't need either of them.

Just two bids? What else could 4♦ mean?

(coming from an EHAA background, where 2D then hearts is the standard way to show the hand in OP) x xx AKQTxxxx xx ?

 

But in the real world, yeah, 2D then 4D over their spades should show Wild Red too.

[lamford]

He can also bid 3NT to show hearts.  How nice to have two ways to show the same hand.  And what a pity that most of us don't need either of them.

He can also bid 4♦ to show hearts; and how nice to have three ways to show the same hand; and what a pity that most of us do not use any of them.

 

Out of interest, what should they all mean? I suggest 1-5-6-1 or 2-5-6-0 is 4D (no interest in playing clubs); 3NT is 0-5-6-2 (some interest in playing clubs) and 4C is ?-?-6-5. 4H virtually never exists, and certainly not for the 1-4-6-1 hand that Jeremy wouldn't bid it on.

[jdonn]

He can also bid 3NT to show hearts.  How nice to have two ways to show the same hand.  And what a pity that most of us don't need either of them.

He can also bid 4♦ to show hearts; and how nice to have three ways to show the same hand; and what a pity that most of us to do not use any of them.

 

Out of interest, what should they all mean? I suggest 1-5-6-1 or 2-5-6-0 is 4D (no interest in playing clubs); 3NT is 0-5-6-2 (some interest in playing clubs) and 4C is ?-?-6-5. 4H virtually never exists, and certainly not for the 1-4-6-1 hand that Jeremy wouldn't bid it on.

In all seriousness, anyone who makes an agreement about one of those bids is approaching that fine line between genius and insanity. Anyone who makes an agreement about two or more of them has crossed it.

[jallerton]

Committee's Comments:

 

The Committee decided that there was to be a ruling based on misinformation. The Committee accepted that East would indeed bid 4♥, but found it less likely that West would continue with 5♥ over the 4♠ which would have come then as now. The Committee went on to see if the result of 5♥ doubled down one or two would be 'at all probable' and decided against that one as well.

 

[The reference to 'at all probable' is because the 1997 Laws were in force]

 

Committee's Decision:

 

Original result restored, N/S +620. 10% Procedural penalty to North/South because of misexplanation and/or misbid.

 

What do you think about the AC's decision, in particular the decision to award a procedural penalty?

[bluejak]

I think the Committee's decision is interesting. Of course Law 12C3 applies to a WBF event under 1997 Laws, but I suppose if 5♥ does not meet the standard of "at all probable" then it is not really probable enough to acquire a weighting.

 

As for the PP, while in principle against the WBF Code of Practice, I have some sympathy for PPs in WBF events in a way that I have no sympathy in club events. But I probably would still not give one!

[duschek]

What do you think about the AC's decision, in particular the decision to award a procedural penalty?

To me, this PP seems to be yet another case of "after deliberations we rule no damage, so we throw a PP at them instead for the sake of justice".

 

Certainly, a pair at a WBF event is expected (by the players, not by the laws) to have a clear understanding about a cuebid of a preemptive opening bid, but then, players do forget their agreements from time to time, without the TD/AC having to issue a PP every time.

 

In effect, the AC decision gives players an incentive to call the TD every time there is a misexplanation, so as to inflict PPs on the opponents (which according to this AC should be given whenever a player forgets his agreement). This is not how the game should be played.