A joke

[Hanoi5]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sathdk7xxxxxcqjxx&w=skqjxxhxxxdqtct9x&e=sxxxxxhqjtxdj9ckx&s=sxhak9876daxcaxxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Using bidding boxes, no screen, auction goes:

 

Pa 1♥ 1♠ X

3♠ 4♥ Pa 5♦

Pa 5♥ Pa Pa*

X 6♣* Pa Pa

X Pa Pa Pa

 

Instead of putting a Pass on top of his bids North removes, jokingly, some bids from 5♦ to signal 4♥, as to acknowledge he would have preferred to be in that contract. As he notices East doubling he puts a Pass and South tanks for a little while before bidding 6♣. East doubles again and the contract is made. Director called by South to explain the situation, East complaining about North messing with his bids to show 4♥, and the Director should rule...

[lamford]

I shall have a go; it seems clear that South has UI from his partner's machinations, however intended, and it also seems clear that both 5H and 6C are making. As the latter scores better, and pass of 5H x is clearly a logical alternative, it would seem that we roll it back to that. Is 6C demonstrably suggested by the UI? I think so - it seems that North is saying by his actions "I would have given up at 4H if I knew you would go back to hearts", and this suggests South trying another strain.

 

The next question is "could North have known that his actions would cause East to double 5H?"; I think the answer here is yes; he has a great hand apart from the absence of any trumps, and he could know that feigning weakness - he has no reason to be ashamed of his actions so far - could have a beneficial effect. We only need to think he could have known, and no impropriety needs be suspected.

 

So, I think we remove East's double of 5H as well, as I certainly don't think it is wild or gambling. And that leaves us with 5H undoubled making on the nose - as the contract appears as cold as Rudolph's nose might be at this time of year. Merry Xmas to all.

[blackshoe]

and this suggests South trying another strain.

Does it? I don't see how.

[aguahombre]

Nice job by Lamford, given what he had to work with. I still think Gwnn's reply to the original post in A/E is great satire and reflects my sentiments about the auction before the (other)joke was introduced into the mix.

 

5H undoubled scores up. Interesting that it was South who called the director. I would think he would want as few people to know about this hand as possible :rolleyes:

[lamford]

and this suggests South trying another strain.

Does it? I don't see how.

Because there is an increased chance of someone now having doubled with three trump tricks - shift a small heart from West to East for example - and partner suggested that he is not happy to have gone any higher - in hearts.

[aguahombre]

Curious..did anyone stumble into 7D which is cold on 2-2 diamonds and the club hook?

[blackshoe]

On re-reading the OP, it seems to me that we've missed a call out of turn by East: "As he [North] notices East doubling he puts a Pass". So East doubled and then North passed. How now?

[blackshoe]

Curious..did anyone stumble into 7D which is cold on 2-2 diamonds and the club hook?

Not if East covers the Queen, and even if he doesn't, North has to lead low to the A on the second round, rather than repeat the finesse.

[bluejak]

I wonder whether people will always make 5♥ after a spade lead? What will declarer play at trick two?

 

Apart from that I agree that North's antics suggest trying another strain because they suggest a heart void.

 

The Law 23 argument is also interesting. However, all North's antics really suggest is a heart void, so I do not see how they encourage East to double - after all he has a heart void! So I would not remove the double.

 

So I might rule for both sides:

 

   70% of 5♥x =, NS +650

+ 30% of 5♥x -1, NS -100

[bluejak]

Curious..did anyone stumble into 7D which is cold on 2-2 diamonds and the club hook?

Not if East covers the Queen, and even if he doesn't, North has to lead low to the A on the second round, rather than repeat the finesse.

I think you will find there are enough entries to set up the hearts.

[aguahombre]

two clubs, 1 spade, one spade ruff, 2 hearts and seven diamonds. Pick an opening lead. spade ruff immediately. If a club was led and defenders have the 8 of clubs, it is still cold because west has three hearts --so the two losing clubs can be pitched and north entered for the claim without any uppercut.

 

on a trump lead, easy to win ace, spade ace, and ruff..ruff a low heart to the diamonds and claim later when the club finesse works. Spade lead is same thing.

 

Setting up hearts not necessary.

[TimG]

Curious..did anyone stumble into 7D which is cold on 2-2 diamonds and the club hook?

Not if East covers the Queen, and even if he doesn't, North has to lead low to the A on the second round, rather than repeat the finesse.

Even if the spade is not ruffed, after east covers the ♣Q, west is subject to a black suit squeeze when the second top heart is cashed.

[lamford]

I wonder whether people will always make 5♥ after a spade lead? What will declarer play at trick two?

Declarer needs diamonds 2-2 and hearts 4-3, so he must return to hand with the ace of diamonds and play ace, king and another heart, now he can ruff the next spade and play a fourth heart.

 

Any other line either loses a club, or gets forced off even with hearts 4-3, so I don't think it is reasonable to force South to play a 0% line unless he is a complete novice.

[bluejak]

I think you rate people too highly. If you put this hand into a medium field I think there would be more than zero players who would not make 5♥. It is just not completely obvious.

 

Also, are you not just possibly being affected by how the deal actually is? Suppose RHO has ♥QJT, three diamonds, and ♣Kx. Now you have just gone off in a cold contract by playing a diamond at trick two.

 

So describing playing the ♣Q as a "0% line" seems harsh when it is the only line that makes when the cards are as I have predicated. Are you telling me no player above novice standard would play the ♣Q?

[lamford]

Yes, I think you are right, having seen how badly some people play when I ran an instant matchpoint Xmas event at my club recently. They were regularly finding scores none of the contestants in the World Pairs had reached.

 

I don't think it is reasonable for East to have doubled with just ♥QJT though, but I can imagine a declarer not thinking of that; the other question I have is "does one take into account the ability of the specific player when ruling on the split score". I know that "careless" ignores the ability of the player now, but what is the current practice on split scores?

 

Is not playing the ♣Q also successful on the deal? The line that fails is ruffing a spade.

[bluejak]

Your original ruling included 5♥ undoubled. The number of tricks in 5♥ undoubled certainly does not include the assumption an opponent cannot have ♥QJT.

 

It just seems to me to be a complex hand, and I am always doubtful about the number of TDs and ACs who decide on one specific number of tricks in a complex hand.

[MFA]

I disagree with adjusting the score - I think the result should stand. North should have red ears of course, or the TD could help warm them.

 

North's joke doesn't help south. The joke is an old one and is almost exclusively related to the bidding. North pulls 4♥ to 5♦ but is corrected back to 5♥ - of course he would rather then have played 4♥ and the bidding itself looks a little silly on the surface. That's was north's joke is saying.

 

If we are to analyse north's 'timing' of the joke from a phychological point of view, I think there are 2 immediately plausible explanations:

 

1) 'Apology in advance'. North didn't really have his removal to 5♦ and is preparing south for an annoying dummy.

 

or

 

2) 'Reserves of mental energy'. North thinks his bidding (including his pass to 5♥) is very clear-cut, so he has the excess mental energy to make a joke about the unfortunate bidding sequence.

 

The actual joke was a 'type 2' joke.

 

I don't think either of the 2 explanations helps south. In neither case is north even dreaming about that there is a possible, practical alternative to playing 5♥X.

[axman]

I disagree with adjusting the score - I think the result should stand. North should have red ears of course, or the TD could help warm them.

 

North's joke doesn't help south. The joke is an old one and is almost exclusively related to the bidding. North pulls 4♥ to 5♦ but is corrected back to 5♥ - of course he would rather then have played 4♥ and the bidding itself looks a little silly on the surface. That's was north's joke is saying.

 

If we are to analyse north's 'timing' of the joke from a phychological point of view, I think there are 2 immediately plausible explanations:

 

1) 'Apology in advance'. North didn't really have his removal to 5♦ and is preparing south for an annoying dummy.

 

or

 

2) 'Reserves of mental energy'. North thinks his bidding (including his pass to 5♥) is very clear-cut, so he has the excess mental energy to make a joke about the unfortunate bidding sequence.

 

The actual joke was a 'type 2' joke.

 

I don't think either of the 2 explanations helps south. In neither case is north even dreaming about that there is a possible, practical alternative to playing 5♥X.

IMO the information provided is insufficient for ruling. There are questions as to who did what and when. And it is likely that the bidding agreements are needed. However....

 

From what has been said, as much as from what has not been said and by whom, I would conclude that the antics were a direct cause of improperly inducing the defender to double 5H. The direct consequence being that declarer's contract was improved immensely.

 

Not that this is a complete summary of conclusions to be made.

[lamford]

Your original ruling included 5♥ undoubled. The number of tricks in 5♥ undoubled certainly does not include the assumption an opponent cannot have ♥QJT.

I would agree that if the ruling is 5H undoubled, there is an increased chance of declarer going off. Your ruling was for some percentage of 5H doubled, however, and I don't think a good declarer is going off after East has doubled.

 

And I certainly think that suggesting to his partner that the auction go back to 4H might have the effect of getting East to double; that just seems common sense. Whether that was a wise move is irrelevant; he could have known that a gesture or mannerism might work to his advantage. And for what it is worth I think his 5D was an excellent bid, and, certainly I would back 5H to make after my partner bid it. If I could double for the opponents I might give it a shot.

[nige1]

Dealer: East Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ AT ♥ [space] ♦ K7xxxxx ♣ QJxx ♠ KQJxx ♥ xxx ♦ QT ♣ T9x ♠ xxxxx ♥ QJTx ♦ J9 ♣ Kx ♠ x ♥ AK9876 ♦ Ax ♣ Axxx

Using bidding boxes, no screen, auction goes: -- -- P_ 1♥ 1♠ X_ 3♠ 4♥ P_ 5♦ P_ 5♥ P_ P* X_ 6♣* P_ P_ X_ AP Instead of putting a Pass on top of his bids North removes, jokingly, some bids from 5♦ to signal 4♥, as to acknowledge he would have preferred to be in that contract. As he notices East doubling he puts a Pass and South tanks for a little while before bidding 6♣. East doubles again and the contract is made. Director called by South to explain the situation, East complaining about North messing with his bids to show 4♥, and the Director should rule...

I've edited Hanoi5's post so that the auction is easier for me to read. I agree with Paul's comments.

[MFA]

Your original ruling included 5♥ undoubled.  The number of tricks in 5♥ undoubled certainly does not include the assumption an opponent cannot have ♥QJT.

I would agree that if the ruling is 5H undoubled, there is an increased chance of declarer going off. Your ruling was for some percentage of 5H doubled, however, and I don't think a good declarer is going off after East has doubled.

 

And I certainly think that suggesting to his partner that the auction go back to 4H might have the effect of getting East to double; that just seems common sense. Whether that was a wise move is irrelevant; he could have known that a gesture or mannerism might work to his advantage. And for what it is worth I think his 5D was an excellent bid, and, certainly I would back 5H to make after my partner bid it. If I could double for the opponents I might give it a shot.

Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥?

 

If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double.

 

The actual lay-out is very atypical, since I frankly do not know what south was thinking when he bid 5♥ on AKxxxx. Usually south's hand is of a different type - very long hearts, not particularly strong, but too strong for a 4♥ opening.

[Codo]

I like Michaels reasoning but if this had happened to me and the scoring had been 5 Heart X, this had been fine too.

 

I think that it is ridicoulous that the joke made East double. North told East that he would prefer to be in 4 HEart then in 5 Heart. Wow, what a surprise. Can you construct one hand where North would prefer to be in 5 HEart compared to 4 Heart? Of course not.

 

And I cannot see how a South who made 6 club is failing in 5 HEart x.

[lamford]

Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥?

 

If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double.

Yes, North will benefit from being doubled in 5H when it makes. I think you (and Codo) are applying the wrong logic.

 

a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double?

 

b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H?

 

Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes!

 

The law does not say "is expected to be better" or that the player "believed it might be better". Anybody that thinks 5H doubled could not be better is lacking imagination!

 

And there is that rather meaningless word "well" in the Laws. Law 23 says "could well damage" the non-offending side. Most legal drafters I spoke to said this means exactly the same as "could damage", but some people think it means that "there is more than an insignificant chance" that the non-offending side will be damaged.

 

So, North's antics could have caused East to double. North could have anticipated that 5H doubled would make some of the time. Sadly for him the times it does he does not benefit. An expensive little joke.

 

Bluejak's 70% of 5H making and 30% of 5H going down looks better than my ruling if the TD removes the double.

[MFA]

Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥?

 

If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double.

Yes, North will benefit from being doubled in 5H when it makes. I think you (and Codo) are applying the wrong logic.

 

a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double?

 

b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H?

 

Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes!

 

The law does not say "is expected to be better" or that the player "believed it might be better". Anybody that thinks 5H doubled could not be better is lacking imagination!

 

And there is that rather meaningless word "well" in the Laws. Law 23 says "could well damage" the non-offending side. Most legal drafters I spoke to said this means exactly the same as "could damage", but some people think it means that "there is more than an insignificant chance" that the non-offending side will be damaged.

 

So, North's antics could have caused East to double. North could have anticipated that 5H doubled would make some of the time. Sadly for him the times it does he does not benefit. An expensive little joke.

 

Bluejak's 70% of 5H making and 30% of 5H going down looks better than my ruling if the TD removes the double.

Ok thanks, I see your point.

 

1. Curiously the Danish translation of law 23 goes in the other direction than that interpretation. "Might well damage" is translated to: "... tilbøjelig til at skade", where "tilbøjelig til" usually means: to be inclined to, to be disposed to, or to tend to. ("Damage" = "at skade").

I think the Danish interpretation of Law 23 is along the lines of my previous post, but I will try to clear that up (for myself in case I have misunderstood something once again :)).

 

2. It seems to me that if you don't attach any meaning to the word "well", then law 23 would catch just about any good result that an offending side might get out of the infraction. Because then all it takes is the imagination that this good result was indeed possible. There would be no requirement that the hand itself points towards such a lucky outcome.

 

Example a.

I'm in 4th hand but open accidentally out of turn with 1♥ on an ordinary 13-count. Partner has to pass throughout now, and when it goes p-p-p to me, I try 4♥. Or pass. Or 3NT. Or 1♥. Am I subject to an automatic adjustment if my actual choice leads to an unlikely but fortunate contract that gives me a good board? I mean, I could have known that I might get lucky, right?

 

Example b.

I lead the ♦K from ♦KQJ against 4♠ ... but it was really partner's lead. Partner happened to be about to choose his obvious singleton diamond, but now declarer forbids him to lead that suit. Instead he finds the only killing lead - a club.

Adjustment? My hand screamed for a diamond, but of course I could imagine that a club lead might be right instead.

 

I think the actual case is fundamentally equal to example a and b (if we accept the premise that north's antics might provoke a double - not clear at all).

[Codo]

a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double?

 

b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H?

 

Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes!

So you look at QJT8 in hearts and double 5 HEart. Why is it easier to double 5 HEart when dummy holds a heart void? Sorry, there is no difference. You make exactly 2 heart tricks in any case. Actually, if you know that dummy has a heart makes it sure that declarer holds at most 8 hearts which is nicer then 9. So IF the joke shows a heart void, this should never ever make East doubling the contract.

 

So as the answer to your first questions is surely no, the rest is no convincing argument for your case either.