Year End C #4 - Swiss Pairs [MP>VP] - MI

[bluejak]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sthk86dakj964ca73&w=sakq85ha7d83cqt95&e=s6432hqt94d2cj842&s=sj97hj532dqt75ck6]399|300|Scoring: MP

          P  P

1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦

3♥  P  3♠  P

 P   P

 

Result:

3♠ = /W

NS -140

 

Lead: ♦A

Trick 2: ♣A[/hv]

The problem revolved around the 3♥ bid which was not alerted. Now under EBU regulations a 3♥ trial bid is not alertable if it shows at least three cards. So why was there no alert? Simple: E/W stated that they play it to show at least three cards! :ph34r:

 

The TD asked West why he bid 3♥. He said he had to invent a bid because there was no reasonable alternative. 3♠ would be competitive, double would be for penalties. What other call was there? The TD asked if they had had this problem before and the pair - who were very experienced though not top class - said it had not occurred and the problem had not occurred to them.

 

Incidentally: a historical note: when I was young, 3♠ would have been a game try. As more and more people shifted to playing it competitive, a large proportion started playing double as a game try. I do! There is a minority who play double as a game try only if there is no bid between the opponent's bid and 3 of the agreed suit, the so-called "Maximal double". That had a certain vogue, but is now very rare. Presumably such players would play 3♥ here as a random game try which would be alertable. Anyway, this pair apparently were not playing this.

 

North - who was a very good player - pointed out that his partner asked for a club on the diamond lead. Since he counted declarer for three or more hearts, he "knew" his partner had at least three clubs so did not underlead the ace to beat the contract. He felt he might have if he had known 3♥ could be on a doubleton.

 

What do you think?

[Mbodell]

I am not a TD but I'd rule no adjustment. I'd agree to adjustment if it could be shown that E/W had the agreement that 3♥ was a random game try and that this was an alertable agreement. But on the basis of the evidence presented I'd suggest that E/W didn't have this agreement (but tell them to discuss this now as in the future if this comes up again they'd have this agreement). Since they didn't have this agreement that suggests misbid, not misinformation, and therefore no adjustment.

[helene_t]

I find it hard to believe that this problem never occurred to EW,

[david_c]

I'm inclined to believe E/W. I'd call it a deviation (it's not a misbid because it was deliberate); no adjustment.

[gnasher]

There's nothing in the rules to say that EW's agreements have to be logical. All that is required is that they be disclosed.

 

EW tell us that by agreement 3♥ shows three cards, and that they don't have any experience of its being bid on fewer cards. What reason do we have for disbelieving them?

[nige1]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sthk86dakj964ca73&w=sakq85ha7d83cqt95&e=s6432hqt94d2cj842&s=sj97hj532dqt75ck6]399|300|Scoring: MP

          P  P

1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♦

3♥  P  3♠  P

 P   P

Result:

3♠ = /W

NS -140

Lead: ♦A

Trick 2: ♣A

The problem revolved around the 3♥ bid which was not alerted.  Now under EBU regulations a 3♥ trial bid is not alertable if it shows at least three cards. So why was there no alert?  Simple: E/W stated that they play it to show at least three cards!  :rolleyes:

The TD asked West why he bid 3♥.  He said he had to invent a bid because there was no reasonable alternative.  3♠ would be competitive, double would be for penalties. What other call was there?  The TD asked if they had had this problem before and the pair - who were very experienced though not top class - said it had not occurred and the problem had not occurred to them.

Incidentally: a historical note: when I was young, 3♠ would have been a game try.  As more and more people shifted to playing it competitive, a large proportion started playing double as a game try.  I do! There is a minority who play double as a game try only if there is no bid between the opponent's bid and 3 of the agreed suit, the so-called "Maximal double".  That had a certain vogue, but is now very rare.  Presumably such players would play 3♥ here as a random game try which would be alertable.  Anyway, this pair apparently were not playing this.

North - who was a very good player - pointed out that his partner asked for a club on the diamond lead.  Since he counted declarer for three or more hearts, he "knew" his partner had at least three clubs so did not underlead the ace to beat the contract.  He felt he might have if he had known 3♥ could be on a doubleton.

What do you think?[/hv]

IMO, the director should rule misinformation. If, in the context of their system, West deduced that 3♥ must be a last-train try rather than a 3+card trial bid, then...

• East can follow the same logic.
  
• East is better placed to do this than his opponents.
  
• Furthermore, apparently, West bid 3♥ knowing or at least hoping that East would interpret the bid correctly, in this context, given their other agreements.
  

[blackshoe]

If, in the context of their system, West deduced that 3♥ must be a last-train try rather than a 3+card trial bid, then...

• East can follow the same logic.
  
• East is better placed to do this than his opponents.
  
• Furthermore, apparently, West bid 3♥ knowing or at least hoping that East would interpret the bid correctly, in this context, given their other agreements.
  

Thing is, West didn't deduce that. He "deduced" that he didn't have a systemic call for this situation, so he deviated (slightly) from their system and did the best he could to convey his hand type. Given that the situation hadn't come up before, and they hadn't thought of it, there's no reason for East to expect that partner has made this deviation. As for "knowing or hoping", claiming he knew is just paranoia, and there's no law against hope.

 

This is not an MI situation.

[bluejak]

The TD decided that there was no MI, that they did have an agreement that 3♥ showed 3+ cards. No adjustment therefore. He did warn them that they now had a relevant experience.

[blackshoe]

He did warn them that they now had a relevant experience.

Implying that one swallow does indeed make a summer?

[MickyB]

Incidentally: a historical note: when I was young, 3♠ would have been a game try. As more and more people shifted to playing it competitive, a large proportion started playing double as a game try. I do! There is a minority who play double as a game try only if there is no bid between the opponent's bid and 3 of the agreed suit, the so-called "Maximal double". That had a certain vogue, but is now very rare. Presumably such players would play 3♥ here as a random game try which would be alertable. Anyway, this pair apparently were not playing this.

Odd - I thought that playing 3♥ here as "any game-try" was close to standard.

 

Agree with the ruling given.

[gnasher]

Odd - I thought that playing 3♥ here as "any game-try" was close to standard.

Me too.

[bluejak]

Ok, I challenge you to find one single pair playing that in any of the four clubs I regularly play in.

[gnasher]

Ok, I challenge you to find one single pair playing that in any of the four clubs I regularly play in.

I assume that's addressed to Mike rather than to me? Whilst I can imagine a degree of satisfaction in presenting you with affidavits from dozens of Liverpudlians about how they make their game-tries, I'm not sure that it's worth the 200-mile round trip.

 

Anyway, I only said what I thought was close to standard. It seems quite likely that how people play these sequences varies with location and age.

[bluejak]

Ok, I shall make a different bet with you: go to the weakest four clubs within forty miles of you, and see what percentage play that there. I shall bet you it is less than 12%.

[aguahombre]

West "invented" last train, for the reasons he stated.

East was slower on the uptake, and didn't alert.

 

the rest of us who, at one time, had the same problem, and chose to incorporate the only available suit as random, should be alerting it --even though it should be common sense to this "very good" North player. If he had asked, and East still didn't figure it out, then West could have corrected to "this situation was undiscussed."

 

MOD and LT are quite common among good players in this type of situation, but (as Blue points out when giving a 12% guess for the weakest clubs) not common enough to preclude damage by failure to alert. Note the paradox, though. Even in the weakest clubs, a North player who is good enough to consider a low club lead for a club rough is probably good enough to suspect a LT bid by West. Close to a" two-bites of the apple" situation.

 

No adjustment in this case.

[gnasher]

Ok, I shall make a different bet with you: go to the weakest four clubs within forty miles of you, and see what percentage play that there. I shall bet you it is less than 12%.

 

Aren't we talking about what tournament players do? I imagine that at the four worst bridge clubs in London, double is for penalties and 3♥ is natural or nonexistent, since most people won't even have heard of a game-try double.

 

However, I don't propose to test this theory by actually visiting any of them. It sounds even less attractive than your first suggestion.

[Finch]

Ok, I shall make a different bet with you: go to the weakest four clubs within forty miles of you, and see what percentage play that there. I shall bet you it is less than 12%.

I thought to start with we were only considering players who had actually discussed the sequence. At the "weakest four clubs" near me, most people won't have even thought of discussing it, but the pair in your example had thought about it sufficiently to say that it shows "at least three cards".

 

Anyway, this appears to be the "standard" hole-in-the-system ruling. That is, the first time a pair work out that they have a hole in their system and invent something, we rule no partnership agreement, no MI, but now they are deemed to have worked out that there is a problem and they need to solve it. They don't necessarily need to solve it by playing 3H as a game try, they could instead agree to play game-try doubles and keep 3H as natural.

 

That's a long way of saying I agree with the ruling.

 

The last time I saw this problem it was with a 1D opening... they were playing a strong club system with 5-card majors, a strong NT, 2D as a 3-suiter with short diamonds and 2C as 6+ clubs or 5+ clubs with a 4-card major, and said that their 1D opening was 3+ diamonds. When I asked what they opened with a 3=3=2=5 there was no answer!

 

 

p.s. I play 3H as a "random" game try here too...

[lamford]

p.s. I play 3H as a "random" game try here too...

It is standard at my local club to play 3H as reverse last train - a puppet to 3S with either a game force or non-invitational. That frees up 3S to be last train, and invitational.

 

I thought the method was universal since seeing Meckwell use it when watching an event in the US once.

[bluejak]

Ok, I shall make a different bet with you: go to the weakest four clubs within forty miles of you, and see what percentage play that there.  I shall bet you it is less than 12%.

I thought to start with we were only considering players who had actually discussed the sequence. At the "weakest four clubs" near me, most people won't have even thought of discussing it, but the pair in your example had thought about it sufficiently to say that it shows "at least three cards".

Why? No-one said that. It is standard to play a 1NT response to 1M as about 6-9 in the clubs in which I play, but that does not mean that pickup partnerships have discussed it. If the given sequence turns up in any one of my local clubs it will be either natural [most likely], or a game try asking for help in hearts and showing length there. This is because authorities from the past and teachers have taught this without going into ramifications. A lot of such authorities/teachers say "at least three cards".

[vigfus]

The TD decided that there was no MI, that they did have an agreement that 3♥ showed 3+ cards. No adjustment therefore. He did warn them that they now had a relevant experience.

I agree on the ruling, but I do not agree about the warning.

Why ?

What bid had west for game try other than 3♥ ? Well, he had NO OTHER BID.

[bluejak]

Ok, vigfus, he has no other bid. What does he do next time the situation occurs? Will his partner recognise it and realise he may not have three cards? If so, do they not have a disclosable agreement?

[vigfus]

Now we have to consider partnership mutual understanding and table feeling.

There is no questinon that long term partnership tends to make them know each other behaviour and how the partner reacts in many situations, and this is almost impossible to rule it as UI. Here is an example.

East is an overbidder, West is an underbidder. They know that very well, but the opp's do not know that.

The bidding goes. Opp's always passing.

1♣ - 1♠ - 3♠ - ?

The 3♠ call has different meaning based on who made it.

When the underbidder makes the 3♠ call, the overbidder knows his partner holds maximum for his bid.

When the overbidder makes the 3♠ call, the underbidder knows his partner dose not hold maximum for his bid.

So - what does TD do now ?