Year End C #5 - Swiss Pairs [MP>VP] - MI

[bluejak]

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=s73hq2dkqj862c932&w=st8haktd75cqjt754&e=saj42h53da94cak86&s=skq965hj98764dt3c]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♣! 1♥ 2♣! 2♦

2♥   P  3♣   P

 P   P

     3♥ Dbl   P

 P   P

 

1♣ = may be short

2♣ = inverted, 10+

2♥ = not alerted

Asked: told shows heart strength

After 3♣ was passed out, East said

 2♥ asked for a stopper

The TD reopened the auction and

 South bid 3♥

 

Result: 3♥ dbld /S -3, NS -500[/hv]

North and South were adamant that E/W knew what they were doing and told untruths to tempt South back into the auction.

 

Well?

[TylerE]

Looks like misbid/misunderstanding. Surely if they "knew what they were doing", they'd find either cold vuln game?

[TimG]

I don't understand what "untruth" was told to tempt south back into the auction. West's explanation is consistent with his bidding and cannot be deemed to tempt south back into the auction. East's correction doesn't seem like an untruth.

 

As Tyler points out, if E/W knew what they were doing, they wouldn't have missed their vulnerable game.

 

N/S are frustrated by turning -150 into -500, I'd warn them against accusing the opponents of nefarious acts (perhaps even suggest that an apology was in order) and initiate disciplinary action if they persisted at the table. (I would be willing to discuss the matter with them privately at a later time.)

[Mbodell]

I don't understand the auction? West is dealer and the North hand overcalls 1♥? Should that be 1♦? The south hand bids 2♦ should that be 2♥? Or was it East that opened? That would make more sense with the auction and explanation.

 

And if that is the case then I don't see what the problem is. E/W had a bidding mistake. There was MI or a misbid. Presumably the director at the table ruled that the E/W agreement was that 2♥ asked for a stopper and there was MI which is why the final pass was changed into a 3♥ call.

[gnasher]

What evidence did NS offer in support of their accusation? There seems to be none in the original post. Edited January 1, 2010 by gnasher

[bluejak]

I don't understand the auction?  West is dealer and the North hand overcalls 1♥?  Should that be 1♦?  The south hand bids 2♦ should that be 2♥?  Or was it East that opened?  That would make more sense with the auction and explanation.

Very sorry. While BBO is an excellent host, and some things are better than Bridgetalk, the method for putting auctions in is much poorer and is [frankly] a pain in the behind. Assume dealer East, and assume I have not written the auction in the normal WNES format.

[Ant590]

It seems to me that before the first card was lead South had full information about the agreements of EW, and chose what turned out to be a foolhardy bid. If west had forgotten to show or chosen to withhold his heart stopper, then it is only a misbid, and accusations of goading are without evidence.

 

I'd let the table result stand (and expect an AC to keep the deposit if NS appealed).

[Finch]

I can't see what case NS have. EW had a misunderstanding (East thought he was asking for heart stop, West thought East was showing something in hearts and hence looking for a diamond stop and signed off; East thought they were off the heart suit). East explaine the misunderstanding at the appropriate time.

 

South chose to go for a penalty.

 

Score stands, and NS get a good talking to.

[aguahombre]

N/S clueless: I assume the TD reopened the auction at the request of South, who had made the last pass and was given the option. If it was North who was the mouthpiece, then it was HE who goaded their side into 3H or was trying to get South to bid 3 of either red. Neither North nor South has a 3H call.

 

E/W, having missed 3NT through a misunderstanding, should not have to endure the rantings of the opponents too.

 

Agree with those who believe N/S should, at the very least, be told to keep their inane opinions to themselves. Any normal N/S would have acknowledged the disclosed misunderstanding, looked at their hands, and proceeded to defend the hand.

 

But, as stated before, I would make a crummy director. And I can't site any law number, to fall back on.

[blackshoe]

North and South were adamant that E/W knew what they were doing and told untruths to tempt South back into the auction.

 

IOW, NS have explicitly accused EW of cheating. Seems to me that calls for an ethics hearing. Which, I feel confident, will find that it's NS whose ethics are questionable. :unsure:

[bluejak]

This one just appears to be a joke in poor taste. I am not really sure what N/S alleged, so I rather made it up. But whatever it was the TD was supremely unimpressed, which seems perfectly correct to me.

[blackshoe]

Given what you originally posted, David, I'll stand by my comment. If NS didn't actually go that far, then perhaps I'd agree with the TD, too. But it's hard to get it right given wrong information. :)

[nige1]

[vigfus]

TD is perfectly right to allow reopening the bidding again. No question about that.

And N/S use that oppurtunity to enter the bidding again and are punished for that.

Table result sands.

[greenender]

I agree that the TD was correct to allow S to change his pass.

 

What S failed to reflect on was the bridge logic of the situation. If E thought cue-bids were asking and W thought they were telling, then S knows that E has ♦s stopped and W doesn't. He doesn't know the ♥ position, except for the fact that E doesn't have them stopped, but he knows that E/W have near-game or better values, and that if they do have ♥s stopped, then the ♥s are over him.

 

So, from S's perspective, either E/W have stopped because they cannot stop hearts, or they have just missed 3NT and 3♥ will be expensive. Given that N has bid ♦s and S holds ♠KQ and only ♥J, I know which I'd bet on as S without having seen the hands.

 

Far from providing evidence of collusion, the E/W actions are entirely consistent with their different perceptions of the meaning of cuebids, as disclosed to N/S. N/S should get a life.