MI/UI

[Mbodell]

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sjt8754hkjd876ct9&w=skq962h72dj95c642&e=sahqt63dakt432ca7&s=s3ha9854dqckqj853]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♣*-2♣**-P-4♠

X-5♣-X-P

P-P

 

* - alerted and explained as forcing artificial 16+ (18+ if bal)

** - not alerted, but explained when West asked at his first turn as Michaels showing 55 in the majors[/hv]

 

Opening lead ♣2 to the A, switch to the AK♦, which gives S a chance to cash 2 ♥ and ruff a third on the board, ruff a diamond high, pull trump, lose a heart and a spade for -2 and -500.

 

The N/S actual agreement was that 2♣ was Michaels over natural openings, but natural over strong clubs.

 

Q1: Were E/W damaged by the MI?

 

Q2: Was pass of 4♠X a LA and was the 5♣ call a LA suggested by the UI?

 

Q3: If 5♣ was suggested by the UI was the E/W failure to continue ♣ trick 2 and collect 800 enough of a serious error or wild and gambling action and such that they shouldn't get a correction?

 

Q4: If you rule that N/S play 4♠X, how many tricks do you give them?

 

How do you rule?

[hotShot]

Q1) No, no damage by the MI.

 

Q2) You did not mention the use of screens, so yes, it seems that listening to partners explanation made south bid his ♣ again.

 

Q3) East has 6 ♦ and sees 3 at the table, hoping that the the remaining 4 split 2-2 or 1-3 with partner holding 1, is playing for a 40% (2-2) + 25% (3-1 with partner holding 1) = 65% seems more like the percentage play than a serious error or a gambling.

 

Q4) I see 3♦, 4♠, 1♣ , this is -5, if that is already the top I'll stop thinking.

[Codo]

Q1) No, no damage by the MI.

 

Q2) You did not mention the use of screens, so yes, it seems that listening to partners explanation made south bid his ♣ again.

 

Q3) East has 6 ♦ and sees 3 at the table, hoping that the the remaining 4 split 2-2 or 1-3 with partner holding 1, is playing for a 40% (2-2) + 25% (3-1 with partner holding 1) = 65% seems more like the percentage play than a serious error or a gambling.

 

Q4) I see 3♦, 4♠, 1♣ , this is -5, if that is already the top I'll stop thinking.

Q3 If two diamonds are cashing, where are they going if you play a trump now?

If declarer has three diamonds, why did partner not lead his singleton?

So, no it is not the percentage play to cash diamonds.

 

But I wonder how you can fail to make 9 tricks against any defence. Lets say they lead a second club.

East has 18+ HCPs and a take out against 4 Spade OR additional strength. How do you play the hearts? I think King first and runnig the jack is clear.

And in this case, you lose a trick in each suit for -2....

 

So 5 club is always -2. But what about 4 ♠? I think you lose 3 spades, 3 diamonds and a club for -1100.

[hotShot]

Q3 If two diamonds are cashing, where are they going if you play a trump now?

If declarer has three diamonds, why did partner not lead his singleton?

So, no it is not the percentage play to cash diamonds.

You're right, hoping for a singleton in partners hand is unrealistic. But still the error is not serious enough to lose redress.

 

But I wonder how you can fail to make 9 tricks against any defence. Lets say they lead a second club.

East has 18+ HCPs and a take out against 4 Spade OR additional strength. How do you play the hearts? I think King first and runnig the jack is clear.

And in this case, you lose a trick in each suit for -2....

 

So 5 club is always -2. But what about 4 ♠? I think you lose 3 spades, 3 diamonds and a club for -1100.

How can North not lose the ♠9?

[lamford]

I would be certainly be adjusting back to 4S doubled, and that seems to be six off. The defence cash a top diamond, and then the ace of spades and two more top diamonds. Now East can play a fourth diamond and West can pitch a heart. The defence get FIVE trumps, three diamonds and a club, for six off and -1700. With a bit of luck that will be a bottom for N/S to punish them (sorry, give rectification) for the flagrant misuse of UI.

[suprgrover]

I would be certainly be adjusting back to 4S doubled, and that seems to be six off. The defence cash a top diamond, and then the ace of spades and two more top diamonds. Now East can play a fourth diamond and West can pitch a heart. The defence get FIVE trumps, three diamonds and a club, for six off and -1700.

I think North can play on clubs and will be leading a winner from dummy when West is left with ♠KQ96 and North has ♠JT87. I think North will always win two trump tricks in this case, having already won the top heart, a diamond ruff with the long trump, and two clubs. This would mean 6 tricks for North-South and a well-earned -1100 score.

[hotShot]

North has 1 trump longer than West, so I think West can force North to play away from his trumps to the 9.

[jdonn]

Obv 4♠X is the contract, and if you follow the play through to the end I don't think there is any way that's not totally ridiculous for north to avoid winning 5 tricks. So down 5 it is.

 

I should expand on that. Say east wins his 5 top tricks and exits passively in clubs. North can take three side suit winners and ruff something to his hand, and is then endplayed to give west 3 more trump tricks of the remaining 4 tricks. That's where I get down 5.

[lamford]

Yes, I agree down 5. West can get a heart ruff, but then he will be endplayed.

[cherdanno]

Obv 4♠X is the contract, and if you follow the play through to the end I don't think there is any way that's not totally ridiculous for north to avoid winning 5 tricks. So down 5 it is.

 

I should expand on that. Say east wins his 5 top tricks and exits passively in clubs. North can take three side suit winners and ruff something to his hand, and is then endplayed to give west 3 more trump tricks of the remaining 4 tricks. That's where I get down 5.

North wins the club in dummy ruffs a club, cashes two hearts ending in dummy and plays anything from dummy. He will get two more tricks for down 4, no?

[jdonn]

Obv 4♠X is the contract, and if you follow the play through to the end I don't think there is any way that's not totally ridiculous for north to avoid winning 5 tricks. So down 5 it is.

 

I should expand on that. Say east wins his 5 top tricks and exits passively in clubs. North can take three side suit winners and ruff something to his hand, and is then endplayed to give west 3 more trump tricks of the remaining 4 tricks. That's where I get down 5.

North wins the club in dummy ruffs a club, cashes two hearts ending in dummy and plays anything from dummy. He will get two more tricks for down 4, no?

Sure but I don't think he's entitled to play it that well. There are plenty of players who would just take their tricks before getting to trumps rather than planning to elope as many trumps as possible.

[hotShot]

Well in that case I assume that East can count from seeing 9♥ and 10♣ that his partner can drop something in ♣ or ♥ on one of his high ♦432 to have an easy ruff later. And quietly follows with ♦.

[jdonn]

Well in that case I assume that East can count from seeing 9♥ and 10♣ that his partner can drop something in ♣ or ♥ on one of his high ♦432 to have an easy ruff later. And quietly follows with ♦.

And that gets more than 8 tricks for EW how? Follow it through to the end please...

[lamford]

I think if East plays a fourth diamond after cashing his winners and West pitches a heart, then there is no way for declarer to avoid down 5, and Deep Finesse confirms this. And that looks a sensible defence anyway, as the defence are guaranteed four trump tricks (not five as I dozily thought) to go with the three diamonds and ace of clubs.

[peachy]

Isn't South obligated by Law to continue bidding in accordance with the system "he thought they were playing" and he is not allowed to use the explanation for his bidding decision? In this case, what "he thought they were playing" happened to be "the actual agreement (2C = natural over strong club)". Had there been screens, South would have bid 5C as he would not have had chance to hear what partner explained. To Pass 4SX is not a LA. Just because it happens to be more advantegous for the opponents, legally it is not a LA, IMO.

 

Did NS explain the correct agreement before EW made the opening lead? Did anybody call the TD at that time? When was TD called?

 

I do not want to rule contract to 4SX. Based on my understanding of the laws pertaining here, South must continue to bid in accordance with his original understanding of their agreements and he must not wake up or use partner's explanation for his bidding decisions. Had the shoe been in the other foot and he had bid Michaels, then when partner explains it as natural (natural being the actual agreement), he must continue to bid in his original [wrong, in that case] belief that Michaels was the agreement.

 

AM I completely out of it???? I don't understand how others here consider Pass on 4SX even a legal call let alone a LA.

[jdonn]

Um, not only is pass an LA, it's the only one. If you overcall a natural 2♣ and your partner bids a natural 4♠, why are you thinking of pulling it? Tell me why partner doesn't have KQJTxxxx xxx xx -. Why would partner bid 4♠ over a natural club overcall if he wanted partner to rebid his 6 card suit?

 

Every generic statement you make about the law is correct as far as I can see, you are just WAY (WAY WAY!) out in left field about the bridge judgments of what constitutes a logical alternative in this case.

[bluejak]

Isn't South obligated by Law to continue bidding in accordance with the system "he thought they were playing" and he is not allowed to use the explanation for his bidding decision?  In this case, what "he thought they were playing"  happened to be "the actual agreement (2C = natural over strong club)".  Had there been screens, South would have bid 5C as he would not have had chance to hear what partner explained.  To Pass 4SX is not a LA.  Just because it happens to be more advantegous for the opponents, legally it is not a LA, IMO.

Sorry, peachy, that is an automatic pass of 4♠ doubled having already shown clubs. Nothing to stop partner having seven spades, and going to the five level on a six card suit is pretty poor bridge.