Making an unbiddable contract

[AndreSteff]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sa9762hdaj9ckqj73&w=sjt3hakt2dqt765c6&e=sk8hq8763d4cat542&s=sq54hj954dk832c98]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The auction:

1♠ 2♠* pass 3♥

4♣ pass 4♠ all pass

 

2♠was Ghestem for the clubs and hearts, but was misexplained by West to South as Hearts and Diamonds. Misinformation is established.

 

North went one down (EW fail to find their club ruff and declarer postpones drawing the last trump until the clubs are established) because he judges that the Queen of diamond cannot be onside and plays for the drop.

 

After the play North states that:

• he would never had bid 4 ♣ had he known East held them.
  
• he would have made 4♠ had he known that East held 5 clubs rather than 5 diamonds
  

Some polling of other players confirms that quite a few would have bid a second time with the explanation given, but that none of them bids a second time with the correct explanation.

 

So, what adjusted score to give?

[jdaming]

I don't claim to be a legal eagle but here are my thoughts. He would not have bid on so the play is irrelevant (I am not quite sure about the play for the drop of the ♦ as it doesn't really make sense if he plays low to south and back to the Ace who is he trying to drop against?)

 

So the contact would end in 3♥ and -1 seems like a likely outcome (losing 1♠,1♦,and 3♣) so how about 50 to N/S.

[bluejak]

I would not be so sure we know what would have happened. Even th poll is not conclusive. So surely we weight?

[CamHenry]

So the contact would end in 3♥ and -1 seems like a likely outcome (losing 1♠,1♦,and 3♣) so how about 50 to N/S.

Not so sure about that. Declarer in 3♥ can ruff two clubs in hand, swapping two club losers for one heart loser (after that he's swapping one club loser for one heart loser, so there's no further benefit). This is a worse result than the table result, so we don't include it in any weighted ruling (as we prevent EW gaining by the infraction).

 

It is plausible (but remote, IMO) that 3♥ will fail by 1 trick. South's argument about diamonds does not hold water - he's playing for E to have 5 diamonds, so if he's playing for the drop then he's playing for W to hold specifically Qx of diamonds, and small to the K then finesse is equally valid. The only time I'd give any weighting to this would be if he'd played DA, DJ, hoping for Tx with W.

 

Given that it is plausible that 4♠ would be reached with correct information, we can include it in a weighted score - so I award something like 70% of table result and 30% of 3♥-1, though I'm quite aware this one could go to committee.

[AndreSteff]

South's argument about diamonds does not hold water - he's playing for E to have 5 diamonds, so if he's playing for the drop then he's playing for W to hold specifically Qx of diamonds, and small to the K then finesse is equally valid. The only time I'd give any weighting to this would be if he'd played DA, DJ, hoping for Tx with W.

 

As North thinks that East holds five diamonds he can play west for the ten or queen singleton. Playing him for the singleton ten is better of course, but is playing him for the singleton queen so bad as to deny North redress?

[CamHenry]

South's argument about diamonds does not hold water - he's playing for E to have 5 diamonds, so if he's playing for the drop then he's playing for W to hold specifically Qx of diamonds, and small to the K then finesse is equally valid. The only time I'd give any weighting to this would be if he'd played DA, DJ, hoping for Tx with W.

 

As North thinks that East holds five diamonds he can play west for the ten or queen singleton. Playing him for the singleton ten is better of course, but is playing him for the singleton queen so bad as to deny North redress?

Good point. He'd have to start with the A, K or (from the N hand) J.

 

(Apparently I can't count outstanding cards; let's hope I improve before I play this evening!)

[gordontd]

This is a worse result than the table result, so we don't include it in any weighted ruling (as we prevent EW gaining by the infraction).

That's not correct. We can include results that are worse than the table result, but if the final outcome of all our weighting is worse than the table result we conclude that the NOS were not damaged by the infraction.

[Cyberyeti]

Am I missing somethink, if W is going to explain this as ♥/♦ why hasn't he bid 5♦ at this vul over 4♠, indeed why didn't he bid more than 3♥ first time. Fielded misbid ?

[bluejak]

This a Dutch problem, and we are not told the experience of the players. But based on my English experience of mediocre players, one thing they do not do is automatically jump when partner shows a two-suiter, and they have a good fit. Maybe it is lack of confidence that they have got the two-suiter right, but again and again we have seen cases where West shows clubs and hearts, and East with a club void and six hearts bids 3♥ when I would bid at least 5♥.

 

My guess is that West is a lower medium player or poorer who has had Ghestem accidents before. Yes, his 3♥ bid would probably be illegal under Law 40, the English basis of a fielded misbid, if his explanation was right and partner's bid wrong, but he will never get ruled against for this outside England/Wales. In fact, since there was MI and no misbid, talk of fielding misbids is irrelevant - perhaps it is a Blue Misbid! :D

 

B)

 

but was misexplained by West to South as Hearts and Diamonds.

Normally when someone writes "explained by West to South" it means screens and I assumed that here. But I am beginning to wonder. If that was so then North would have no MI and his explanation is gibberish. So I am going to assume no screens - please confirm, Andre.

 

:ph34r:

 

North has said he would not have bid 4♣ without th MI. We do not have to take him at his word, but I think it reduces the likelihood of N/S finding 4♠ quite a lot. Furthermore, I am not absolutely certain he would make it.

 

However, since the offenders have no change of information I do not believe they will bid higher than 3♥. But might not North double that? And pass 3♠?

 

No doubt I have missed something, but after a spade lead, West seems to me to cross-ruff to ten tricks in hearts.

 

So how about:

 

    40% of 4♠=,  NS +420

+ 10% of 3♠+1, NS +170

+ 10% of 3♠=,  NS +140

+ 10% of 3♥-1, NS   +50

+ 10% of 4♠-1, NS   -50

+ 10% of 3♥=,  NS -140

+ 10% of 3♥+1, NS -170

 

I would adjust to that, unless this calculates to a poorer score than the table result: in that case, no damage, result stands. But I do not expect that.

[blackshoe]

Interesting. All your ten percents cancel each other out, leaving 40% of 420=168 (do you score this as 170?) which is better than the -50 they got at the table.

[Hanoi5]

If West believes partner holds ♥+♦ why did he bid 3♥ and not 4♥ or 5♦?

There's something fishy...

[bluejak]

The percentages are applied after changing the scores into MPs or imps, so we do not cancel them out.

[AndreSteff]

Thanks for your ruling David.

Normally when someone writes "explained by West to South" it means screens and I assumed that here. But I am beginning to wonder. If that was so then North would have no MI and his explanation is gibberish. So I am going to assume no screens - please confirm, Andre.

 

My bad, I tried to express that South asked West what 2♠ meant. There were no screens and we are talking about the higher level ordinary club players here.

 

NS scored 47% on the hand and your adjustment leads to a score of 58%.

 

The actual contracts played were:

4♠+1 3x

4♠= 3x

3♠=

2♠+1

5♠-1

4♠-1 2x

2NT-2 NS

4♠-2 2x

4♠-3

3♥+2 2x

4♥=2x

 

This list reflects the score of all tables, from the beginners to the higher level players and most of the time the auction will not have included a two suited overcall.

[lamford]

North went one down (EW fail to find their club ruff and declarer postpones drawing the last trump until the clubs are established) because he judges that the Queen of diamond cannot be onside and plays for the drop.

How did the play go? If North "failed to draw the last trump" until the clubs were established, he would learn that East had five clubs, not five diamonds. In fact ace and another club is not the most testing defence, as declarer can hardly go wrong in that case.

 

Let us say East led a heart and North ruffed and led the king of clubs. East can win and play another heart, and it certainly does not seem likely that North will make it. Bluejak's 40% of 4S= seems too generous, even for the non-offenders, and 20% of 4S= and 20% of 4S-1 is more like it. The rest of the weighting seemed OK.

[mink]

Let's assume that with the correct information North always makes 10 tricks in a spade contract. Now, would you still assign a weighted score because maybe 4♠ will not be reached with the correct information?

 

Karl

[AndreSteff]

How did the play go?

 

The play:

Small heart for the King and ruff.

Ace of spades, small spade for the King.

Small heart for the ten and ruff.

King of clubs for the ace.

Small heart for the ace and ruff.

Diamond to the king.

Queen of spades.

Diamond to the ace.

Two more high clubs.

 

Down one while a diamond finesse would have brought the trick count to ten.

[jallerton]

North has said he would not have bid 4♣ without th MI.  We do not have to take him at his word, but I think it reduces the likelihood of N/S finding 4♠ quite a lot.  Furthermore, I am not absolutely certain he would make it.

 

However, since the offenders have no change of information I do not believe they will bid higher than 3♥.  But might not North double that?  And pass 3♠?

 

No doubt I have missed something, but after a spade lead, West seems to me to cross-ruff to ten tricks in hearts.

 

So how about:

 

    40% of 4♠=,  NS +420

+ 10% of 3♠+1, NS +170

+ 10% of 3♠=,  NS +140

+ 10% of 3♥-1, NS   +50

+ 10% of 4♠-1, NS   -50

+ 10% of 3♥=,  NS -140

+ 10% of 3♥+1, NS -170

 

I would adjust to that, unless this calculates to a poorer score than the table result: in that case, no damage, result stands.  But I do not expect that.

Why do you attach weightings totalling 50% to N/S reaching 4♠? Under what auction(s) might they get there?

 

North claimed that he would not have bid 4♣ if he had known his LHO had shown 5 of them. Surely this claim must be believed as very few people would try to play in their LHO's 5-card suit at the 4-level.

 

I agree that North might double 3♥ (although would normally imply either 4 diamonds or a rather better hand) but then the auction would probably proceed as you suggest: 3♠ from South and pass from North.

[bluejak]

Let's assume that with the correct information North always makes 10 tricks in a spade contract. Now, would you still assign a weighted score because maybe 4♠ will not be reached with the correct information?

Yes, of course. For me to give no weighted ruling I have to be very sure what would have happened. Under the 2007 Laws, weighted scores are the norm, single scores are not.

 

:D

 

Why do you attach weightings totalling 50% to N/S reaching 4♠? Under what auction(s) might they get there?

 

North claimed that he would not have bid 4♣ if he had known his LHO had shown 5 of them. Surely this claim must be believed as very few people would try to play in their LHO's 5-card suit at the 4-level.

 

I agree that North might double 3♥ (although would normally imply either 4 diamonds or a rather better hand) but then the auction would probably proceed as you suggest: 3♠ from South and pass from North.

Or North might decide to bid 4♣ anyway. Or North might double, and raise 3♠ to 4♠. Or North might pass, South might bid 3♠, and North might raise.

 

I do not find the actual weightings of much interest. The principle is what matters here, and discussion and polling is how I determine weightings. But I was not able to do either, so I picked numbers out of thin air. Sure, they may not be correct.