mr1303 Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 [hv=n=s10xxhkqj10xdxcjxxx&w=skxxhxxxdj10xxcqxx&e=saqxxxhaxxdaxca10x&s=sjxhxxdkqxxxxckxx]399|300|[/hv] With North dealer, the bidding goes as follows: 2H* X P 2NTP 4S All Pass 2H was alerted as Ekrens, showing a weak hand with at least 5-4 in the majors, either way (the partnership agreement). 4S goes 2 off. At the end of the hand, West claims that she would have passed with the correct information. How do you rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 ..., showing a weak hand with at least 5-4 in the majors, either way (the partnership agreement). As presented, I rule "misbid" not "misexplanation". The pass of 2♥X does not suggest the explanation was wrong. So no misinformation, no adjustment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shyams Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I think some questions need to be answered first: 1. What were N/S playing? What did their CC say? I presume it was Ekrens etc2. Did TD ask N why he bid 2H? Did he assume it to mean 5♥+4card minor? a. If yes, the answer to #1 becomes more relevant -- misbid vs MI. b. If N says he knows they play Ekrens but he improvised (or something like that); the TD line of questioning will be to N/S asking them how often they do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I agree that there's no evidence of misinformation, so no reason for adjustment, but I'm also intrigued by the argument that's presented by the EW side in the original post: EW bid to 4♠ when they thought that North had spades as well as hearts, but they would have defended 2♥ if they thought that North only had hearts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vigfus Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Table score stands.I do not understand at all West's argument of making PASS knowing North having weak 2 in hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peachy Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 Some sort of recorder system might help here. If NS have made a habit of bidding 2H with either a weak two in H, 5-4/4-5 majors, or H+another suit, instead of using 2H as system says, then the pattern of such should be established. As it is, this is a misbid, lacking evidence of anything else. Score stands. I don't really buy EW arguments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 "If they have spades, I want to play in our spade fit. But if they do not, I don't." <puzzled of Worthing> "Please, Mr Bridge, could you explain this?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 West didn't bid spades, East did. I assume West's 2NT was Lebensohl, intending to bid 3♦ non-constructive. But I still don't believe West's claim she would have converted the takeout double if she'd received a different explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 1, 2010 Report Share Posted March 1, 2010 Since the OP told us the partnership agreement was correctly explained, I assume we are just speculating about west's (dubious) claim out of curiosity since we shouldn't even get that far into the ruling. Also I feel it worth mentioning I don't think west is necessarily dishonest, I think he probably just is that bad. I mean look at what his partner bid, and given the explanation too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted March 8, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 The agreement was specifically: 2D Multi2H Ekrens2S Lucas but North forgot, being used to playing 2H & 2S as Lucas Incidentally, 2NT wasn't alerted, and I don't think this particular EW partnership were particularly experienced with such conventions such as Lebensohl. I think West was attempting revenge following a director call by me (as South) following an insufficient bid. She didn't actually call the director, just wanted a chance to moan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.