A "weak" two bid!

[bluejak]

Another correspondent and a ruling and aftermath that has caused much controversy.

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sh95432dq42c65432&w=sqj86ha7dak976caq&e=sak9753hq6dj83ckt&s=st42hkjt8dt5cj987]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

North was the dealer, but South passed out of turn. This was not accepted, it was cancelled, and the bidding reverted to North. It proceeded:

 

.W. - .N. - .E. - .S

..... - 2♥ - 2♠ - P

4NT - P - .5♥ - P

6♠. - .P - .P. - .P

 

2♥ was not alerted, but asked, and described as hearts and a minor.

 

South led the ♥8 and 6♠ went one off. The TD was called.

 

East claimed damage because of the 2H bid. - In view of North's 2H opening, he placed N with the H-K as well as the D-Q.  Accordingly, he won trick-1 with the H-Ace, Played 3 rounds Trumps, cashed the clubs, and exited with the Heart-Q to end-play North. But South turned up with the King  -  North had opened with only only 2 HCP.

How do you rule?

 

It is alleged that N/S gloated for the next few rounds about the clever trick they had pulled: as TD, what would you do?

 

After the TD had taken certain action the N/S team walked out, as did another team local to themselves: what action would you take?

[vigfus]

I would give E/W + 3 imps for that board. - Law 23

North used UI from partner. Law 16.B.1.a and 16.D.2

 

I would not try to get them back. Something is wrong about their ethics.

[RMB1]

(I don't think North has shown H+m opposite a partner who must pass once.)

 

> How do you rule?

 

North has UI that partner has an opening pass. I think this suggests bidding preemptively (randomly) over pass. I think Pass is a logical alternative for North: even opposite a partner who must pass once, there is the danger that partner might compete subsequently with inadequate hearts.

 

Having decided there is use of UI, it is less clear what to adjust to. If North passes, I suspect EW will still bid 6S and North will lead a heart. Even without being mislead about the position of HK, I can't see how 6S makes. So I would probably rule: table results stands, and a procedural penalty to North for use of UI (assuming the TD explained the UI position when called for the opening pass out of turn). An alternative ruling is AVE+/AVE- under Law 12C1d because the outcome after removing the initial 2H is too difficult to determine.

 

South could not know when he passed out of turn that North might bid hearts and mislead EW as to the location of HK, so there is no law seventy-something adjustment.

 

(I don't really like ruling UI here - I think the law, having silenced South for one round, should leave North free to act.)

 

> It is alleged that N/S gloated for the next few rounds about the clever trick

> they had pulled: as TD, what would you do?

 

(They gloated for several rounds? Even with different opponents at the table.)

 

A disciplinary penalty for each batch of gloating. 1VP, then 2VP, then dismissal.

 

> After the TD had taken certain action the N/S team walked out,

> as did another team local to themselves: what action would you take?

 

(Isn't "local to themselves" tautology? ... another team local to original N/S team?)

 

Knowing me, that action I would take would be to end up with two triangles. :)

 

I have no interest in a contestant once they have walked out, except to recover the movement for the remaining contestants. I apply standing regulations to the scores of the other contestants against the withdrawn contestants.

 

I write to the tournament organisers and/or the national body, reporting the fact that the teams walked-out and recording the circumstances of the ruling and misbehaviour.

[hrothgar]

I would give E/W + 3 imps for that board.  - Law 23

North used UI from partner.  Law 16.B.1.a  and 16.D.2

I was under the impression that the "Pass out of Turn" was authorized information.

 

In all seriousness, how often do players bid remotely normally after a Pass out of Turn? In reality, folks are always taking nonsystemic actions like

 

Blasting 3NT hoping that partner has a few points

Pysching willy-nilly

Deliberately barring partner

 

Everyone else in the discussion seems to be operating under the assumption that the Pass out of Turn is UI.

 

Could someone please clarify this point for me...

[CamHenry]

Having decided there is use of UI, it is less clear what to adjust to. If North passes, I suspect EW will still bid 6S...

I agree with you to this point, but not about N being on lead or about the H lead being guaranteed.

 

I'm suspecting E will be declarer, so I'm going to imagine S leads something. If it's a non-heart, declarer can make 6S in comfort by drawing trump, and banging down the top two diamonds then giving one up if necessary; the losing H goes on a long diamond.

 

If S does find a H lead (the only one to make life difficult), declarer will probably run this to the Q, falling back on guessing the diamonds if it fails. On the layout it wins, so 12 tricks.

 

I'm adjusting to 6S= for both sides (as going off in 6S looks to be distinctly related to the infraction). I'm giving NS a PP about the use of UI; a warning if it's their first offense or if they're beginners, but 3IMPs/0.5VPs if they should know better, and more if they make a habit of this sort of thing.

 

As for the gloating - I'm assuming this happened after the TD didn't adjust the score, as they'd be more likely to be whining, grousing or grumbling after I did :) In that case, I start off with DPs - 1VP, then 2, then I evict them.

 

If people walk out, then I look at the local regulations in force - sorry, I don't know Indian regulations. If there are no regulations, I use the White Book because I know that better. If the event has been advertised as all-play-all, I cancel the rounds already played and treat the offending teams as no-play; otherwise I award average+ for those deprived of opponents. The difficulty arises when two teams depart; it seems unfortunate to have two triangles or two sitouts, but simply pairing the unoccupied teams against each other may lead to rematches. I don't know for sure.

[blackshoe]

Everyone else in the discussion seems to be operating under the assumption that the Pass out of Turn is UI.

 

Could someone please clarify this point for me...

The fact that South made a call out of turn is AI. Inferences from that fact — e.g., that South does not have opening bid values — are UI.

[mjj29]

Everyone else in the discussion seems to be operating under the assumption that the Pass out of Turn is UI.

 

Could someone please clarify this point for me...

The fact that your partner tried to make an opening pass is unauthorized. The fact that he must pass at his next turn to call is authorized. So you can make an asystemic bid with the knowledge that it may well be the final bid of the auction if the opponents pass it out, but you can't use the fact that your partner has less than an opening hand to determinine which final contract to play.

[hrothgar]

Everyone else in the discussion seems to be operating under the assumption that the Pass out of Turn is UI. 

 

Could someone please clarify this point for me...

The fact that your partner tried to make an opening pass is unauthorized. The fact that he must pass at his next turn to call is authorized. So you can make an asystemic bid with the knowledge that it may well be the final bid of the auction if the opponents pass it out, but you can't use the fact that your partner has less than an opening hand to determinine which final contract to play.

Thank you (Blackshoe as well) for such aclear statement

[Mbodell]

Doesn't this depend on their system? If they play a 2 suited 2♥ bid then this is a 5-5 hand that is the right shape for this bid. So what is the point range on their bid. If it includes 2 HCP, then it seems that 2♥ is the clear call. If it doesn't, then it thinks pass is the clear call. I don't think pass is a LA if they play 2♥ shows a 2 suiter with 2-8 points, I think playing that system 2♥ is clear. But if the point range is 4-10 then pass is clear.

[blackshoe]

Doesn't what depend on their system?

[jdonn]

Doesn't what depend on their system?

The ruling? If their system is to open hands this weak with 2♥ then I would think the strength range should have been mentioned when they explained the bid.

[gnasher]

What's the right line in 6♠ on ♥J lead? It seems to me that it's ♥A, trumps, clubs, ♦AK, heart exit. That gives us slightly better than 50% in the heart suit, because ♥K is more likely than not to be with the short diamonds. If the opening leader is equally likely to lead a heart with or without the king, the elimination is better than running the heart around to the queen.

 

So, I don't think EW are entitled to all of 6♠ making.

[Cyberyeti]

Doesn't this depend on their system?  If they play a 2 suited 2♥ bid then this is a 5-5 hand that is the right shape for this bid.  So what is the point range on their bid.  If it includes 2 HCP, then it seems that 2♥ is the clear call.  If it doesn't, then it thinks pass is the clear call.  I don't think pass is a LA if they play 2♥ shows a 2 suiter with 2-8 points, I think playing that system 2♥ is clear.  But if the point range is 4-10 then pass is clear.

Exactly, at this vul this is a routine 2♥ opener for me and partner. I don't even need the 5th heart or the 5th club :blink:

 

Their system is what matters, and I'd even give them a little benefit of the doubt for the 535 shape if they were a point or so light.

 

I also think the director should point out his obligations as regards UI/AI to N before he bids. I think if I was N and unaware of these, I would claim directorial mistake. Until I read the threads recently on here, I would certainly have opened a weak 2♥ one or two suited on that hand regardless of what range I was playing (in fact for me normally 0+ so no issue).

 

The only time this has happened to me, director handled all the silencing and stuff, and after about 10 seconds came back and said to me "of course you know you're not allowed to psyche in this situation ?". In between I had of course psyched ... Most difficult time I've ever had keeping a straight face.

[blackshoe]

The alleged infraction is apparently misinformation, in that declarer assumed that the 2♥ must include the missing ♥K. But there are two questions here: as some have pointed out, we don't know what the bid shows systemically, and as others have pointed out, it is "generally known to bridge players" that a player whose partner must pass for one round will not necessarily conform to his system in choosing his call. In view of the latter fact, I do not believe the actual agreement is relevant. So I would rule that MI is not an issue.

 

On the question of UI, clearly the fact that South does not have opening values is UI to North. Does it suggest action by North? Yeah, probably. Did North take action? Yep. So far so good. But we also have to decide whether EW were damaged by the action North took. Declarer seems to argue that the 2♥ bid led him to place the ♥K with North, but is this a valid inference, given the aforementioned general knowledge that North might violate system in this situation? I don't think it is.

 

Is declarer entitled to assume that North will "bend over backwards" to avoid using UI? Is he entitled to assume that this means that any missing ♥ honors must be with North if he bids 2♥? Again, I don't think so, although I'm not certain.

 

I'm inclined to let the result stand, as far as the original alleged infraction goes. As for the gloating and the walking out, I agree with Robin.

[MFA]

I would rule result stands. I don't see the problem really. Claiming that north used UI is pretty far fetched. Even if I for some reason should concede that, I don't see how EW were damaged having reached their optimum and logical contract, 6♠ on a 10-card fit with 33 hcp.

 

Declarer decided wrongly after having all relevant facts (he could himself have asked about the range of 2♥ is he felt it was relevant for his decision). Tough luck.

[wank]

did he have ui? yes he knows his partner's weak.

 

does the ui suggest anything? yes it suggest pre-empting because you can be sure the opps have at least a game.

 

was pass a logical alternative for north? of course it was. he opened on a 2 count with no honours in his suits. of course this might be systemic for them, but i sincerely doubt it.

 

did this damage the opps? clearly south didn't need to lead a heart to give declarer the problem of how to play it. perhaps it might be the right lead on a blind auction to 6S, but it's assuredly not a 100% action so some adjustment is in order (weighted score jurisdiction?)

[jdonn]

Not that I want to rule for EW, but I think you have to take their skill level and/or experience into account before deciding that it's common bridge knowledge of some kind that bids opposite a barred partner can be made on all sorts of crazy hands.

[mrdct]

At favourable vul I would suggest north as a clear-cut routine opening whether they are playing weak 2s or 2-suited openings. Result stands.

[campboy]

My first reaction was to agree with Robin that of course 2♥ loses any conventional meaning it may normally have, since partner is silenced. So the fact that it would normally show a minor, and indeed that North actually has a minor, is irrelevant here.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't pass this hand opposite a silenced partner (say I had had the misfortune to drop the ♦Q on the table, producing the same AI with no UI), at this vulnerability. If South has a good hand 2♥ might even be the par spot; if he has a bad one I am quite happy to concede a penalty. Since the fact that he was silenced for a round is also AI to him, I don't fear him over-competing later; he knows that I will be trying to bid his cards for him.

 

However, if (owing to a poll or otherwise) I decided that passing was an LA, it seems right to adjust. If North passes, the likely contract will be the same, but the lead may be different, and even if it is not East's choice of play will be. North's 2♥ bid made it clear that he had at least five hearts, and that information changes the odds on the various lines considerably. East's line may still be inferior, but I am confident that he would make his contract had he not had reason to suppose North held more hearts than South.

[Echognome]

What's the right line in 6♠ on ♥J lead? It seems to me that it's ♥A, trumps, clubs, ♦AK, heart exit. That gives us slightly better than 50% in the heart suit, because ♥K is more likely than not to be with the short diamonds. If the opening leader is equally likely to lead a heart with or without the king, the elimination is better than running the heart around to the queen.

 

So, I don't think EW are entitled to all of 6♠ making.

Once North shows out of spades, I think playing off the diamond AK is inferior (given the auction). If we disallow the 2♥ call, then I think the reasonable lines are letting the heart go around at trick 1 or playing for the elimination and throw-in. So I would let them keep all of 6♠ if I adjusted. I would certainly do it giving them some benefit of the doubt.

[bluejak]

In so many of these threads we are somewhat short of facts, but I think we can deduce some things from what we know. If the system that this pair played included opening 2♥ on this hand then I am sure someone would have said so. Please can we assume that for this pair, the 2♥ bid is out of range.

 

To be honest, of the people I know who play this sort of 2♥ bid it would be out of range for all of them.

 

So we can safely assume that pass is an LA for this player and go on from there.

[Cascade]

I think before you can decide what a logical alternative is you first need to decide what is normal for a 2♥ opening when partner is barred. This would seem to be a non-trivial question.

 

My thoughts are that

 

1. a bid does not have to show the same values it would show without partner being barred

 

2. a weak bid could be stronger than normal e.g. I might open 2♥ on a minimum opening hand that I was unwilling to have a bash at game opposite an average hand

 

3. any bid could be lighter than normal. The ruling has forced a player into doing all of the bidding for his side on the first round of the auction. This necessitates taking liberties

 

4. Suit lengths (and quality) might not be what is normally expected e.g. in this situation there is diminished utility in promising a minor when partner cannot take that into account early in the auction

 

5. Partner and the opponents on general principles should expect our bids to be shaded (up or down)

 

Given all of this what does 2♥ show.

 

It seems to me to be irrelevant that the bid normally shows 5-9 with five hearts and a minor. I would expect a wider range at both ends, no guarantee of a minor and six or seven hearts as possibilities.

 

I am not sure what a normal expectation for a lower limit would be and I am not even sure how relevant that is.

 

To get an idea of what the UI that partner is weak suggests I did some double dummy analysis:

 

Our expectation with this hand opposite a random partner in hearts was a little under 6 tricks.

 

The opponents expectation in spades in the same circumstances was nearly 10 tricks (and they might have a different game).

 

When partner was restricted to being a passed hand the numbers changed to:

 

Expectation in hearts just over 4 tricks

 

Expectation in spades over 11 tricks.

 

So it was both more likely that the opponents hand game (suggesting we bid) and more likely that 2♥ will be already too high (suggesting we don't bid).

 

Therefore I am far from convinced that the UI that partner is weak suggests bidding over PASS with the given hand.

[bluejak]

I do not see what difference it makes what 2♥ shows.

 

Surely, all that matters is whether pass is an LA, and whether bidding is suggested over passing by the UI?

 

Incidentally, I am not particularly convinced that 2♥ is random when partner must pass once. When you make a pre-emptive bid the opposition often do not pass, and so frequently partner will get a chance for a second round bid. Are you sure you want him bidding 4♥ [for example] on the second round when you have elected to open a pile of nothing? I think we must remember that a one-round pass opposite a weak hand is completely different from passing throughout.

[Codo]

What I honestly do not understand:

 

If we have to pass as long as pass is a LA, why is this not stated in the laws?

 

I thought that the penalty for partners pass out of turn is that he must pass next turn. So, I have to make a descission at my first round of bidding.

So, if the lawmakers will force me not to psych, why didn't they write it in the laws?

Before I read this threat, I had never seen anything wrong with the 2 ♥ bid.

[RMB1]

What I honestly do not understand:

 

If we have to pass as long as pass is a LA, why is this not stated in the laws?

It is stated in the laws: it is in Law 16 not in Laws 28/29/30 for Pass out of rotation.

 

Law 16D says partner's withdrawn Pass out of rotation is unauthorised information.

 

Law 16B says you must pass if Pass is a logical alternative and other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass by the Pass out of rotation.