Is it Gerber?

[mjj29]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq8543hkt2dt42ca8&w=sa72hdj8ckjt97642&e=s6h9876543da965c5&s=skjt9haqjdkq73cq3]399|300|Scoring: MP

P-3♥-X-4♣

4S-4N-5S[/hv]

The auction may look somewhat sensible, until you hear that 4C was alerted (yes, it shouldn't have been, yes it was), and when it gets to South he's told that 4C is gerber (!) and that 4NT shows no aces (!!).

 

5S goes off and I'm duly called to the table by South who insists that if he knows that East has an Ace he'll double and not bid 5S.

 

Having talked to the pair in question I was satisfied that they were playing Gerber there ("4C is _always_ Gerber", both partners were adamant, no, of course there's not a convention card) and the correct description of 4NT is "Undiscussed" ("We've never had any interference before").

 

Assuming you agree with my determination of the correct explanations, opinions on a ruling based on MI, UI or otherwise? I'm also interested in result if you don't agree, but that's the primary question.

[655321]

It seems odd that it would make any difference to South's bidding whether or not East had an Ace, but whatever.

 

The fun question for me is: If South is allowed to double instead, would West not now bid 5♣, and would East not now answer number of Kings?

[jeremy69]

Having talked to the pair in question I was satisfied that they were playing Gerber

 

I can believe that East thought it was Gerber, after all, there was an alert even if there should not have been. It is clear to me, however, that at the point where West bid 4C he or she did not consider this Gerber so in the absence of any "proof" in the shape of a convention card I would rule misinformation not misbid.

I think I would double 4NT as South whatever it meant but I don't think 5S is so bad as to deny redress. I don't see that South has been affected in the bidding by the misinformation. If he thought that West had clubs then presumably East had something of a fit to produce the 4NT bid making 5S more likely to make. Unless he could produce a stunning argument as to why he would have doubled with different information (i.e one that I can't fathom) I would not adjust the score.

[helene_t]

The explanation is too stupid to believe, and also it is far from clear that there is damage.

 

If I am in a bad mood I might give a split score but I think table result is fine. Talk to EW afterwards, explaining that when the correct explanation is "no agreement", they must say just that.

[campboy]

I can't imagine that South believed 4♣ was intended as Gerber. Presumably he suspected that either the explanation was wrong or West had misbid with a long club suit. That doesn't change the fact that he has AI that East thought it was Gerber, and he is entitled to know what agreements they have (and whether they have any) about interference over Gerber.

 

It is not unreasonable on what South has been told to think that West has a poor hand with lots of clubs and East has no defensive tricks, so 5♠ is likely to make and 5♣x is unlikely to be better (assuming it has not occurred to him that 5♣ might be taken as a king-ask). On the other hand, if he thinks East has an ace then it becomes much less likely that 5♠ is making; why should there not be two clubs and another ace -- or club, club ruff, ace -- off the top? If he is told "no agreement", of course, his thoughts will be somewhere in-between.

[Trinidad]

The explanation is too stupid to believe.

There is this convention called PKCG (Preempt Keycard Gerber): After a preemptive opening, 4♣ asks for keycards. The responses are:

 

4♦: 0 keys

4♥: 1, no Q

4♠: 1 + Q

4NT: 2, no Q

5♣: 2 + Q

 

Whether it should apply after a double, is an entirely different question. But I can easily imagine a pair that plays PKCG without discussing what to do after a double. In fact, I play PKCG with one partner and haven't specifically discussed it, which means that for us 4♣ would indeed be PKCG.

 

But I would never claim that I am not stupid. :P

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Yes, but that 4NT shows zero aces is too stupid to believe.

[Trinidad]

Yes, but that 4NT shows zero aces is too stupid to believe.

I admit that that doesn't sound very smart.

 

But then again, if you have never heard of DOPI, DEPO, PODI, DOPE and all other possible variations that may be around, you may well reason that step 1 shows 0 aces. And if you don't realize that pass (or Dbl) could be step 1, then 4NT has to be it...

 

Already just the fact that the 4NT bidder bid it with one ace shows that EW had never heard of these nice interference conventions. (He seems to have reasoned: Pass =0, 4NT =1,...).

 

All very reasonable for a pair that doesn't have a lot of explicit agreements. So while definitely not smart :P, I wouldn't label this stupid. Remember that bridge players come in different sizes.

 

Rik

[MFA]

5S goes off and I'm duly called to the table by South who insists that if he knows that East has an Ace he'll double and not bid 5S.

I don't buy south's statement. I don't see why it should make any difference. I would rule result stands.

[bid_em_up]

The auction may look somewhat sensible, until you hear that 4C was alerted (yes, it shouldn't have been, yes it was), and when it gets to South he's told that 4C is gerber (!) and that 4NT shows no aces (!!).

 

.....

 

Assuming you agree with my determination of the correct explanations, opinions on a ruling based on MI, UI or otherwise? I'm also interested in result if you don't agree, but that's the primary question.

I don't think I would be able to stop laughing long enough to actually make a ruling.

[Mbodell]

5S goes off and I'm duly called to the table by South who insists that if he knows that East has an Ace he'll double and not bid 5S.

I don't buy south's statement. I don't see why it should make any difference. I would rule result stands.

Shouldn't we poll players? I mean there is an argument that if you know the preempter has no aces you are more likely to make, where as if you don't know that (or know the preempter does have an ace) you are less sure to make and might take your plus score. You don't expect a heart ruff (the partner did bid gerber after all). I'm not saying I'm convinced, but it isn't a "wtp, you bid 5♠ so you lose!" situation either.

[mjj29]

Shouldn't we poll players? I mean there is an argument that if you know the preempter has no aces you are more likely to make, where as if you don't know that (or know the preempter does have an ace) you are less sure to make and might take your plus score. You don't expect a heart ruff (the partner did bid gerber after all). I'm not saying I'm convinced, but it isn't a "wtp, you bid 5♠ so you lose!" situation either.

I did a poll, I couldn't find anyone who thought the meaning of 4NT made any difference (and only one person who would even consider 5S)

[bluejak]

We do not need proof, Jeremy: compelling evidence is what TDs rule on. If the TD is convinced they were playing "4♣ is always Gerber" as many pairs do, then it is a reasonable ruling that they were playing Gerber.

 

Several of the replies seem to me to suggest a lack of understanding [and perhaps sympathy] of the way poor players play the game. I am willing to bet that South was of the same calibre as East and West. I think the posters who do not really believe what happened here might like to reconsider without thinking about how they or their peers play.

[JoAnneM]

This is off topic but I once had a tournament director tell me he had to go out in the hall, stop laughing, and then come back and give a ruling at our table. We were playing natural overcalls against nt and I had two 2-card suits and bid one of them. Opponent wanted an adjustment because I had a double suited hand.

[jeremy69]

We do not need proof, Jeremy:

 

Perhaps that is why I put it in inverted commas!

 

If the TD is convinced they were playing "4♣ is always Gerber" as many pairs do, then it is a reasonable ruling that they were playing Gerber.

 

He should not be convinced here because as I've already said West did not consider it Gerber when he/she bid it. That is the only available evidence.

 

Several of the replies seem to me to suggest a lack of understanding [and perhaps sympathy] of the way poor players play the game.

 

Poor players may not be held to the same standards as better ones but that does not mean they should be able to invent spurious reasons as to why they might have doubled after the event. It seems to me that what was being said was "Of course I would have doubled not bid 5S because I now know that is right" If, of course the TD can find a dozen or so bad players who would all double then I can live with the decision being different but he might have to go to Ursa Major to do so. :)

[mjj29]

He should not be convinced here because as I've already said West did not consider it Gerber when he/she bid it. That is the only available evidence.

What about the fact that East alerted it and described it as Gerber? And that then West gave the answer 'no aces', which is only correct if there agreement is that it is Gerber?

[MFA]

Shouldn't we poll players?  I mean there is an argument that if you know the preempter has no aces you are more likely to make, where as if you don't know that (or know the preempter does have an ace) you are less sure to make and might take your plus score.  You don't expect a heart ruff (the partner did bid gerber after all).  I'm not saying I'm convinced, but it isn't a "wtp, you bid 5♠ so you lose!" situation either.

I did a poll, I couldn't find anyone who thought the meaning of 4NT made any difference (and only one person who would even consider 5S)

A poll is not ideal here. The question to the players tends to be too complicated, I think. "In this situation, would it make a difference for your bid if you are told A or B?".

It's almost like asking each of them to make a complete ruling.

 

Polls are better when it's all about determining locigal alternatives, where we could just ask: "What would you have bid here?".

[jeremy69]

What about the fact that East alerted it and described it as Gerber? And that then West gave the answer 'no aces', which is only correct if there agreement is that it is Gerber?

 

You don't think it possible that West was using the UI arising from the illicit alert. If you had to judge whether the partnership agreement was that 4C was Gerber and you had the alert and the bid to help you decide I thin it clear that West did not think it was Gerber when he bid it (after al look at his hand) and wished to cover his confusion by agreeing with partner once he knew how it was taken. I think you rather naive if you take West at face value here.

[campboy]

Or perhaps he realised that partner was right and he had misbid.

 

Of course in general one does not automatically believe a claim of misbid, but here they would have to have significantly more sophisticated agreements than they claim for 4♣ to not be Gerber.

 

Anyway, it is the explanation of 4NT that NS are claiming damage from, not that of 4♣; EW admit that the former was wrong.

[mjj29]

What about the fact that East alerted it and described it as Gerber? And that then West gave the answer 'no aces', which is only correct if there agreement is that it is Gerber?

 

You don't think it possible that West was using the UI arising from the illicit alert. If you had to judge whether the partnership agreement was that 4C was Gerber and you had the alert and the bid to help you decide I thin it clear that West did not think it was Gerber when he bid it (after al look at his hand) and wished to cover his confusion by agreeing with partner once he knew how it was taken. I think you rather naive if you take West at face value here.

Sure, I'm merely pointing out that there is _some_ evidence that they play it is Gerber - at least that when West bid 4C East alerted it and said it's Gerber. That's at least as strong as the fact that West had an 8 card club suit.

[StevenG]

In these partnerships there are only ever two possible agreements:-

1) 4♣ is always Gerber

2) 4♣ is always Gerber, unless it obviously isn't

West was playing the latter, East may or may not have been playing the former.