Year End Congress 2

[mjj29]

Not my ruling this time, but interesting.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq3hkqj762dk9c64&w=sj84h5dt43cqjt852&n=stht943daqj652ck3&e=sk97652ha8d87ca97&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h2c3s(No%20alert)p(Asked%20about%203S%20-%3E%20told%20natural+weak)4sp5hdppp]399|300|Result: 11 tricks, Spade lead[/hv]

 

The 3S was initially not alerted. At East's turn to call he asked about 3S, was told it was "Natural and preemptive" (which, the eagle-eyed among you will note, is alertable in the EBU. It was meant as a splinter) and then passed. The auction continued to 5H doubled, which on the lead of a spade (to the hand that asked about 3S) rather than the normal club made 11 tricks. East/West then called the director to point out the possible unauthorised information from the explanation.

 

I'll post the ruling that was eventually reached later.

[pran]

Not my ruling this time, but interesting.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq3hkqj762dk9c64&w=sj84h5dt43cqjt852&n=stht943daqj652ck3&e=sk97652ha8d87ca97&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h2c3s(No%20alert)p(Asked%20about%203S%20-%3E%20told%20natural+weak)4sp5hdppp]399|300|Result: 11 tricks, Spade lead[/hv]

 

The 3S was initially not alerted. At East's turn to call he asked about 3S, was told it was "Natural and preemptive" (which, the eagle-eyed among you will note, is alertable in the EBU. It was meant as a splinter) and then passed. The auction continued to 5H doubled, which on the lead of a spade (to the hand that asked about 3S) rather than the normal club made 11 tricks. East/West then called the director to point out the possible unauthorised information from the explanation.

 

I'll post the ruling that was eventually reached later.

I assume the actual agreements were established? Why not let us know?

[mjj29]

I assume the actual agreements were established? Why not let us know?

The TD ruled on the basis of UI alone and not MI, so lets assume misbid and not misexplanation (It wasn't my ruling)

 

Matt

[campboy]

4NT is a logical alternative to 5♥, and 5♥ is suggested. It is not clear what will happen after 4NT, though, as it doesn't make much sense. I would need to ask N/S various silly details about their methods here, but I imagine that 6♥x is a likely spot without the infraction. If they play 3014 RKCB, say, and South decided to respond normally assuming North misbid with a strong spade hand, then it would continue 5♦ (1 or 4, for spades), 5♥ (I know you don't have 4 as you didn't cue clubs, let's try to play here), 6♦ (I have the ♠Q and the ♦K). Let's not forget to tell West off for his lead.

[blackshoe]

If it doesn't make sense, how is it a logical alternative?

[l milne]

Well, at least West seems to have got what he deserved with that lead.

[Trinidad]

If it doesn't make sense, how is it a logical alternative?

It is a logical alternative for North. The bid won't make any sense to South since a preempter will not start asking for aces (or compete in NT).

 

Rik

[pran]

The TD ruled on the basis of UI alone and not MI, so lets assume misbid and not misexplanation (It wasn't my ruling)

 

Matt

Then we must know how North should understand the 4♠ bid if South had alerted and explained the 3♠ bid as a Splinter variant (the way North apparently intended his bid). I would not know how to understand the 4♠ bid (unless my partner was a Dane familiar with Trelde asking bids)

[Cyberyeti]

♠

Then we must know how North should understand the 4♠ bid if South had alerted and explained the 3♠ bid as a Splinter variant (the way North apparently intended his bid). I would not know how to understand the 4♠ bid (unless my partner was a Dane familiar with Trelde asking bids)

Exactly, is 4♠ kickback without the UI ? First round cue in spades with no first round minor suit controls and slam interest ?

 

Axx, AKQJxx, Kx, xx would seem a perfectly plausible hand for the second case, in which case N with his K♣ over the bidder and excellent diamonds should be bidding 6♥. If 4♠ should be kickback, clearly N should be giving his 1 ace response and S will sign off in 5♠ forcing N to bid 6♥.

 

EW got exactly what they deserved for the spade lead, but should the result stand for them ? I'd be inclined to give both sides 6♥x-1 with a PP to EW for the lead.

[alphatango]

If 4♠ should be kickback, clearly N should be giving his 1 ace response and S will sign off in 5♠ forcing N to bid 6♥.

 

Will S sign off in 5♠? Or will they figure out what's happened after the theoretically weak hand bids again over 4♠?

[bluejak]

East has asked about 3♠ when it was not alerted, which provides UI to West. West has ignored a suit headed by QJT to lead a suit of Jxx which is the clearest use of UI I have come across in a long time.

 

Of course, we are not going to adjust on the basis of a club lead for N/S since the club lead is better for E/W so no damage. But the lead by West is such a dreadful one that i think we must consider a PP for West to teach him a lesson [or an explanation of UI principles if we consider West inexperienced].

[jallerton]

East has asked about 3♠ when it was not alerted, which provides UI to West. West has ignored a suit headed by QJT to lead a suit of Jxx which is the clearest use of UI I have come across in a long time.

 

Of course, we are not going to adjust on the basis of a club lead for N/S since the club lead is better for E/W so no damage. But the lead by West is such a dreadful one that i think we must consider a PP for West to teach him a lesson [or an explanation of UI principles if we consider West inexperienced].

 

Is West's lead a clearer use of UI than North's 5♥ bid?

[StevenG]

East has asked about 3♠ when it was not alerted, which provides UI to West. West has ignored a suit headed by QJT to lead a suit of Jxx which is the clearest use of UI I have come across in a long time.

 

I really cannot see how the UI demonstrably suggests a ♠ lead. On the bidding, East must be short in the suit.

[mycroft]

Two cases that I see:

 

- North realizes he made a mistake, and that South is right. But he still has to bid as 4S was responding to the splinter. 5H is clearly unauthorized panic, but what else can he do? Lots, as we see above, depending on what 4S would have been after 1H-3S(clearly a splinter)-4S. Respond to kickback, cue 5D (showing a (expected) working club card that isn't the Ace as well) to a 4S cue (first round first), 4NT (ick, but 4S *should* show the DK or a stiff) to the same 4S cue,...

 

However, if they play full on "first and second" cues, 5H is automatic. "don't have first or second round control in both minors? we're done."

 

- North was right, and South misinterpreted. Now we have to believe that North corrected before the opening lead, which makes West's spade lead stranger - but I do know that people lead the splinter suit for some strange reason. If North didn't correct, that's yet another problem.

 

So I can't say what would happen without N/S agreements. And this hand is a reminder to think about the followups and get that information at the table before going away to consult...

[mjj29]

So I can't say what would happen without N/S agreements. And this hand is a reminder to think about the followups and get that information at the table before going away to consult...

 

I don't have the full details of their agreements, suffice it to say that the TD determined that they should have reached 6H via some route or other (I didn't ask), so adjusted the NS score to 6HX-1 (50%) and 6HX-2 (50%). What took longer was working out what should happen if the use of UI by defence is considered a serious error unrelated to the infraction.

[RMB1]

What took longer was working out what should happen if the use of UI by defence is considered a serious error unrelated to the infraction.

See Use of unauthorised information is a serious error.

[blackshoe]

I don't think it's possible to consider "use of UI" as "unrelated to the infraction". Seems to me it is the infraction.

[RMB1]

I don't think it's possible to consider "use of UI" as "unrelated to the infraction". Seems to me it is the infraction.

Some are prepared to apply Law 12C1b when there has been a revoke by defenders following use of UI by the declaring side. (Revoking is listed as an example of a Serious Error in EBU Laws and Ethics Committee minutes 20 September 2009.) The revoke is an infraction but we treat it as a serious error unrelated to the infraction by the opponents, the use of UI.

[mfa1010]

I agree that making an illegal lead (due to UI) is a serious error.

 

I don't think it's possible to consider "use of UI" as "unrelated to the infraction". Seems to me it is the infraction.

There are two separate infractions in play here.

[bluejak]

Is West's lead a clearer use of UI than North's 5♥ bid?

Quite possibly not, but two wrongs never made a right.

 

:ph34r:

 

I really cannot see how the UI demonstrably suggests a ♠ lead. On the bidding, East must be short in the suit.

Not a chance! When 3♠ is not alerted, but East asks about it anyway, I would put a lot of money on East having a reasonable spade holding.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq3hkqj762dk9c64&w=sj84h5dt43cqjt852&n=stht943daqj652ck3&e=sk97652ha8d87ca97&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h2c3s(No%20alert)p(Asked%20about%203S%20-%3E%20told%20natural+weak)4sp5hdppp]399|300|Not my ruling this time, but interesting.

Result: 11 tricks, Spade lead

The 3S was initially not alerted. At East's turn to call he asked about 3S, was told it was "Natural and preemptive" (which, the eagle-eyed among you will note, is alertable in the EBU. It was meant as a splinter) and then passed. The auction continued to 5H doubled, which on the lead of a spade (to the hand that asked about 3S) rather than the normal club made 11 tricks. East/West then called the director to point out the possible unauthorised information from the explanation.

I'll post the ruling that was eventually reached later.[/hv]

East has asked about 3♠ when it was not alerted, which provides UI to West. West has ignored a suit headed by QJT to lead a suit of Jxx which is the clearest use of UI I have come across in a long time. Of course, we are not going to adjust on the basis of a club lead for N/S since the club lead is better for E/W so no damage. But the lead by West is such a dreadful one that i think we must consider a PP for West to teach him a lesson [or an explanation of UI principles if we consider West inexperienced].

Is West's lead a clearer use of UI than North's 5♥ bid?

Agree with jallerton. East-West are again victims of a legal double-whammy :( :(

 

Presumably the only legal meaning for North's unalerted 3♠ is "strong and natural". East has reason to doubt this. Commentators in these fora often admonish players for failure to protect themselves. When players protest "The inevitable UI may handicap partner", legal-experts reassure them that directors will be understanding about such law-induced damage. East masochistically complies with the rules. Here again, however, the result is a lose-lose situation for the victims :(

 

West has over-called on a four-count so defensive prospects are bleak. Ostensibly, North has a long spade suit and South has a natural raise. A likely reason for East's double of 5♥ is that he is ruffing spades. On the face of it, that is the best hope for the defence. UI from partner's question may cause West to distrust opponents' explanations but he is hamstrung by SEWOG legislation: A director may judge a non-spade lead to be wild and gambling :(

[paulg]

Agree with jallerton. East-West are again victims of a legal double-whammy :( :(

 

Presumably the only legal meaning for North's unalerted 3♠ is "strong and natural". East has reason to doubt this. Commentators in these fora often admonish players for failure to protect themselves. When players protest "The inevitable UI may handicap partner", legal-experts reassure them that directors will be understanding about such law-induced damage. East masochistically complies with the rules. Here again, however, the result is a lose-lose situation for the victims :(

 

West has over-called on a four-count so defensive prospects are bleak. Ostensibly, North has a long spade suit and South has a natural raise. A likely reason for East's double of 5♥ is that he is ruffing spades. On the face of it, that is the best hope for the defence. UI from partner's question may cause West to distrust opponents' explanations but he is hamstrung by SEWOG legislation: A director may judge a non-spade lead to be wild and gambling :(

I think your argument would be stronger if you avoided the SEWOG in the final element and focused on the constraints that the UI has created. Without partner's question, you may well lead a spade based on your argument (certainly hard to see that a club will work when partner has not raised) and they have a double fit. Indeed many play that a free double asks for dummy's first bid suit.

 

The UI tells you that the North hand is probably a splinter. Surely a spade lead can only set up a trick for the offence now and, therefore, leading a spade is carefully not taking advantage.

[jallerton]

I really cannot see how the UI demonstrably suggests a ♠ lead. On the bidding, East must be short in the suit.

 

The AI suggests that a spade lead is a bad idea. If one were allowed to take into account the UI (that partner potentially has length and strength in spades) in addition to the AI, a spade lead would still a bad idea.

 

However, the worry exists that West's line of thinking was simply "I'm leading partner's suit" without stopping to think whether leading "partner's suit" mIght be a good idea, let alone whether it might actually not be legal to conclude that partner's suit was spades. This means that the spade lead would appear to be a breach of Law 73C, even if it can be argued that Law 16A does not apply.

 

By the way, I don't think that West's lead should be considered a "serious error" akin to a revoke, because revokes are (usually) accidental infractions. Here the apparent "use of UI" is quite deliberate. I'd far rather call the deliberate decision to make a lead "wild" and/or "gambling" and to split the score on that basis.

[nige1]

I think your argument would be stronger if you avoided the SEWOG in the final element and focused on the constraints that the UI has created. Without partner's question, you may well lead a spade based on your argument (certainly hard to see that a club will work when partner has not raised) and they have a double fit. Indeed many play that a free double asks for dummy's first bid suit. The UI tells you that the North hand is probably a splinter. Surely a spade lead can only set up a trick for the offence now and, therefore, leading a spade is carefully not taking advantage.

Good point Paul and I agree,

[Finch]

Agree with jallerton. East-West are again victims of a legal double-whammy :( :(

 

Presumably the only legal meaning for North's unalerted 3♠ is "strong and natural". East has reason to doubt this. Commentators in these fora often admonish players for failure to protect themselves. When players protest "The inevitable UI may handicap partner", legal-experts reassure them that directors will be understanding about such law-induced damage. East masochistically complies with the rules. Here again, however, the result is a lose-lose situation for the victims :(

 

West has over-called on a four-count so defensive prospects are bleak. Ostensibly, North has a long spade suit and South has a natural raise. A likely reason for East's double of 5♥ is that he is ruffing spades. On the face of it, that is the best hope for the defence. UI from partner's question may cause West to distrust opponents' explanations but he is hamstrung by SEWOG legislation: A director may judge a non-spade lead to be wild and gambling :(

 

I disagree with nearly all of this.

The auction as it stands makes no sense, and in any case North will have corrected the lack-of-alert of 3S before the opening lead, so West does in fact have AI that dummy has short spades, declarer has spade length and partner has spade stuff.

As has already been pointed out, a spade lead is a poor idea either way (when I was given this as a lead problem I couldn't decide between the minor suits). That's why there is so much enthusiasm for penalising West for his lead, because it smells strongly of "I know partner has spades from the question so I'm going to lead one rather than think about the auction".

 

West may have had good arguments for leading a spade, but we haven't been told what they were.

 

And in any case, East hasn't "masochistically" obeyed any rules. He doesn't want a spade lead. He wants a club lead.