Adjust ? and if so to what ?

[Cyberyeti]

I posted the following thread to get some initial opinions, and will now give the full facts as I understand them.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/43968-wouldnt-have-started-from-here/

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s42haqjt872da93c6]133|100[/hv]

 

Dealer S EW vul IMPS NS are a husband/wife pair who've played for the county A team for many years (although not sure how long they've played a multi for).

 

Partner opens 2♦ multi (Weak 2 5-9 6 hearts or spades, Acol 2 any suit 8 playing tricks, strong balanced (21-22?)

 

You bid 4♥ intended as to play opposite a weak 2 in spades but alerted by partner who took it as pass/correct and forgot you don't alert above 3N

 

Partner bids 4♠ and you now strongly suspect he's got a weak 2 in spades and pass.

 

EW asked what 4♠ meant if 4♥ hadn't been alerted. NS said it had never come up, but agreed when it was suggested by EW that this is probably how you bid a strong 2 in spades. N then said she had no way of satisfactorily investigating a slam, so would have passed 4♠ if she knew it showed a strong 2. EW expressed their doubts and said there could easily be 15 or more on top and surely the 5 level would be safe, so asked for a ruling.

 

I think they're still arguing whether 4♥ is to play or pass/correct.

 

Now what ?

[blackshoe]

Is the auction over (i.e., have there been three passes)?

[Cyberyeti]

Is the auction over (i.e., have there been three passes)?

Yes, it wasn't apparent anything more than the dodgy alert (because it was above 3N) was wrong until the lead was face down and NS started arguing about the alert and whether 4♥ was to play or p/c.

[RMB1]

Yes, it wasn't apparent anything more than the dodgy alert (because it was above 3N) was wrong until the lead was face down and NS started arguing about the alert and whether 4♥ was to play or p/c.

If there is misinformation there would still be time to re-open the auction as the opening lead has not been faced. But there isn't any misinformation, as no-one asked for an explanation.

 

What does the UI (the mistaken alert) suggest, other than that opener does not know the regulations?

[gordontd]

What does the UI (the mistaken alert) suggest, other than that opener does not know the regulations?

It also suggests that partner doesn't think 4♥ is just to play.

[Cyberyeti]

If there is misinformation there would still be time to re-open the auction as the opening lead has not been faced. But there isn't any misinformation, as no-one asked for an explanation.

 

What does the UI (the mistaken alert) suggest, other than that opener does not know the regulations?

The auction isn't going anywhere if it is reopened, the issue is whether the auction should be going above 4♠ in which case a red card will land.

 

And agree with gordon, 4♥ alerted rather suggests partner has taken this as p/c rather than to play and bid 4♠ with a weak 2 where without the alert it's a strong 2.

[jallerton]

We would need more information before making a ruling.

 

What were the other three hands?

 

What would a 2♠ opening be for this pair?

 

If Opener can really have an "Acol 2" in spades and open 2♦ what sort of hands qualify? If they have to bid 2♦-2♥-3♠ on all such hands, does that mean they can't have a 2-suiter?

[Cyberyeti]

We would need more information before making a ruling.

 

What were the other three hands?

 

What would a 2♠ opening be for this pair?

 

If Opener can really have an "Acol 2" in spades and open 2♦ what sort of hands qualify? If they have to bid 2♦-2♥-3♠ on all such hands, does that mean they can't have a 2-suiter?

The full hand is this:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq8653h93d8654c3&w=skjth6dkqt2cjt982&n=s42haqjt872da93c6&e=s97hk54dj7cakq754]399|300[/hv]

 

2♠ not 100% sure but I suspect lucas 5-4/5-5

 

I presume they do have to bid 3♠ with that but I'm guessing, I have no knowledge if it has to be one suited, but it would seem sensible.

 

4♠ went -3 undoubled. I will hit 5♠ as W (I very nearly hit 4 on the body language) and partner will hit 5♥ or more as the auction will almost certainly make it clear to him a wheel has come off.

[Trecar]

Like RMB1, I wonder what the alert does suggest. If no particular course of action it is difficult to meet the requirements to adjust. I also agree with GordonTD that North is clearly warned that they are not on the same wavelength, thus might he have underbid? Forgetting system is not a crime per se, but a pair of this standard should not be alerting over 3NT, thus a disciplinary penalty would both reinforce their need to comply with the rules, and encourage them to play a system that is coomon and understood by them both.

[blackshoe]

I do not think a disciplinary penalty (Law 91) is appropriate here. A procedural penalty perhaps, but not a DP.

 

I do not see cause for adjustment here.

[RMB1]

Like RMB1, I wonder what the alert does suggest.

 

Mine was meant to be a more open question: certainly we must determine what the alert suggests ---- but I agree that it suggests that opener does not think 4♥ is to play.

 

My real difficulty is determining if there are logical alternatives to Pass. I think that a very large proportion of people faced with this auction would Pass because the odds are that partner has a weak two in spades (and has either forgotten the system or thinks he can pull 4♥ with an unsuitable hand). They might well assume that a strong two in spades would not risk 4♠ because it might sound like contract correction.

 

It would be difficult to find peers of NS with the same agreements and level of confidence in their agreements. So conducting a poll would be fraught.

[Cyberyeti]

Mine was meant to be a more open question: certainly we must determine what the alert suggests ---- but I agree that it suggests that opener does not think 4♥ is to play.

 

My real difficulty is determining if there are logical alternatives to Pass. I think that a very large proportion of people faced with this auction would Pass because the odds are that partner has a weak two in spades (and has either forgotten the system or thinks he can pull 4♥ with an unsuitable hand). They might well assume that a strong two in spades would not risk 4♠ because it might sound like contract correction.

 

It would be difficult to find peers of NS with the same agreements and level of confidence in their agreements. So conducting a poll would be fraught.

This post really disturbs me, consider it from south's point of view ...

 

OK, I have no idea if this is pass/correct or a load of hearts. If I alert this and then bid 4♠, partner will know what's going on and pass, and it's pretty difficult for opps to X if I'm wrong ...

 

Now I'm not saying this IS what happened (and knowing the people I'm sure it's not), but does it not come into Probst cheat territory.

 

This is a pair to whom it should be second nature not to alert a suit bid above 3N, so I don't know what happened.

 

The hand is near unbiddable if you have to bid anything other than 4♠/5♣/5♦ with the strong 2 opposite what might conceivably be QJ109xxxx and out or a better hand like this. It was made pretty clear by the pair themselves that a weak 2 should not be pulling a 4♥ to play.

[blackshoe]

If it's difficult for us to figure out if there are LAs, how much easier do you expect it to be for a confused player at the table?

[dburn]

I do not think a disciplinary penalty (Law 91) is appropriate here. A procedural penalty perhaps, but not a DP.

 

I do not see cause for adjustment here.

I can see plenty. The opening bidder, by alerting and then bidding 4♠, illegally informed partner that he had a weak two bid in spades and not a strong two bid in spades. If I had responder's hand and partner showed a strong two bid in spades, I would bid a slam (and so would almost anyone). The fact that I have to guess which slam to bid, because our methods appear to have deprived us of room to investigate, might encourage us to adopt different methods in the future. But in the present, I cannot pass four spades without cheating.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I'm merely as confused as the players appear to have been at the table. IAC, I don't think we ought to be rolling out the "cheater!" card.

[RMB1]

This post really disturbs me, consider it from south's point of view ...

 

I guess that's disappointing. I've made rulings you disagree with before, but I'm sorry if such rulings disturb you. To adjust I need to imagine there are peers of North who would bid without the alert, and I can't.

 

Yes a probst cheat might alert, some cheats will not be caught by Law 16.

 

Many players still alert above 3NT, especially responses to 1suit. Some would alert 4♥ and proudly explain "to play", out of relief that they have remembered their agreements. Perhaps the agreement "natural, to play" in a potential pass-or-correct suit is sufficiently "potentially unexpected" to require an alert (if it were not above 3NT).

 

It's OK. You can always appeal and dburn will give you 6♠X off lots.

[Cyberyeti]

I guess that's disappointing. I've made rulings you disagree with before, but I'm sorry if such rulings disturb you.

 

I can't recall too many I've disagreed with, and where that's occurred, my suspicion is they've been ones where I'm not sure.

 

Yes a probst cheat might alert, some cheats will not be caught by Law 16.

 

Many players still alert above 3NT

 

I haven't seen an alert above 3N for about 3 or 4 years, I've seen obvious "near alerts" and done them.

 

I was under the impression that the existence of the Probst cheat situation was sufficient to be ruled against.

 

(From Frances's post in the L&E blog on the EBU website)http://ebulaws.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html

 

I want to make one other, slightly tangential, point.TD John Probst sometimes uses the concept of the "Probst Cheat" to explain rulings: as a very general rule, if a pair take actions that a cheat would take, and they gain from them, then for the Laws to work at all they must get ruled against. This is not a suggestion that the pair in question really were unethical, but rather that the ruling has to be this way or else cheats would prosper. Is it fair that the innocent may get ruled against in order to ensure the guilty don't gain? Maybe not, but one way to avoid that is, if possible, to avoid giving partner these difficult problems in the first place. Don't think for ages then pass when partner might have a problem himself, and don't forget the system (easier said than done, of course) - then partner won't be under any constraints.

 

It's OK. You can always appeal and dburn will give you 6♠X off lots.

 

My "at the time" view of the situation was pretty much summed up by what David Burn said, although I thought they might get out at the 5 level doubled. There was also a sense in the defence that "they were only 50s" and not too much care was taken, we could have taken 4S -5 and might have done so with a double to concentrate the mind.

[phil_20686]

If they are a reasonable pair they probably have a way to make a forcing bid in hearts rather than jumping to 4!H. If that is true then the jump to 4!H should show a 7(+) card suit in a weak-ish hand, and thus there are plenty of acol twos that would have no slam ambition. If I had AKQxxx - Axx KQxx and partner bid 4!H I would correct to 4!s and expect this to be NF. If I were to make a slam try then I would make in in hearts by bidding 4N or 5m. Partner has announced with 4!H that his hand would be fairly useless outside of hearts, and has almost certainly denied 3 spades, so the best I can open for is something like xx AKJxxxxx Kx xx.

 

The point is this, if partner does have a strong two in spades he must have a singleton heart or he would make a slam try in hearts. You would never bid 4!s here with a strong two in spades unless you were also short in hearts, in which case the hand is a misfit and its clear for south to pass. FWIW, I would also expect to be able to correct to 4!s when partner has a weak two in spades and a heart void, or a 7 card spade suit, which while uncommon in (my) wk twos, are not impossibly so.

[Cyberyeti]

If they are a reasonable pair they probably have a way to make a forcing bid in hearts rather than jumping to 4!H. If that is true then the jump to 4!H should show a 7(+) card suit in a weak-ish hand, and thus there are plenty of acol twos that would have no slam ambition. If I had AKQxxx - Axx KQxx and partner bid 4!H I would correct to 4!s and expect this to be NF. If I were to make a slam try then I would make in in hearts by bidding 4N or 5m. Partner has announced with 4!H that his hand would be fairly useless outside of hearts, and has almost certainly denied 3 spades, so the best I can open for is something like xx AKJxxxxx Kx xx.

 

The point is this, if partner does have a strong two in spades he must have a singleton heart or he would make a slam try in hearts. You would never bid 4!s here with a strong two in spades unless you were also short in hearts, in which case the hand is a misfit and its clear for south to pass. FWIW, I would also expect to be able to correct to 4!s when partner has a weak two in spades and a heart void, or a 7 card spade suit, which while uncommon in (my) wk twos, are not impossibly so.

I would only quote here a strong 2 in spades my partner actually held in that same session of bridge (OK I reversed the hearts and clubs).

 

AKQ8xx, x, KJx, AKx

 

I certainly want to be in 6♥ or 6♠ opposite that with the actual hand held.

 

4♥ is a very wide ranging preemptive bid opposite 2♦, simply made on the assumption that partner has the weak 2, much like a 3rd seat G/R opener that can be a complete pile or a real hand but with no slam ambitions. Partner will not thank you for correcting on a weak 2 if he does have QJT to 8 or 9 and out.

[olegru]

Perhaps I'm merely as confused as the players appear to have been at the table. IAC, I don't think we ought to be rolling out the "cheater!" card.

 

There is no "C"-words in this discussion, just UI :)

 

1. Was any deviation of correct procedure here? – Clearly it was. South gave alert for not-alertable bid.

2. Could North receive any UI due to incorrect procedure? - Surely he could. Undiscussed 4 spades by their system could be strong (strong 2 in spades or cue-bid on agreed H with strong balanced hand), alert and explanation rule out these possibilities.

3. Did this UI suggest any action? – Yes, of cause. It strongly suggested pass.

4. Did North have any LA to pass? – Guess so. I would never pass 4 spades here.

5. Were EW damaged? – Yes they were.

 

How could we not adjust the score? What to adjust is another question.

[jallerton]

Mine was meant to be a more open question: certainly we must determine what the alert suggests ---- but I agree that it suggests that opener does not think 4♥ is to play.

 

My real difficulty is determining if there are logical alternatives to Pass. I think that a very large proportion of people faced with this auction would Pass because the odds are that partner has a weak two in spades (and has either forgotten the system or thinks he can pull 4♥ with an unsuitable hand). They might well assume that a strong two in spades would not risk 4♠ because it might sound like contract correction.

 

It would be difficult to find peers of NS with the same agreements and level of confidence in their agreements. So conducting a poll would be fraught.

 

The basic problem is that the overloaded North/South version of the Multi is totally unplayable, made even worse when the pair has not properly discussed the meaning of some of the responses.

 

Certainly many players in the North position would be not entirely sure what hand type would be shown by 4♠. In this case, the TD has to tread carefully. I would want North to explain the meaning of 4♥. "To play," he'll say. "To play opposite a weak two in spades?" I'll further enquire. Then I'll gague his reaction.

 

In practice, this is the sort of auction where there could be issues with tempo, especially if North is not in the habit of holding out the 'stop' card and/or East is not in the habit of waiting for the full 10 seconds. A fast 4♠ is more likely to deliver a weak two in spades that prefers 4♠ to 4♥, whilst a ponderous 4♠ gives sends the messgae "Why have you just pre-empted the auction? What on earth am I supposed to bid with an Acol 2 in spades here?"

[blackshoe]

There is no "C"-words in this discussion, just UI :)

 

Apparently you didn't read the same posts I did. B) Aside from that, I don't share your certainty as to the TD's correct action.

[Cyberyeti]

This is a mixture of memory and guesswork, so may be wrong.

 

I think this pair (who've played together for 20+ years) used to play either benji or a weak 2/strong bal only multi.

 

I think they may not have discussed the ramifications of adding the strong 2 (meaning you're not guaranteed doubleton support in this sequence).

 

They seemed pretty convinced that the 4♥ to play bid is one you shouldn't pull with the weak 2.

[olegru]

Apparently you didn't read the same posts I did. B) Aside from that, I don't share your certainty as to the TD's correct action.

Maybe I did not :) . Actualy, I still did not find post you are referring to.

But as far as directors decision concern we should completely ignore all discussion about cheating and think solely in terms of UI and LA.

Sure you do not have to share my opinion about the TD's correct action. But could you share there you see gap in applied logic?

[blackshoe]

Maybe I did not :) . Actualy, I still did not find post you are referring to.

But as far as directors decision concern we should completely ignore all discussion about cheating and think solely in terms of UI and LA.

Sure you do not have to share my opinion about the TD's correct action. But could you share there you see gap in applied logic?

 

Agree that any ruling should be based on consideration of UI and LAs. My main uncertainty, at the moment, is what the UI suggests. Posts from others seem to suggest they share the concern (or come to a different conclusion than yours, though I think there are some on both sides).