Crockfords Final 2 (EBU)

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa54ht85d4cjt9432&w=skj7hkj94dt95cak8&n=sqt63ha7daj872c65&e=s982hq632dkq63cq7&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1dp1np2dppdp2hppp]399|300[/hv]

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs -> VPs

1♦ was Precision, 11-16 hcp, no 5cM, minimum one diamond

1NT showed 6-10 hcp, no 4cM

Result: 2♥(E)-1, NS+100

 

I was called at the end of play. East had asked questions about the auction before bidding 2♥, and had been told that the 2♦ rebid promised a six-card diamond suit. He had been considering passing the double, but had been swayed by the fact that NS must have at least seven diamonds between them; had he known North might have only five he would have been more likely to pass.

 

NS both agreed that the rebid showed six. I asked North why he had bid it with only five, and he said he had just "taken a view". I asked South what she would have done. She shrugged and said she would probably have passed. She said she expected North to have six diamonds.

 

How would you rule?

[lamford]

How would you rule?

From my limited knowledge of Precision, I would expect six diamonds here, so North-South's explanation was likely to have been correct. Here I agree with recording the hand, but letting the result stand.

[AlexJonson]

Judging by this hand, I would much prefer that:

 

a) The 1NT response was described as 4 or 5-10 (whichever it is)

b) The 2D rebid was described as 5+, but normally 6+

 

I can't see anything strange about the NS hands to explain their 'deviations'.

 

Whether East would have bid differently, I don't know, but I guess he gets the

benefit of the doubt(?).

[mycroft]

The other key is: has north "taken [this kind of] view" before with south? If so, South might start expecting it, at which point it needs to be disclosed. I'd prefer (playing a similar system) "shows 6; we've been known to cheat on that once or twice" to "5+, normally 6" - to me that implies more like 10% of cases than 1%.

 

You can ask the question - I usually trust the answers. But the point of recording the hand is to have evidence in case they forget, or "forget".

 

The chance of East passing this one is minimal, though. There's nothing in this auction specifically Precision - Standard would be the same, with only possibly the chance of it being a bad 16. The only benefit of Precision is that South is on average going to have (slightly) more diamonds for this auction, as more hands will bid 1NT (rather than a diamond raise) opposite a "could be 1" diamond than a "4 unless 4=4=3=2" diamond (or even a "4+" diamond).

[bluejak]

It just looks like a bad bid by North that gave E/W a chance which they failed to take.

[Jeremy69A]

No infraction. No adjustment.By all means record it.

[VixTD]

It just looks like a bad bid by North that gave E/W a chance which they failed to take.

If North is going to make this kind of bad bid a significant proportion of the time, shouldn't their opponents be warned about this so that they have a chance to take advantage of it?

 

I thought that NS had inadequately disclosed their methods, and that they should mention the possibility that the 2♦ rebid could be made on a five-card suit, even if this is a rare occurrence. However, I ruled that there had been no damage in this case, as a poll of players revealed an overwhelming vote for bidding 2♥.

[bluejak]

One swallow does not make a summer. If they play the rebid as showing six, one occasion where they bid it on five does not change that.

[VixTD]

One swallow does not make a summer. If they play the rebid as showing six, one occasion where they bid it on five does not change that.

Yes, but how do you know this is one occasion? Of course it's possible, but this looks like a very ordinary hand for the bidding so far, and if they're going to rebid 2♦ on this one "on a whim", I think they're quite likely to do it on others.

[gnasher]

Yes, but how do you know this is one occasion?

Because they said it was?

[AlexJonson]

Because they said it was?

 

The impication, Gnasher, is that they 'say so' and that determines the ruling.

 

I know you mean we should believe what people say, but in every walk of life

this may be a dubious strategy, and in an adversarial situation (such as Bridge), an exceptionally poor strategy.

[blackshoe]

Yes, but how do you know this is one occasion? Of course it's possible, but this looks like a very ordinary hand for the bidding so far, and if they're going to rebid 2♦ on this one "on a whim", I think they're quite likely to do it on others.

 

You rule on the evidence available, not on supposition. If you ask them, and they say he has a habit of doing it, that's one thing. If they say he does not, it's quite another to rule that he does. Of course, if you as TD have reason to believe they're, what's the English expression? Oh yes, "telling porkies", well, that's evidence too, isn't it?