Misinformation

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj642h8763dq3c53&n=sak3h54dk42cakqt9&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1c(16+%20any)p1d(0-7%20any)d2cp2sp3sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Precision Auction.

 

Club Teams - IMPs

 

Experienced EW but only an occasional partnership - couple of tournaments and a handful of club sessions per year as partner.

 

NS less experienced but more regular partnership mostly based on club sessions

 

Double was intended as diamonds.

 

The explanation given was a doubtful "I think its for the majors".

 

Later EW claimed that they had no agreement. This particular auction was not on their system card.

 

Have NS been damaged?

 

Personally I felt that north should have bid game. The north hand is a very powerful 19 hcp - at a different table I opened 2NT and I virtually never upgrade into a 20-22 range. So I felt that 2♣ followed by an invitational 3♠ opposite a partner who freely bid 2♠ caused the bad result rather than any affect from the misinformation.

[iviehoff]

Do N/S claim that they would have done something different given the explanation "No agreement"?

[gordontd]

Do N/S claim that they would have done something different given the explanation "No agreement"?

I think one would be less likely to bid game in a major with the explanation that one of the opponents has shown the majors, than with the explanation of "no agreement" or "I don't know".

[mycroft]

Well, with a small spade for the ♠J South's auction would be the same, and 4♠ would go down (losing the two hearts, the DA and JT85 offside). So while I can see bidding 4♠ myself with that great hand as North, and would do it myself, even into the known break, it certainly makes for discouragement.

 

Partner almost certainly won't have ♦A+, ♠QJxxx; Partner's heart honours should he have them are useless (if secondary) or finessable (if the K, if East gets in, say with the ♦A); I don't know if ♥K, ♦A is a positive in this partnership or not; if it is, he can't have it - and now East probably *will* get in with the ♦A.

 

So basically we're looking for this hand, or QT9xx to pick up the break, or no wasted values in hearts.

 

If we can say that 3-2 spades is 50% or better instead of about zero, it certainly makes life better for bidding game.

 

The question probably isn't "is it easier to bid game with 'no agreement'" - it clearly is - but "should they have bid it anyway" - which I think I'm leaning towards with my arguments.

[gordontd]

The question probably isn't "is it easier to bid game with 'no agreement'" - it clearly is - but "should they have bid it anyway"

On the contrary: why are you looking to penalise the non-offenders, rather than trying to assess what might have happened without the misinformation?

[nigel_k]

It's definitely an incorrect explanation and I would almost certainly adjust.

 

Maybe North thought 2♠ might be a cue bid or maybe they were concerned about spades breaking badly. These are not especially good reasons to bid only 3♠ but, for the class of player involved when they have the benefit of the doubt, I think those reasons are good enough to avoid 3♠ being classed as a serious error. You would need to ask North some questions but it's quite unlikely they will admit that they would have bid only 3♠ with a correct explanation.

 

It's also a bit fishy that East never 'raised' hearts non vulnerable but there's probably nothing the director can do about that except comment on it so East is aware their behaviour has been noted.

[Cascade]

It's also a bit fishy that East never 'raised' hearts non vulnerable but there's probably nothing the director can do about that except comment on it so East is aware their behaviour has been noted.

 

What behaviour?

 

Its not compulsory to raise partner and especially not when you are uncertain about your agreement.

[AlexJonson]

The fact that 4S is clear from North, without the suggestion of a spade loser, makes it all the more likely that NS were damaged. I would adjust.

[aguahombre]

Well, with a small spade for the ♠J South's auction would be the same, and 4♠ would go down (losing the two hearts, the DA and JT85 offside). So while I can see bidding 4♠ myself with that great hand as North, and would do it myself, even into the known break, it certainly makes for discouragement.

The fact that 4S is clear from North, without the suggestion of a spade loser, makes it all the more likely that NS were damaged. I would adjust.

I don't know how my observation would affect a potential ruling, but why are we focussing on what North thinks?

 

South was invited to game in his zero to seven box. He has working cards and made the final pass.

[sfi]

South was invited to game in his zero to seven box. He has working cards and made the final pass.

 

South presumably was not forced to bid over 2♣, so it's far less clear whether the hand has any extra values that make it worth accepting. The misinformation could have affected both North and South's decisions to be conservative.

[Cascade]

Correction sorry to the initial information.

 

South East did in fact bid 2♥.

Edited

[iviehoff]

Correction sorry to the initial information.

South did in fact bid 2♥.

And what happened after that?

[gordontd]

Correction sorry to the initial information.

 

South did in fact bid 2♥.

I think you'll have to give us the whole auction again.

[iviehoff]

I think one would be less likely to bid game in a major with the explanation that one of the opponents has shown the majors, than with the explanation of "no agreement" or "I don't know".

Quite clearly true. But it doesn't answer the question of whether we should adjust in this specific case. To adjust, we have to identify a specific call or calls which would have made differently, even if only in the probabilistic sense of a weighted adjustment.

 

We shall now have to wait until Cascade is able to correct the rest of the auction. Maybe after 2H it is now impossible to find 4S regardless of what info the ops gave.

[Cascade]

Sorry about that:

 

Pass Pass 1♣ Pass

1♦ Dbl 2♣ 2♥

2♠ Pass 3♠ Pass

Pass Pass

 

I am not sure that it makes too much difference.

[aguahombre]

Correction sorry to the initial information.

 

South did in fact bid 2♥.

Which hand was South?

[Cascade]

Which hand was South?

 

Damn I rotated the hand in the original post.

 

East bid 2♥. The partner of the doubler.

[gombo121]

I'm strongly inclined to adjust because presumed bad split clearly discourages both North and South from bidding game.

 

On the other hand you really can't argue that "No agreement" is better explanation than "I think it is for majors". The latter clearly translates into "we do not have explicit agreement or I don't remember it; on the basis of our common experience in similar situations, I judge it should be for majors", which in my opinion is absolutely appropriate. May be South looking at 9 major cards should be suspicious about the presumed explanation, especially after free 2♥ bid.

[mycroft]

I don't know how my observation would affect a potential ruling, but why are we focussing on what North thinks?

 

South was invited to game in his zero to seven box. He has working cards and made the final pass.

As several have said, 2♣ is almost certainly not forcing, and in "standard" Precision, he's shown about 4, minimum, with 2♠. (note, with the 2♥ overcall, that changes things *a little* (I'd expect partner would realize I'd bid on a fitting less-than-4, secure in the knowledge that 3♣ is safe; as well as the normal hands - but I'd assume I'd shown 4ish-7 when it comes to further action)).

 

And given *that*, sure, they're fitters, but QJxxx and Qx for my 4-7 with 5 spades is still a minimum.

 

In reply to Gordon, I have no idea what I'm trying to do there. I think where I was going with it was "is it likely/at all possible that with the correct information, they'd reach game?", because the question of "is it less desirable to bid game with the UI than with the correct information?" is pretty easily settled. I don't know why I phrased it the other - wrong - way. I'm not answering that one, by the way; I can just be a data point on the poll. It also makes a difference to a potential weighted score in L12C1c jurisdictions as well as a potential split score in L12C1e-land.

[bluejak]

Would they be more likely to reach game if they were not told that one defender held the majors? Yes.

 

WTP?

[Cascade]

Would they be more likely to reach game if they were not told that one defender held the majors? Yes.

 

WTP?

 

One problem is that they were not told that one defender held the majors.

 

There were given an explanation that expressed some doubt. At that point they had other options to remove the doubt. For example call the director. They chose to play on knowing that there had been an incomplete explanation. Perhaps therefore they need to take some responsibility for missing game.

 

Another problem is that one might argue there is no damage as they should have bid game any way.

[gordontd]

On the other hand you really can't argue that "No agreement" is better explanation than "I think it is for majors".

Of course it is. It's true and it's not misleading. I'd have a good shot at working out what's going on, when partner bids spades, with "no agreement", but much less chance when told "I think it is for majors".

[Cascade]

Of course it is. It's true and it's not misleading. I'd have a good shot at working out what's going on, when partner bids spades, with "no agreement", but much less chance when told "I think it is for majors".

 

You can insist on a proper explanation rather than accepting the speculation.

[gordontd]

You can insist on a proper explanation rather than accepting the speculation.

Which seems to support my point, that "No agreement" is a better explanation than "I think it is for majors".

[mrdct]

On the other hand you really can't argue that "No agreement" is better explanation than "I think it is for majors". The latter clearly translates into "we do not have explicit agreement or I don't remember it; on the basis of our common experience in similar situations, I judge it should be for majors", which in my opinion is absolutely appropriate.

I disagree.

 

The manner in which explanations of partnership agreements are disclosed is largely a matter for Regulatory Authorities, in this case I assume NZ Bridge, but I don't think there is too much variation around the principle that you should never inform your opponents as to how you are interpreting a bid if you're uncertain. Generally in this situation you should say "no agreement", "undiscussed" or "I can't remember" but you should also add pertainent information about analogous agreements; for example it would be appropriate to say, "directly over a strong club we play double is majors but I can't remember if we agreed to do the same thing after a negative 1♦ response".

 

It could be argued that any words that come after "I think" should be discounted or disregarded, but in this case I believe the poor explanation did disuade North from an otherwise obvious 4♠ bid so I'm adjusting to 4♠=.