Damage from MI?

[Coelacanth]

ACBL

IMPs

EW vul

 

The following auction ensued

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c2n(Alerted%2C%20see%20below)p3cppp]133|100[/hv]

 

2NT was alerted by E. North enquired and was told ♥+♦ (ie two lower unbid).

 

3♣ was not alerted; when South asked the bid was described as natural.

 

South made the opening lead. Dummy came down with ♠x ♥xx ♦KQ98x ♣KQJxx.

 

EW's actual agreement regarding 2NT is that it shows the minors. (1NT is also unusual, showing 2 lower unbid). This is clearly a mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid. The correct agreement did not come to light until after the lead was faced and the dummy was tabled.

 

Due to some MI influenced misdefense, 3♣ was made (it should be set one trick). NS may or may not be on for 3♠.

 

East's hand is ♠Kxxx ♥Jxxx ♦AJx ♣xx.

 

Thoughts?

[aguahombre]

never mind.....much too much M.I. given by both East and West for me. Shoot them both. Edited October 1, 2011 by aguahombre

[gordontd]

Why did E bid 3C?

[mrdct]

What's the full hand?

[BunnyGo]

never mind.....much too much M.I. given by both East and West for me. Shoot them both.

 

agreed, and in addition to rectifying the score for the board, give them a PP for not correcting the explanation before opening lead.

[Coelacanth]

Why did E bid 3C?

3♣ was intended as a cue-bid; vulnerable at IMPs she thought her hand was too good to simply sign off at 3♥.

 

It may or may not be relevant that in response to the question "on the auction (1♣)-1NT showing redsuits-(P)-, what would 2♣ have shown?" West responded "natural".

[Coelacanth]

What's the full hand?

Spots approximate

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat93haqt4d2ca985&w=s5h95dkq985ckqj63&n=sqj74hk63dt643c42&e=sk862hj872daj7ct7]399|300[/hv]

[barmar]

Why didn't West correct the MI at the end of the auction? Why did he describe 3♣ as natural rather than just a preference?

 

Actually, this raises a question for me: given that East described 2NT as showing ♥+♦, should West describe what his 3♣ bid would mean in that context, rather than their actual agreement? I know that he should continue his bidding based on his original understanding, but it seems like things will get very confusing if you give an explanation for partner's bids that are impossible given his explanation of 2NT. How are opponents supposed to understand "2NT shows the red suits" followed by "3♣ shows his clubs are at least as good as his diamonds"?

[blackshoe]

You disclose the meaning of your partner's calls according to what you believe the agreement to be. If that causes confusion, so be it.

[campboy]

Actually, this raises a question for me: given that East described 2NT as showing ♥+♦, should West describe what his 3♣ bid would mean in that context, rather than their actual agreement? I know that he should continue his bidding based on his original understanding, but it seems like things will get very confusing if you give an explanation for partner's bids that are impossible given his explanation of 2NT. How are opponents supposed to understand "2NT shows the red suits" followed by "3♣ shows his clubs are at least as good as his diamonds"?

He should describe 3♣ according to their actual agreement. If he realises that his partner's explanation was correct then it is appropriate to use this information in describing 3♣, though he may not use it in the bidding of course. On the other hand, if as here he believes his partner's explanation to be incorrect he should say what the bid actually means, not what partner will have intended it as. This is usually helpful to the opponents since it makes the misunderstanding clear. To describe what partner intended instead of the actual agreement is sometimes referred to as the "de Wael school of thought"; there is general agreement that it is wrong.

[mycroft]

• East misexplains.
  
• East makes a bid that seems suspicious given the explanation (but the "game try in hearts" makes sense, especially if they have the agreement that red-on-white two-suiters are 10-ish In The Suits).
  
• West chooses not to correct the misexplanation before the opening lead.
  
• Frankly, I'd be *looking* for a way that the MI could have caused the misdefence. I'm assuming that South didn't find North's entry after Spade to the Ace, diamond back, club to the Ace, given that they're not *sure* yet that it's not reds (and West expected, for instance, 3=2=2=6). I'd expect that to be easi*er* to find with the right explanation.
  
• I'm not sure that there's a reasonable way to find 3♠ N-S, and I don't see a double from either hand (so that East runs to 3♥).
  

so 3♣-1 to me it is.

If West is experienced, the PP I'll be giving will be in IMPs, probably 3.

[Coelacanth]

[*]Frankly, I'd be *looking* for a way that the MI could have caused the misdefence. I'm assuming that South didn't find North's entry after Spade to the Ace, diamond back, club to the Ace, given that they're not *sure* yet that it's not reds (and West expected, for instance, 3=2=2=6). I'd expect that to be easi*er* to find with the right explanation.

 

 

West was dummy on the hand, so there was no confusion about what his bid was intended to show.

 

South led his singleton diamond. North failed to give South a ruff upon obtaining the lead. It simply didn't make sense to North that East could bid 3♣, ostensibly naturally, and have three diamonds in her hand. (In any interpretation of West's 2NT call, he has shown diamonds.)

 

Of course, North should be able to work this out anyway. Unless South has psyched his 1♣ opener (almost impossible for this South), East can have no more than three clubs and can't have intended her bid as natural.