Is there a joker?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s8haj9652dacak654&w=sa2hkt43dq9765cq9&n=sqj73hq8djt8cjt72&e=skt9654h7dk432c83&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1s2s(Michaels)d(Penalty-oriented)2n(Minor%3F)3sd(Extra%20strength)p3n(Undiscussed)ppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPS. Lead 10♠.

 

This was the one ruling with which I disagreed on the otherwise very good EBU County Director course. The defence began with two rounds of spades and switched to a diamond. Declarer cashed the top clubs, crossed to North to cash the winning spade and took the heart finesse for his contract. Four down.

 

West was asked why she did not double 3NT and she explained that 3♠ showed a minimum opening hand and that she thought any penalty from 3NT undoubled would be greater than that from 4♣ doubled. South thought that East had psyched against him before, and wanted a ruling, but East-West could not recall any previous psyche and there were no recorded hands. I am told the hand and facts were from an actual EBU event.

 

How do you rule?

[Trinidad]

Am I supposed to think that West fielded a psych? I wouldn't. West has a perfectly good reason to prefer defending against 3NT over defending 4♣ if he plays under the assumption that East has a normal opening bid. He can smell that NS have a misunderstanding. The actual explanation of 3NT ("undiscussed") already hints at a misunderstanding. In my opinion, it would be a serious error to let North of the hook by doubling.

 

In short: No infraction, no AS. I will record the psyche (as green).

 

Rik

[AlexJonson]

West says 3S shows a minimum. I guess I would first ask what pass would have shown.

 

If there is no coherent answer to that question, then I'm judging on balance that there is a concealed understanding.

[Cascade]

Why does west have to double in these auctions.

 

West was able to show his hand with a double of 2♠. The hand looks normal minimum for that double.

 

East in possession of that information chose not to double. Why would west now have to bid the same values again?

[lamford]

West says 3S shows a minimum. I guess I would first ask what pass would have shown.

 

If there is no coherent answer to that question, then I'm judging on balance that there is a concealed understanding.

I would imagine that pass would have shown a sound opening bid, and 3S was a minimum with 6+spades, and I also imagine the players in the ruling are not readily available.

[AlexJonson]

I would imagine that pass would have shown a sound opening bid, and 3S was a minimum with 6+spades, and I also imagine the players in the ruling are not readily available.

 

Pass is a sound opening? That seems like a humerous idea of how to handle North's 2NT in this auction. Presumably doubling with a sound opening would be too committtal. I would have said double = sound opening, pass = sub/minimum.

 

Anyway, if you say as a contraint we have to accept EW story then inevitably I vote with Trinidad.

[lamford]

Pass is a sound opening? That seems like a humerous idea of how to handle North's 2NT in this auction. Presumably doubling with a sound opening would be too committtal. I would have said double = sound opening, pass = sub/minimum.

 

Anyway, if you say as a contraint we have to accept EW story then inevitably I vote with Trinidad.

Is it not similar to theory on an auction like 1♦ - (Dble) - Rdble - 1♠? Now 2♦ would be minimum, 2♣ would be distributional and unsuitable for defence, double would be penalties and Pass would be a sound opening bid (and forcing). By analogy therefore, pass followed by 3S would be stronger than the immediate 3S, and double would be extra values. However, this particular pair may well not have discussed this. But we should believe West's statement that she thought 3♠ showed a minimum.

 

But I also vote with Trinidad, except I would go for amber. The ruling at the table was a red fielded psyche, with 3 IMPs to North-South.

[AlexJonson]

Is it not similar to theory on an auction like 1♦ - (Dble) - Rdble - 1♠? Now 2♦ would be minimum, 2♣ would be distributional and unsuitable for defence, double would be penalties and Pass would be a sound opening bid (and forcing). By analogy therefore, pass followed by 3S would be stronger than the immediate 3S, and double would be extra values. However, this particular pair may well not have discussed this. But we should believe West's statement that she thought 3♠ showed a minimum.

 

But I also vote with Trinidad, except I would go for amber. The ruling at the table was a red fielded psyche, with 3 IMPs to North-South.

 

You may have noticed that under current laws, where TDs should make decisions on evidence, I don't believe in Amber.

[aguahombre]

Any color is a joke. Which part of West's action even remotely suggests fielding? In order to get there one would have to totally ignore West's logic.

 

That was not a real question. If the information provided in the OP is correct, the color monitors were following their own agenda.

[qwery_hi]

Is it not similar to theory on an auction like 1♦ - (Dble) - Rdble - 1♠? Now 2♦ would be minimum, 2♣ would be distributional and unsuitable for defence, double would be penalties and Pass would be a sound opening bid (and forcing). By analogy therefore, pass followed by 3S would be stronger than the immediate 3S, and double would be extra values. However, this particular pair may well not have discussed this. But we should believe West's statement that she thought 3♠ showed a minimum.

 

But I also vote with Trinidad, except I would go for amber. The ruling at the table was a red fielded psyche, with 3 IMPs to North-South.

 

The joker is whoever ruled this is a red fielded psyche.

[iviehoff]

But we should believe West's statement that she thought 3♠ showed a minimum.

I believe it. But presumably those who argued for Red didn't? Or else what precisely was the argument for Red?

[gnasher]

The argument for ruling this as "red" is:

- We have a defensive 11-count opposite an opening bid, with no great fit, and the opponents are currently in something that we expect will go about three down.

- They may sit 3NTx. If they do, we will get a large penalty.

- They may end up in 4♦ or 4♥. If they do, we will get a large penalty.

- If they end up in 4♣, we expect it to go down, so at worst we will have converted +150 into +50 by doubling.

- It may not be that likely, but it's possible that we have a game bonus to protect. KQ10xxx xx AJxx x is a minimum opening.

 

I don't agree that NS appear to have had a misunderstanding. 3NT may not be discussed, but it's obviously a suggestion to play there. If LHO wanted to play in the overcaller's minor, he could bid 4♣: having bid 2NT to ask for the minor, he can't now want to introduce his own suit.

[lamford]

The argument for ruling this as "red" is that:

- We have a defensive 11-count opposite an opening bid, with no great fit, and the opponents are currently in something that we expect will go about three down.

- They may sit 3NTx. If they do, we will get a large penalty.

- They may end up in 4♦ or 4♥. If they do, we will get a large penalty.

- If they end up in 4♣, we expect it to go down, so at worst we have converted +150 into +50 by doubling.

- It may not be that likely, but it's possible that we have a game bonus to protect. KQ10xxx xx AJxx x is a minimum opening.

 

I don't agree that NS appear to have had a misunderstanding. 3NT may not be discussed, but it's obviously a suggestion to play there. If LHO wanted to play in the overcaller's minor, he could bid 4♣: having bid 2NT to ask for the minor, he can't now want to introduce his own suit.

The argument for ruling this as "green" is that:

- We have a defensive 11-count opposite an opening bid, with no great fit, which is pretty much what we showed with our first-round double. Partner's 3♠ warned us against doubling, and we assume he was wearing his varifocals at the time. Frivolous question: presumably to notice this during the auction is UI, but to notice it prior to taking one's cards from the wallet is AI?

- They may make 3NTx. If they do, "I" will get a good kicking, and they will get a large bonus. N: ♠Kxx ♥Jxx ♦10xxx ♣Axx opposite S: ♠x ♥Axxxx ♦A ♣K108xxx is sub-minimum for their actions but 3NT is cold.

- They may end up in 4♦ or 4♥. Despite the fact that North did not support hearts, nor did South bid diamonds. Pigs might fly.

- If they end up in 4♣, and we double that, we expect it to make, so at best we might convert -550 into -510, possibly nicking an IMP. Our clubs are quite likely to be 2-2 after all.

- It may not be that likely, but if partner has KQ10xxx xx AJxx x, North will realised that his ♠Jxxx opposite a void is no longer a stop, and he may bid their cold 5♣.

 

Now, I have already said that I think it is amber. Your arguments for red do not provide the evidence from a single hand required to rule it as red, and the purpose, as I see it, of amber is to record possible fielding where the evidence points both ways. The unbalanced view of aquahombre is not correct. Maybe that should be changed again to "nonsense deleted out".

[gordontd]

- They may make 3NTx. If they do, "I" will get a good kicking, and they will get a large bonus. N: ♠Kxx ♥Jxx ♦10xxx ♣Axx opposite S: ♠x ♥Axxxx ♦A ♣K108xxx is sub-minimum for their actions but 3NT is cold.

Your carefully constructed layout doesn't leave partner a 1♠ opener.

[Bbradley62]

Any color is a joke.

My understand of the EBU system ( http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48518-ebu-psyche-classifications/ ) is that every psyche gets assigned a color. This includes "n the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche".

[gnasher]

- They may make 3NTx. If they do, "I" will get a good kicking, and they will get a large bonus. N: ♠Kxx ♥Jxx ♦10xxx ♣Axx opposite S: ♠x ♥Axxxx ♦A ♣K108xxx is sub-minimum for their actions but 3NT is cold.

That makes North's bidding rather odd. It also gives partner QJ10xxxx Q KJx Jx. If that's an opening bid, it's at the extreme end of "minimum".

 

It's certainly true that if you take a normal action, but then find that partner has a very atypical hand, and one opponent has taken a remarkably good view in the bidding, you will often not get the result you expect. I don't think that makes the action any less normal.

 

- If they end up in 4♣, and we double that, we expect it to make, so at best we might convert -550 into -510, possibly nicking an IMP. Our clubs are quite likely to be 2-2 after all.

Why would we double 4♣?

 

- It may not be that likely, but if partner has KQ10xxx xx AJxx x, North will realised that his ♠Jxxx opposite a void is no longer a stop, and he may bid their cold 5♣.

I think we'd be entitled to rectification under Law 1.

[lamford]

Your carefully constructed layout doesn't leave partner a 1♠ opener.

I carefully entered all four hands into DF to make sure that a) it was cold, and that b) partner's hand ♠QJ10xxxx ♥Q ♦ KJx ♣Jx was enough to open 1[sp}. I know it falls short of the stringent standards for a 1[sp} opener at YC on a Friday, but I would hope I could get away with it once. Perhaps you should double-check your post, although there is no evidence it was checked once.

[lamford]

That makes North's bidding rather odd. It also gives partner QJ10xxxx Q KJx Jx. If that's an opening bid, it's at the extreme end of "minimum".

The extreme end of minimum is still minimum. It would be interesting to do a poll of what people would open on that at love all. I would expect One Spade to win.

[gnasher]

The extreme end of minimum is still minimum. It would be interesting to do a poll of what people would open on that at love all. I would expect One Spade to win.

Why would that be interesting?

[lamford]

That makes North's bidding rather odd.

Agreed, and does that not make it more likely that 3NT is not their best spot? If North intended 3NT as a silly attempt to play in partner's minor, then why give him the chance to find it? I am coming round more to the belief that this is green rather than amber.

[lamford]

Why would that be interesting?

Because gordontd does not believe it is an opening bid, and you suggest that it is borderline. Whereas I would expect many to open 1S.

[lamford]

Why would we double 4♣?

I wouldn't. I would expect it to make an overtrick. But "we expect it to go down" was your opinion. That would be another "interesting" poll:

 

"North pulls to 4♣. What do you estimate the chances of this making opposite an extra-values Michaels when you hold the deadly Qx of clubs?"

[lamford]

I think we'd be entitled to rectification under Law 1.

Noted, but East may well have a seventh spade. Indeed I would tend to expect it for the 3♠ bid.

 

And it might equally be a breach of Laws 13 or Law 14. I have only ever encountered a breach of Law 1 once, when there were two threes of spades and no two of spades.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't. I would expect it to make an overtrick. But "we expect it to go down" was your opinion. That would be another "interesting" poll:

 

"North pulls to 4♣. What do you estimate the chances of this making opposite an extra values Michaels when you hold the deadly Qx of clubs?"

 

Or we could do this one: "Playing IMPs, the non-vulnerable opponents bid to partscore which you expect will go down, but you think two down is unlikely. Do you double?"

[lamford]

Or we could do this one: "Playign IMPs, the non-vulnerable opponents bid to partscore which you expect will go down, but you think two down is unlikely. Do you double?"

We seem to disagree by about two tricks on the evaluation here. I think that most likely is 11. You think the most likely is 9. How many do they make on the actual hand? 11. I was not advocating a double. Indeed I was indicating that I would expect it to concede 510. I think that was a typo and -610 is more likely.