VixTD Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 [hv=pc=n&s=sk9h83dkj8543ct96&w=saj8754h2dq92cq84&n=sq62haj65da76ckj7&e=st3hkqt974dtca532&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2sdp2np3np4dp5dppp]399|300[/hv]This occurred at the club last night. West and South are experienced regular county B-team players, East occasionally plays for the C-team, North is considerably less experienced. NS are a relatively new partnership, and have been playing together once a week or so for several months. 2♠ = weak twoX = takeout2NT = Lebensohl (not alerted) South announced at the end of the auction that 2NT should have been alerted, that it was Lebensohl. West was not minded to reopen the auction, and the hand was played out. Result: 5♦(S)-1, NS -50. West asked South why he had bid 4♦. South replied that he had a weak hand with six diamonds and couldn't stand 3NT. When West suggested this auction usually shows a strong hand, stronger than an immediate NT overcall (say 19+), South said they play 2NT as 17-20, and that it was not likely that North had a stronger hand than this. Under "defence to weak twos" the NS convention card had "X = takeout, 2NT = Lebensohl (0-9)" There was no mention of a range for NT overcalls, not on the CC, nor in several pages of system notes. If called as director to give a ruling, what would you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 People get dealt 21-counts from time to time. I don't see any reason to suppose that North does not have a strong hand other than the failure to alert. I think passing is a logical alternative, and would adjust to 3NT, probably with a weighted score between two or more numbers of tricks (6 and 7 look plausible). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 At first sight, it is not clear that E/W have been damaged. Surely West would lead a spade against 3NT, and South will only go off if he really plays it incompetently - and then only one off. It is important to give N/S a PP. I explain to him the ramifications of Law 73C, and point out that "it was not likely that North had a stronger hand than this" is completely inadequate: he might have a stronger hand, and it is only the failure to alert that tells South otherwise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I posted the above while campboy was posting. If he can convince me of his bridge judgement, great: but I still do not see why 3NT should go off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Ah, I was looking at 3NT by North :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAlan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 At first sight, it is not clear that E/W have been damaged. Surely West would lead a spade against 3NT, and South will only go off if he really plays it incompetently - and then only one off.Actually, it can always be taken 1 off on a ♠ lead (and 2 on a low ♣ or ♥). Say S wins the 7♠ lead and clears the ♦, W winning the second round. W now cashes A♠ and leads the ♥, and E-W will come to 2 ♥ tricks and A♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Gotta be the same in any jurisdiction, and gotta be what Bluejack said (his first post). Just the cut of the green that E/W can't further gain from what happened. Down one seems right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Even the most incompetent defence would be doing well to let declarer make 3N. Even if you make him lead a spade, which I wouldn't do myself, he'll see his partner discard on the second round of diamonds and presumably encourage hearts. If he switches at this point that's -2. If you make him cash a 2nd spade (absurdly), he can still switch to hearts for -1. I think any weighting which involves it making is ridiculous and any weighting involving anything more than a token %age for -1 to be too generous to the offenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAlan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Even the most incompetent defence would be doing well to let declarer make 3N. Even if you make him lead a spade, which I wouldn't do myself, he'll see his partner discard on the second round of diamonds and presumably encourage hearts. If he switches at this point that's -2. If you make him cash a 2nd spade (absurdly), he can still switch to hearts for -1. I think any weighting which involves it making is ridiculous and any weighting involving anything more than a token %age for -1 to be too generous to the offenders.It makes no difference whether W cashes ♠A or switches immediately to a ♥, it's -1 in both cases. In the second case, provided declarer ducks the ♥ in dummy and E's continuation, E's effectively endplayed for -1 not -2. -2 requires not leading ♠ in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 ok if declarer forsees squeezing himself, is willing to duck 2 hearts cutting himself off from his ace and his queen of spades, then gets the clubs right (ok that bit shouldn't be too tricky) he can escape for -1. back in the real world.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Not only is pass a LA, I would go so far as to say that anything other than pass is clearly not a LA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyman Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Not only is pass a LA, I would go so far as to say that anything other than pass is clearly not a LA. ... so no infraction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 ... so no infraction? Hm, don't know how you got to that conclusion. ;) In case it wasn't clear I was talking about South's 4♦ bid. Having said that 4♦ is not a LA, the next question is was it demonstrably suggested by the UI? Definitely yes IMO. So there you have your infraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Hm, don't know how you got to that conclusion. ;) In case it wasn't clear I was talking about South's 4♦ bid. Having said that 4♦ is not a LA, the next question is was it demonstrably suggested by the UI? Definitely yes IMO. So there you have your infraction. It's only illegal to select from among logical alternatives one suggested by the UI. If you rule that 4D is not a LA, then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's only illegal to select from among logical alternatives one suggested by the UI. If you rule that 4D is not a LA, then... This idea has long been discredited and is considered to be an error in the wording of the laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yes. It would be ridiculous to allow a bid suggested by UI which would not even be considered otherwise. How would the TD word his ruling to the table? "The bid you made stands even though it was suggested by unauthorized information; but since it was illogical without such information, I must allow it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyman Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 This idea has long been discredited and is considered to be an error in the wording of the laws. thats fine. but then why bother pointing out that 4D is not a LA? Also, the rule is clear to me, and the ruling on this hand is clear as well imo (adjust to 3N making some number, weighted or not depending on jurisdiction, PP for offender who should know better). But this game is complicated enough for beginners without having (lots of lots of detailed) laws, at least one of which has a literal meaning that has "long been discredited." There should really be something done about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 but then why bother pointing out that 4D is not a LA? I meant to reinforce the notion of a PP. Of course I'm all for taking laws literally so if you want to do only the PP that's fine with me. Just make it a bit bigger to compensate. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAlan Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 ok if declarer forsees squeezing himself, is willing to duck 2 hearts cutting himself off from his ace and his queen of spades, then gets the clubs right (ok that bit shouldn't be too tricky) he can escape for -1. back in the real world....This is secondary: the essential point of my original post was that, contrary to what was being suggested at the time, 3NT doesn't make: instead, it's -2 on an intial (low) ♣ or ♥ lead, -1 on a ♠. I happen to disagree with you over whether anything more than -1 is likely in the latter case. Of course you're right to say that W shouldn't make it easy by cashing A♠ after winning the ♦ and before switching to ♥, but by the time E plays a second ♥ and W shows out, S has pretty much got a complete count on the hand, knows that he's not locked out of dummy permanently, and can also see that taking the ♥ and running the ♦ will squeeze dummy in the endgame. So he ducks again, and from that point on the hand pretty much plays itself for -1 since W can't have A♣. But we agree completely that 3NT making should have zero weight, and that the adjudication should be some mix of -1 and -2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 I'm sorry, I don't know your English levels very well. Is "complete count on the hand" a term normally used when discussing what might happen when a hand is played by "experienced regular county B-team players"? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 If called as director to give a ruling, what would you do? As TD, i would adjust the score to 3 NT -2 , and apply procedural penalty to NS for South's action. Unless of course South convinces me that his 4♦ was an attempt to explore slam by showing on cc (documented) where this 3NT actually shows 23+ hcp. Which i strongly doubt that he can. I agree with those that anything except than pass over 3 NT is NOT a LA otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Even if you make him lead a spade, which I wouldn't do myself, ... A spade lead is more likely given the explanation of Lebensohl, as neither player has shown a spade stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 Not only is pass a LA, I would go so far as to say that anything other than pass is clearly not a LA. In which case, would a procedural penalty be approriate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VixTD Posted March 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 I was West and playing director. I didn't want to give a ruling myself, and I wasn't sure at the time I'd been damaged. I did think South should be told he couldn't choose this action when in receipt of unauthorized information. There was another player I could have called upon to give a ruling, but South had recently had a run-in with him over (guess what?) failing to alert, and I didn't want to spark off that row again. I considered sending it to an EBU panel director for an independent ruling, but decided I couldn't be bothered. Then as I left the table I heard South say to his partner about me "he hasn't got a leg to stand on". I've made a mental note of Bluejak and Robin as two who are prepared to dish out procedural penalties in these circumstances. They'll be top of my list if it happens again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 21, 2012 Report Share Posted March 21, 2012 I'm sorry, I don't know your English levels very well. Is "complete count on the hand" a term normally used when discussing what might happen when a hand is played by "experienced regular county B-team players"? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.