Shropshire Congress 1 (EBU)

[VixTD]

These are coming some time after the event, but I'd still welcome opinions:

 

Swiss Pairs:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa642hkqjtda432cq&w=s97ha932dq7ck9876&n=skjt85h84dkjtc543&e=sq3h765d9865cajt2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c1n2np3npp]399|300[/hv]

1♣ = strong club, alerted

1NT = diamonds and spades, alerted

 

West looked shocked at the explanation (she had misbid). The TD was called, he explained the consequences of unauthorized information to East, and the auction proceeded as shown.

 

♦9 was led to Q and K.

Declarer led a spade to the ace and finessed the jack, losing to East's queen.

East cashed ♣A and continued the suit when partner encouraged.

 

Result: 3NT(N)-2, NS -200

 

North-South felt they had been talked out of their 4♠ contract. North also argued strongly that East's decision to switch to clubs was not permitted because of the unauthorized information, and that continuing with partner's suits is a logical alternative.

 

Do you think he has any claim for an adjusted score?

[barmar]

The contract: Unfortunately, there's no Law against misbidding. If a misbid keeps opponents from finding the proper contract, that's rub of the green.

 

The defense: West's ♦Q denies the J. So North has at least KJ, and West at most QTx. Declarer's play of the ♠ has similarly revealed that West doesn't have length there. So West's misbid has been revealed, and I think East can switch to any defense he wants.

 

So no adjustment.

[Cyberyeti]

Firstly is there a case that E should bid 3♦ over 2N ?

 

If not then:

 

NS have not been done out of their 4♠ contract as this then becomes an unfielded misbid/psyche.

 

N's play was careless, but not a serious error IMO although it's close. If he has the foresight to lead the 8♠ to dummy's ace (W's reaction is AI to him so he might suspect W has the wrong suits), then when he realises W has <4 spades, he makes the normal play for ♠2-2, and cashes 5♠/4♦ as the 6♠ is an entry to dummy to cash the 4th diamond.

 

It's AI to E that W has less than 4 diamonds, as partner playing the Q and N winning indicates that declarer has the K and at least one of the J/10, 2 + the 8 in his hand and dummy's gives partner a max of 3. Hence he knows partner doesn't have his bid. IMO he's free to guess what partner actually has.

 

I think unless you decide that E should bid 3♦ there can be no adjustment, if you think he should it's guesswork what should happen next, but it ain't going to be very pretty for EW.

[c_corgi]

North-South felt they had been talked out of their 4♠ contract.

 

They have, but not illegally. They have a better chance of working out what is happening with West has transmitting UI than without.

 

 

North also argued strongly that East's decision to switch to clubs was not permitted because of the unauthorized information, and that continuing with partner's suits is a logical alternative.

 

The play to trick 1 marks West with QT7 of diamonds at best. Declarer is playing spades and I can't see a reason why he would do that without expecting to develop tricks there. I think the Ace of clubs switch is OK. At that point it looks like down 3, so the defense must have erred. OP doesn't say which club East continued with, but if it was a high one (unblocking) it was suggested by UI and if it helped the defense in some way I wouldnt allow it (low is correct if W has Kxx).

 

 

Do you think he has any claim for an adjusted score?

 

Yes: East has failed to compete at favourable with 4 card support for one of partner's suits and Qx in the other. I think it is clear to bid at least 3 diamonds over 2NT and to save in 4D over 3NT (expecting to make 7 tricks). It is not obvious how they would escape to clubs, so I rule some proportion of 3DX and 4DX, both down lots.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Barry. I would add, though, that North is certainly permitted to ask for a ruling. I'm not sure I'd call an appeal "without merit", either.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with Barry. I would add, though, that North is certainly permitted to ask for a ruling. I'm not sure I'd call an appeal "without merit", either.

You do not think bidding 3♦ over 2NT is a LA and that passing is suggested by the UI? The latter is surely indisputable; I suspect a poll would suggest the former is also the case at these colours.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps. As you say, a poll would be useful.

[iviehoff]

West looked shocked at the explanation (she had misbid). The TD was called, he explained the consequences of unauthorized information to East, and the auction proceeded as shown.

If it is an open secret that W misbid, then I think we are stepping closer to the conclusion that "E must compete in diamonds". But before making that step, I'd like to be clearer about just what the UI was. I think we need to be a bit careful about looking in W's hand and saying "everyone knew that is just what W has, therefore E must bid diamonds". After all there isn't much evidence that declarer knew just what W has, he'd have made his contract fairly easily in such a case. So what actually was the UI? Did it actually say "I don't have different suits", or did it just say "I don't have that hand". If E is sitting there thinking partner might well have a strong NT, then I think he might reasonably defend himself by saying the before the revelation of W's hand, the UI was, on balance, suggesting action over inaction, thus pass was an ethical bid at that point.

[c_corgi]

If it is an open secret that W misbid, then I think we are stepping closer to the conclusion that "E must compete in diamonds". But before making that step, I'd like to be clearer about just what the UI was. I think we need to be a bit careful about looking in W's hand and saying "everyone knew that is just what W has, therefore E must bid diamonds". After all there isn't much evidence that declarer knew just what W has, he'd have made his contract fairly easily in such a case. So what actually was the UI? Did it actually say "I don't have different suits", or did it just say "I don't have that hand". If E is sitting there thinking partner might well have a strong NT, then I think he might reasonably defend himself by saying the before the revelation of W's hand, the UI was, on balance, suggesting action over inaction, thus pass was an ethical bid at that point.

 

I think you are saying that East has not actively used UI by working out what anti-systemic hand West had and bidding accordingly. What he has done is passively used the UI by realising that West has not got the hand she has shown and failing to bid as though she did have it. Just because he is not guilty of the former doesn't protect him from rectification against the latter.

[nige1]

West looked shocked at the explanation (she had misbid). The TD was called, he explained the consequences of unauthorized information to East, and the auction proceeded as shown. [snip] Do you think he has any claim for an adjusted score?

Yes: East has failed to compete at favourable with 4 card support for one of partner's suits and Qx in the other. I think it is clear to bid at least 3 diamonds over 2NT and to save in 4D over 3NT (expecting to make 7 tricks). It is not obvious how they would escape to clubs, so I rule some proportion of 3DX and 4DX, both down lots.

Agree...

• Systemically, West shows a two-suiter including ♦
• The vulnerability is favourable and East has four ♦, so supporting ♦ at the three-level is a logical alternative to pass.
• The unauthorised information from West's "shocked look" makes 3♦ less attractive to East.
• If East bids 3♦, then North-South can double for penatlies
• East, with a doubleton honour in partner's putative suit, has no reason to remove.
• Hence the director should adjust to 3♦X-4 or 5.
• This is a "Simple Ruling".

[bluejak]

We need a poll, I think. Certainly I woud never bid 3♦ with the East hand, not even close! But if, because of a poll, we decide 3♦ is an LA, the next question is whether the UI suggests passing over 3♦? I think yes, partner has clearly got something wrong, and it must be safer to pass. How about an adjustment? West has no reason to bid over 3♦ doubled, so we adjust to some numbers of tricks in 3♦ doublked - but only if we assess 3♦ as an LA.

 

Hence the director should adjust to 3♦X-4 or 5.

Why on earth -4 or -5? Weighted scores are the norm, so 50% of -4 and 50% of -5 will do.

[ahydra]

I'm almost, but not completely, sold on the 3D thing. Suppose West can have Axxxx xx K10xx xx. I assume North's 2N is natural so he may well take a spade and two diamonds (maybe even 3) plus we're losing two hearts, a club and maybe trump control. 3D may be suicidal.

 

On the other hand if 1NT definitely shows a "decent" hand, say a 5-5, or 7-loser hand, then 3D is an LA for me (we'd expect not to do too badly against 4H). The upper range of 1NT has some effect on my decision too. Do we know any more about it?

 

ahydra

[nige1]

North-South felt they had been talked out of their 4♠ contract.

They have, but not illegally. They have a better chance of working out what is happening with West has transmitting UI than without.

IMO...

• It's still hard to bid a game in a suit advertised by an opponent.
• Would the director provide redress if North bid 4♠ and it foundered on a terrible ♠ break because, in fact, West was shocked by something else and held what East said he held.
• Should Guessed-em type misbids be treated as a special case? Some proponents seem "careless" about familiarising themselves. Especially when non-vulnerable, such bids can function as disruptive "random" overcalls.

[c_corgi]

Certainly I woud never bid 3♦ with the East hand, not even close!

 

Can you explain why? 3D looks completely normal to me and allows partner to compete further if suitable. How is partner supposed to save, having already shown a 2-suiter, if we don't tell her about the fit? FWIW I think it is way closer to 4D than pass even though 4D is a definite stretch.

 

 

If I were to conduct a poll, it would find that 3D was an LA. No doubt others could conduct one to find the opposite.

[Vampyr]

Should Guessed-em type misbids be treated as a special case?

 

I think maybe yes. Even if records were kept (and I suspect that they are not), the opponents will feel it churlish to call the director while recording +800. So it is never established whether the players get it right often enough to be considered to be actually playing the method. Playing these bids as two-way may or may not be legal in various jurisdictions, but playing them as two-way without disclosing it is, of course, illegal everywhere. Even if it is never fielded. When two-suited bids are misbid (or psyched), the opponents will, when they do not have a big penalty to collect, be in an impossible position.

[iviehoff]

I think you are saying that East has not actively used UI by working out what anti-systemic hand West had and bidding accordingly. What he has done is passively used the UI by realising that West has not got the hand she has shown and failing to bid as though she did have it. Just because he is not guilty of the former doesn't protect him from rectification against the latter.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that pass might actually be the ethical bid given the UI actually present at the table. But I don't know for sure because I don't know exactly what the UI is, or what it might imply.

 

We look in W's hand and see the kind of misbid he has. But is the information that W has a 2-suiter with the wrong suits actually available to the table? I don't know, all I can say is that NS's behaviour does not suggest it was available, though that is not conclusive. If the only information available to the table is that he misbid, then it might actually be seen as reasonably likely in context that W has a strong NT hand. In such a context, "pass" could well be ethical. So, we need to understand more clearly what is the UI was actually available before deciding what LAs are suggested by the UI.

 

Whether E has actively chosen his bid in light of ethical considerations is actually neither here nor there as far as the law is concerned.

[campboy]

If West has a strong NT hand on this auction then (given what East has) he is not the only person who has misbid.

[Zelandakh]

If West has a strong NT hand on this auction then (given what East has) he is not the only person who has misbid.

More than that, if partner were to have bid a natural 1NT here then you would have to be completely crazy to then bid 3♦ with the East hand over 2NT from the opponents. So even here passing is suggested over bidding by the UI. I do agree that the UI (as reported) does not say that West has hearts and clubs. West might have, for example, the majors. How would bidding 3♦ versus passing work out now? What I am saying here in a roundabout way is that bidding after the UI is made more dangerous. We do not know precisely how partner has misbid but it is likely that passing will avoid a really bad board where bidding is very risky. The question here is for me not whether the UI suggests passing (imho it clearly does) but whether 3♦ is a LA after 2NT.

[PeterAlan]

First, and just to get it out of the way, is it correct to assume (as I think we're all doing) that the explanation took place after W's 1NT and before N's 2NT?

 

It looks as though E/W are playing Truscott and W has picked the wrong non-touching 2-suiter bid (X shows ♣ & ♥). If they are, then at this vulnerability it would be quite normal for W to bid on 4-4 - it's not a 5-5, maybe 5-4, type 2-suiter - and I'm with bluejak (congratulations on winning the event BTW) in thinking that to bid 3♦ on E's 10-loser hand once N has gone to 2NT is more madness than LA. And that's without ascribing any particular meaning to N's 2NT bid, whatever that might be showing in this auction: the fact that N's prepared to commit N/S to the 3 level coupled with S's strong ♣ opener surely makes it too likely that -800's on the cards. E has just 1 trick and enough trumps to guarantee an 8-card fit, and that's all. Assuming Truscott's being played, it also kills any notion of W having a strong NT overcall.

 

I would have thought that, playing a strong ♣ system, N/S would have some agreement about what to do after Truscott-style interference, but presumably were winging it (relying on meta-agreements if you prefer) after an exposed Truscott misbid.

 

Here, and despite W's misbid being apparent to all, it appears that N intended to show values with cover in W's putative suits and S wasn't on the same wavelength and trying to show the same cover. I think they were the architects of their own misfortune, albeit fixed somewhat by a misbid - neither had any reason to suppose that the other stopped ♣. If we rule that E hasn't fielded W's misbid, then it's just the rub of the baize.

[VixTD]

I didn't think that East should be forced to continue assuming West has spades and diamonds in the face of all evidence, so I didn't see any problem with the defence. (I can't explain how it was only -2.)

 

Like David and Peter, I didn't consider 3♦ from East a possible bid, but I later started to have my doubts, and that was what I was hoping to get some information on. The responses have been fairly evenly split.

 

No adjusted score was awarded.

[barmar]

If some of the posters are peers of East, then the fact that several of them think 3♦ is appropriate makes it an LA. An overwhelming concensus isn't required.

[c_corgi]

on E's 10-loser hand once N has gone to 2NT is more madness than LA. And that's without ascribing any particular meaning to N's 2NT bid, whatever that might be showing in this auction: the fact that N's prepared to commit N/S to the 3 level coupled with S's strong ♣ opener surely makes it too likely that -800's on the cards. E has just 1 trick and enough trumps to guarantee an 8-card fit, and that's all.

 

That is all? The queen of spades is an important card here even if the LTC doesn't account for it. East's club suit is a powerful combination, far better than its loser count. xx xxx xxxx Kxxx is a 10 loser hand, to treat East's hand as the same value is way off.

[PeterAlan]

If some of the posters are peers of East, then the fact that several of them think 3♦ is appropriate makes it an LA. An overwhelming concensus isn't required.

But the posters don't seem to have applied themselves to the question of what methods E/W were playing. If E/W are playing Truscott or similar (ie W's hand may well be quite limited and no more than 4-4 in ♠ & ♦), then those polled should take this into account, and then, to repeat myself, I don't think that 3♦ is a LA.

[PeterAlan]

That is all? The queen of spades is an important card here even if the LTC doesn't account for it. East's club suit is a powerful combination, far better than its loser count. xx xxx xxxx Kxxx is a 10 loser hand, to treat East's hand as the same value is way off.

Oh, I agree as 10-loser hands go it's quite a good one but that still doesn't make 3♦ a reasonable bid in my book. And that ♣ combination loses some of its strength with S quite likely to hold KQ. We can go into the +s and -s in all sorts of detail, but I was just trying to give a quick view on why 3♦ is not for me.

 

To give you some idea, let's swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give essentially the hand she bid. Modifying N/S acordingly, we might well have something like

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj54hakjt2dqckq65&w=sk9876hq3da743c43&n=sat2h984dkjt2c987&e=sq3h765d9865cajt2]399|300[/hv]

 

That's 3♦ -5 by E.

[nige1]

Like David and Peter, I didn't consider 3♦ from East a possible bid, but I later started to have my doubts, and that was what I was hoping to get some information on. The responses have been fairly evenly split. No adjusted score was awarded.

vixTD's assessment seems to accord with the judgement of the majority of posters. Nevertheless, as Barmer points out, what if a significant minority of those polled regard 3♦ as an LA? For example, I may be a hopeless bidder but I would bid at least 3♦ so I agree with CC that 3♦ is an LA. I suspect that 4♦ and 5♦ are also LAs.