Shropshire Congress 3 (EBU)

[VixTD]

Swiss Pairs.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj76ht86dcj8653&w=s932hqj9743d7ca92&n=st84hk5dkj9532ckt&e=sk5ha2daqt864cq74&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1dd1h2d3d3spp4dppdppp]399|300[/hv]

2♦ was alerted and explained as showing values and support for the unbid suits.

 

Result: 4♦X(E)-2, NS+500

 

The director was called at the end of play. EW questioned the explanation of the 2♦ bid. North was trying to show a suit.

 

How would you rule?

[RMB1]

How would you rule?

 

It appears that there is no partnership understanding of 2♦: if 2♦ is explained as "no agreement" then East will stop bidding diamonds when it most convenient for him to do so.

 

North has UI from the explanation of 2♦. If 2♦ is natural, 3♠ sounds like a very good hand, so 4♠ is a logical alternative to Pass by North; and Pass is suggested by the fact that the UI suggests South thinks North has support for ♠. East/West might double 4♠ especially as the explanation "no agreement" might suggest a wheel has come off.

 

I will leave it to others to weight the number of tricks in 4♠ and rule 50% of that weighting in 4♠ and 50% of that weighting in 4♠X.

[Zelandakh]

1. What is the actual agreement for the 2♦ bid?

2. Why did North not raise spades given partner has used a double and bid sequence?

3. What did North think partner was actually showing by this 3♠ bid?

4. What was East's reasoning behind the 4♦ bid?

 

My first thought was that North has used the UI (irrespective of the correct meaning of 2♦) and various permutations of 4♠ should be weighted but it would probably be a good idea to find out the answers here before jumping to conclusions.

[iviehoff]

It appears that there is no partnership understanding of 2♦: if 2♦ is explained as "no agreement" then East will stop bidding diamonds when it most convenient for him to do so.

Isn't this an ordinary, everyday, misbid?

 

There may be no explicit agreement, and I bet there is no written evidence. But I happily explain bids which are well known in the textbooks on the basis of what it says in the textbook, despite no explicit agreement with partner, on the general assumption that we have both read the same basic textbooks, and those textbooks define the standard meaning of bids like this. Isn't South's explanation of this bid straight out of the book? Isn't N's attempt to use it to show diamonds, without prior agreement, basically just a mistake?

 

Of course one needs to discuss with the players why they thought these bids had these meanings before making a ruling, but my guess is the story will be roughly as above, although North may grumble away until the book is put in front of him.

[paulg]

My first thought was that North and South must be beginners. How experienced were they?

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure how relevant this is but what was the diamond ? (0/1/2 presumably not as not alerted)/3/4/5 minimum length ? I've had system disagreements based on this sort of thing before.

 

Assuming nobody's lost their marbles, south can't have a "very good hand" he has a probable maximum of about 12 or 13 points.

[bluejak]

There are always some people who believe they have to show a suit when they have six of it. They bid 2♣ Michaels over a 3-card 1♣ opening for example, they bid it at the most unsuitable times. The trouble is that they have no real agreements, just a feeling that it is not bridge to pass. My guess is that North is one such player. He has no agreement that 2♦ is natural, but, hey, he has paid his entry fee and look, he has six pretty diamonds.

 

Terence Reese called it "six-appeal". :)

[barmar]

Of course, they'll only do this when it's a minor -- "He could have opened with only 3" they'll say.

[Cyberyeti]

Terence Reese called it "six-appeal". :)

Before or after the cigar advert that used that phrase ?

 

Makes me feel old to remember tobacco ads on the telly :(

[VixTD]

I think Bluejak has made an accurate assessment of the players and what they were probably thinking. None of them were particularly strong, and they were the sort of players who will keep on bidding on the slightest excuse rather than defend a hand.

 

This ruling was also given by my co-director. I suggested that North ought to bid 4♠ and that East was very unlikely to double it. She adjusted to 50% of 4♠(S)-1 and 50% of 4♠(S)-2.