Would you call the director

[inquiry]

You are playing a swiss team match when this hand comes up. You are south (hand not shown)....

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&e=sakq5hdat9854cktx&s=sjxxhkjxdkxca9853]266|200|Scoring: IMPS

1♦-( P)-1♥-(2♦)

Pas-(2♠)-ALL PASS

 

Partner leads ♦J (look at the T98 in dummy), ace wins....

[/hv]

 

Your 1♦ was "precison" and you alerted as showing 2+. West alerted EAST 2♦ and explained it as showing "Spades and clubs". The rest of the auction is as given.

 

What do you do?

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben

 

Comment 1:

 

I'm confused regarding adding Unauthorized Information to the poll. Did the alert of the 2♦ cue occur in such a way that the 2♦ bidder was aware of it? If so, so I think that there is clearly UI. If responder beleives that the 2♦ opening promises Diamonds, then the 2♠ bid is (presumably) a natural advance. If 2♠ is a natural advance then pass doesn't seem like a logical alternative with the East hand.

 

Comment 2: There is clearly misinformation. However, it is unclear whether this is material to the play of the hand. Personally, I am not used to playing Precision variants that would open 1♦ with a 3=3=2=5 shape. I'm assuming that this hand would normally open 1♦, intending to pass the 1NT response or raise 1M to 2M... This is fine and well, however, you could run into problems.

 

Couple questions: Assume that you had received a correct description of responder's hand (2♦ = Diamonds)... Would you have been able to bid 3♣ to show shape?

 

In a "serious" event, I'd call the director in either case.

 

If there is U/I then the director clearly needs to take appropriate action.

 

If I am "only" claiming misinformation, its unclear whether there would be an adjustment, however, it can be useful to document these types of events...

 

In a non-serious event (particularly if the ddirector is playing), then I would call the director for 1, but let it slide on 2 unless I felt damaged...

[inquiry]

Hi Ben

 

Comment 1:

 

I'm confused regarding adding Unauthorized Information to the poll. Did the alert of the 2♦ cue occur in such a way that the 2♦ bidder was aware of it?

Yes, WEST alerted East 2♦ and explained to the table "michaels cue-bid, other two suits". So east knows what West thinks the bid means. A question might be, what is their actual agreement in this situation or do they even have an agreement, i guess....

[Gerben47]

It is easy to have a misunderstanding here even if you think you have an agreement. East thought because your 1♦ bid need not have many diamonds he could bid naturally while West thought the normal agreement existed.

 

Assuming that the explanation by West was right East need not correct the explanation before the opening lead, but: I think that I would have called the director to check if EAST is allowed to pass 2♠, because: He has a 5-loser hand and from his point of view partner suddenly comes up with a bid in his AKQx suit that he has not bid yet!

[hotShot]

Do i read your question right?

 

I (South) opend 1♦

West passed with 12 HCP and a 5card suit♣

My partner (north) bids 1♥ where he is void (no alert!)

East finds 2♦ alerted

West corrects to 2♠

My partner (North) knowing that we have at least 28HCP together

has no dbl left?

 

Seems to me, East has a clear count in ♥, knowing your p is bluffing.

With almost no hcp und a silent partner, East knows that you have a game at IMPs.

By bluffing too, he takes you any chance to recover from that.

I think EW deserve a good score.

[Gerben47]

Sorry hotShot that's not the right question.

South opens 1♦ (2 or more cards), LHO passes, partner bids 1♥ natural, East now has the East hand (tricky!) with 4063 and bids 2♦ alerted by West as Michael's. You pass and West gives preference to 2♠ , East now finds no other bid.

 

Partner leads the ♦J giving EW 5 diamond tricks.

[helene_t]

Depends how much routine EW can be expected to have in defending against various versions of the neboulous 1♦. Easts pass was probably a violoation of the rules but even without the UI it's possible that he would have reasoned that 2♠ could not be natural since W would have overcalled 1♠ in that case.

[Gerben47]

Depends if West is the kind of person that likes to overcall 1♠ on 5 small vulnerable.

 

With all this bidding partner will not be strong for his 2♠ bid and probably have at least secondary support for ♦. Perhaps:

 

[hv=s=stxxxxhxxxxdqxcax]133|100|[/hv]

 

Makes you wonder if the East hand isn't too good for 2♦ if you make 6♠ opposite this. Oh well...

[guggie]

In my view the main issue is that the one opp alerted and explained the bid of the other opp on the table chat. That is forbidden, we have the self alert and the explanations only to opps. I would pardon the opps only if it was their first appearance at BBO, otherwise they should know better.

[Gerben47]

Umm... this happened in offline bridge (it is also posted in the offline bridge forum)

[kgr]

I would vote for:

"Call the director and explain what happened."

In case you think you are damaged you can always call the director. He will have to take a decission (no need to propose one).

If 2♦ was intented as natural then after 2♠ it is certainly a logical alternative to bid on if there would not have been an alert of the 2♦ bid.

[hotShot]

Sorry hotShot that's not the right question.

 

East now has the East hand (tricky!) with 4063 and bids 2♦ alerted by West as Michael's.

OK so North Hand is infact the East hand.....

 

East knows legaly:

• west has no 1♠ bid (meaning less than 9 hcp or less than 5 ♠)
  
• west has no 1♥ bid
  
• west has no 2♣ bid
  
• seeing 12 hcp with the opener, about 6 with the responder and 16 in his own hand, he can not expect more than 6hcp in wests hand
  

East has to assume that his bid was understood by west. So he can expect west to have:

• 4+ ♠
  
• no interest in playing ♦
  
• 1hcp in ♠ at most
  
• some cards in ♥ (opps don't try 3♥, allthough they have to be short in ♠). Any values west holds in ♥ will we baldy placed
  

He can bid:

1) pass, there is fit, but not strong enough for game

2) 3♠, hoping for extra values if p knows of the fit

3) 4♠, trying game

4) 3♦, not really an alternative

 

What bids are favourded by the UI?

Knowing that p thinks i bid Michaels implies that he thinks I'm weak!

Knowing that p expects me to have a ♠ length, implies there might be no fit.

I know he prefers ♠ to ♣.

 

So what bid is least supported by the UI, probably "pass" is.

 

But i'd call the TD to figure that out.

[Gerardo]

Agree with hotshot, 3♦ could be using the UI, showing a 1-suiter ♦.

 

However West would be bound by his explanation, and should take 3♦ as black suits, strong hand.

 

In any case, call TD as soon as you view dummy.

[Gerben47]

Pass would be using the UI and so would 3♦.

4♠ would be choosing the alternative not suggested by the UI.

Assuming that 4♠ does not make opposite the actual hand I will correct the score to that.

I can't do much about the opening lead though.

[inquiry]

I think there are a couple of questions here (this was team game, and I held the EAST hand, and bid and made 5♦ at my table... losing 1♣ and 1♦... this was the auctual bidding at table two, but a club was lead in real life.. no matter).

 

The first question is did West correctly alert their agreement? (that is was the alert right, and East first bid wrong?). One is allowed to make misbids, but misalerts (not correctly stating what your agreement) is wrong.

 

A second question is did they have an agreement at all? It seems what happened is that EAST assumed that 2D was not a cue-bid over 2+ opening suit, but would have been if 1D promised 3+. West assumed all cue-bids show the other suits, although if a precision 1C was opened, then 2C would have been clubs.

 

So it seems if they had an agreement, West's alert is correct. So would this mean they had no agreement on the 2+ or that they had an agreement and East bid was "wrong".

 

Next to the UI. IF 2D is natural, then partner pulls your natural bid 2♠, showing presumably his own spade suit and a willingness to make a call I see no way that EAST can pass. A jump cue-bid to 4♥ comes to mind, or at least a game bid. So one of two things can have happened to pass 2S.

 

1)East remembered after he bid (I am sure his partners alert and explaination helped his memory) that 2♦ promised the black suits. And decided to stick it out in 2S as any other bid will get him in deeper trouble as 3D would be forcing.

 

2) East actually heard his partners alert and explaination, and then used this (rather this was their agreement or not) to find the smooth pass.

 

So we have possible "mis-information" if 2D was not suppose to be micheals (as long as 2D was suppose to be other suits by agreement, no foul EAST not having his bid).

 

But I don't think EW can escape a ruling on the pass of 2S. That pass doesn't seem possible if the bidding had been 2D-no alert by partner, then a 2S bid.

 

Anyway, call the director.. .now for the directors, West has doubleton spade, so how would you rule? Let's assume 2S is down one.... if you let them play it.

 

Ben

[hotShot]

just curious, is it usual to bid Michales in 4th seat, after opps have bit 2 suits already?

What would dbl have shown here?

 

Well since I don't know your opps, i would can only guess that they might not have an agreement here.

 

I think a mis-explanation is much more likely than a misbid here.

[mycroft]

I have not voted in the poll, because there is no setting that is, in my view, correct:

"Call the director, explain what happened, answer her questions politely and accurately, and respect her decision."

 

The TD isn't a "cop" that one calls "on" an opponent. The TD is a referee that, in presence of the facts and Laws, makes a judgement based on those facts and Laws. So, one doesn't call TD and "complain".

 

1) Something weird has happened. Who knows what it is, but it's potentially an irregularity. If someone mentions "where's the hand you described" or "that's odd" or whatever, you *must* call the director (L9B2). If nobody else chooses to do it, dummy must (he can't draw attention to the irregularity (but see 2c.ii - East must correct misexplanation. No contradiction, East isn't dummy until the opening lead is faced), but if someone else does so, he is not exempt from calling the TD).

 

2) I see the hand was not at a "self-alert" table. So the TD, in possession of the facts (assuming that Ben's description is accurate) should do the following - no matter what N-S think is wrong or are "complaining" about:

 

a) investigate whether there is an agreement, and if so, what it was (I'm quite surprised it doesn't just show diamonds, as most 1x-p-1y-2(x or y) do). What does East think 2♦ should mean (not what he intended it to mean, but systemically what he think it means)? Is there evidence from CC or history or notes or similar auctions or ... to support either E or W?

 

b) find out what East was thinking. In ACBL-land that will probably involve taking her away from the table and asking.

 

c) determine (possibly with consultation) whether Misbid, Misexplanation, or Intentional Deviation applies. Director is to assume misexplanation over misbid absent evidence to the contrary (footnote to L75), and intentional Deviation ("I knew it showed the blacks, but I bid it to get a good lead/because nothing shows my hand/whatever. And anyway, if partner bids clubs I can always correct to diamonds until he gets it") is going to require some serious convincing argument.

 

i) if Misbid, well, them's the breaks. Sometimes they come out smelling like a rose. Too many of these "misbids" makes an implicit partnership understanding, though, and then we have misinformation, so that also needs to be investigated.

 

ii) if Misexplanation, first, East has a responsibility to correct the misexplanation before the lead, and if he didn't, N/S could be damaged. So, if either of N/S can come up with a believable explanation of how they were damaged, fine. East deserves a warning unless he said "I didn't correct because I remembered partner was right" and we're ruling Misexplanation "absent evidence to the contrary".

 

iii) if Deviation, well, it worked. Psychs do sometimes.

 

3) 2c.ii is the "Misinformation" part, but in all cases where there is MI to opponents, there is UI to partner (in the table alert game, at least), and it is the TD's job to investigate that as well, whether or not the non-offenders mention it. I believe in this case that investigation is going to be difficult and dependent on what East says. And, of course, if 5♦= is the obvious endpoint of any further bid from East, N/S weren't damaged!

 

So the TD is going to get a lot of information, go away and consult, and come back later - possibly much later - with a ruling on all aspects of the case. All this without N/S complaining about *anything*, or anyone's raised voices. And isn't bridge more fun without those?

 

Michael.

 

BTW: anyone who asks that the board be "thrown out" is in for a disappointment. You can ask for whatever you want, but you won't get it :-). There are times when the TD is required to cancel the board, but this isn't one of them. Also, if you get "Average plus/Average minus", *especially in a team game where it wipes out the result at the other table*, you should be disappointed; a result is going to be obtained at the table, so if an adjusted score is assigned by the TD, it is to be an assigned one (L12C2; i.e. a result (or results, if C2 requires it or if C3 is enabled for TDs and comes into play)). [For instance, (peeking at what Ben has said later in the thread), this is one case where A+/A- is detrimental to the non-offenders - +700 (even +490, or +430 even) is *much better* than +3 IMPs.]

[arrows]

just curious, why didn't you show the full hand layout to us,

Maybe it helps people have a better idea on what's going on

[inquiry]

just curious, why didn't you show the full hand layout to us,

Maybe it helps people have a better idea on what's going on

Full hand is not important. WEST had two spades, five heartsm four diamonds and two clubs. So he bid as if he took the bid as michaels. I have no problem iwth WEST's bid. What is wrong, is EAST can only pass 2S if he "knows" his partner is taking a preference between the blcack suits... if he thought his partner was bidding spades as a suit on his own )I would take 2S here as a fit non-jump if I thought 2D was real. shoing a hand like SJxxxx Hxxx DKxxx Cx

 

So,in my opinion ther is a reasonable chance EAST passed based upon UI.

 

Ben

[han]

Absolutely, there can be no other explanation for the pass.

 

By the way, given the bidding you can't have been south on this deal, correct?

[inquiry]

Absolutely, there can be no other explanation for the pass.

 

By the way, given the bidding you can't have been south on this deal, correct?

I was south.. I do play precision, and KS, and Romex, and polish club (well played with malucy for a while), tryint NTC and a fw other. I have probably played more precision than any other system.,... it is just that I prefer light opene

[TimG]

You are playing a swiss team match when this hand comes up. You are south (hand not shown)....

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&e=sakq5hdat9854cktx&s=sjxxhkjxdkxca9853]266|200|Scoring: IMPS

1♦-( P)-1♥-(2♦)

Pas-(2♠)-ALL PASS

 

Partner leads ♦J (look at the T98 in dummy), ace wins....

[/hv]

 

Your 1♦ was "precison" and you alerted as showing 2+. West alerted EAST 2♦ and explained it as showing "Spades and clubs". The rest of the auction is as given.

 

What do you do?

If 2♠ is natural, is there a hand west can have that would not overcall 1♠ where game in spades would be good? Lots of them. ♠Jxxxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣Qxx. One might question whether advancer should bid at all with this hand, yet game is darn good. So, it is certainly possible that west used UI when he passed 2♠.

 

The director ought to be called after the auction is over, right after east explains that there has been an incorrect explanation (if he believes there is no Michaels agreement). If he believes they are playing Michaels, but that he misbid, he has no obligation to say anything, but when dummy hits I would expect NS to call the director and explain what happened. It is not clear that NS have been damaged by East's use of the misinformation (didn't I read somewhere that EW made 5♦ at the other table). But, that's for the director to sort out after the situation has been explained to her.

 

Tim

[luis]

This is my view:

 

First of all you must call the TD because there was an irregularity, West alerted something and East had something else so a call to the TD is quite automatic.

About a ruling I think it's obvious that there is an infraction since East passed 2s knowing that his pd is just bidding his best black suit, had thin been played with screens East would have surely bid something over 2s. This is one of the reasons why it's very important to ASK whenever an alert is made.

Now if I were asked to provide a ruling I think that it's irrelevant if East missbid or West missalerted, East intended 2d to be natural and after a 2s bid by his pd they should probably got to 4s now I should poll players of similar skills as North and South and without any alert or explanation ask them if they would have doubled or not 4s with the North and/or South cards. Then I would adjust the score according to the results of the poll.

Assuming 4s is down3 (he was down 1 in 2) if 50% of the players doubled then the result comes from averaging the imps won by 800 and 300 respectively.

I would also rule a procedural penalty on EW since East bid was based on what his pd explained about the alert.

[pclayton]

Totally agree with Ben.

 

East's has an obligation to make a strong move if East thought 2♦ is natural.

 

West's alert of 2♦ 'triggers' East that the 2♠ call may be a forced preference. East sees a port in the storm and passes 2♠ (good thing pard didn't bid 3♣!).

 

For those that have problems conceptualizing this issue, imagine if you were playing with screens and you can't hear partner's alert ( :) not unlike on-line). Would you timidly pass 2♠? Heck, I'd be making a SLAM try. I don't care about the idea that pard passed over 1♦. Many of us don't automatically overcall on 5 ratty spades and 10 points. A hand like: Jxxxx, xxxx, Kx, Ax gives us a play for 7.

 

If I was the director (or on a committee), I wouldn't accept less than the doubled penalty of 4♠ as the proper adjustment for E/W. Absolutely clear case of UI.

 

It gets a little murky if E/W can demonstrate that 2♦ IS conventional and somehow the alert doesn't trigger East (although I can't see how). Interestingly if E/W was playing with screens, and East passed 2♠, I think East could be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

Is the existence of West's 2♠ bid ALONE (i.e. without the benefit of the alert) enough to remind East that they have an agreement here? Curious question.

[jdulmage]

The general law is:

 

"If they tell you the truth based on what they have AGREED upon, then they are just as damaged as the opponents are"

 

Director call unneeded.