Next action after a WJS

[VixTD]

MP pairs, all are strong club players but not in well-established partnerships. NS play Acol with five-card majors, better minor, 11-15 NT.

[hv=pc=n&n=sqt87543hqd4cjt53&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c(3+%20clubs)p2s(WJS)p2np]133|200[/hv]

What action would you take as North, and what other actions would you consider?

 

I think it's safe to say that the partnership discussion and experience has not yet reached this sort of situation, so it's no use asking me (or them) what specific agreements are in place. Further details will follow.

[Cyberyeti]

Partner appears to have a good hand (or he passes 2♠ even if void or maybe rebids 3♣).

 

Bids I consider, 3♠, 4♠, 3♣, pass not in frame.

 

Torn as to which action I take, I don't consider one much better than the others.

[the_clown]

I would bid 4♠ and I dont consider any other bid

[billw55]

I would bid 4♠ and I dont consider any other bid

Agree. After a WJS, any bid by partner is encouraging. Here north is supermax for his WJS, it's almost a 1♠ bid, so I go on to game.

 

Well, I guess I would consider 3♣ also. Supporting partner is always an option.

[wank]

wJS means something different in the UK to what i understand them to be in america. our weak jump shifts are are something like 3-8.

 

still with a 7th spade and 4 clubs, i wouldn't be tempted by anything other than 4s.

[shyams]

I'd consider 3♠ and 4♠ as possible continuations.

 

I'd bid 4♠ to play.

[helene_t]

4s but I would consider 4c.

[lamford]

My guess is that 2S was explained as strong, and the person with this hand either passed or bid 3S. Pass is unacceptable. 4S looks normal, and I don't think there is an alternative. The fact that it might get partner to give up is by the by.

[weejonnie]

WJS are not part of Acol of course. Counting losers (7) it seems that 4 Spades is the right bid.

[Cyberyeti]

Also depends on agreements (which you say don't exist), playing 2N as "good hand, short spades" is possible (we do something vaguely similar over a SJS) and if the 2♠ bidder thought he was playing that, 3♣ is very plausible (picture x, Axx, Ax, AKQxxxx, yes you make 3N, you might make 4♠, I'd rather make 6♣)

[campboy]

I'd bid 4♠ but would consider bidding some number of clubs.

[VixTD]

The actual auction was a little more complicated.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk2hk865dktcaq876&w=sajhat4dq8762c942&n=sqt87543hqd4cjt53&e=s96hj9732daj953ck&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1cp2sdp3d3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

2♠ was not alerted, South assumed it was strong.

 

East led ♦A and when dummy came down asked about the auction. North volunteered (a little late, admittedly) that 2♠ was weak and told East (incorrectly) that he could choose another lead if he wished. East didn't, switched to a low heart and North made ten tricks.

 

East maintained afterwards that if he had known that 2♠ was weak he would not have doubled. I'm inclined to believe this, and I'm trying to work out possible continuations of the auction and which choices may be barred to whom at each step. (I'm not convinced East is entitled to know that 2♠ is weak - that's an added complication - but I'm trying to cover everything).

 

I asked South what he would do if East passed, and didn't get a clear answer. He mentioned 2NT and 3♥ as possibilities, but let's go with 2NT as the more likely one. North insisted he will bid 4♠ over this and couldn't see any alternative. I thought this gave the matter an interesting twist, as South might now bid 4NT and they would end up in 5♠-1. If I judged 3♣ a logical alternative over which 3/4♠ are suggested I would have to rescue them from this fate as I cannot assign any part of a score which includes an illegal action, so North would have been better off confessing that in retrospect he sees that he was ethically bound to support partner's clubs. Of course, they might still finish in 5♠, 5♣ or some other hopeless contract, but I think it's less likely now.

 

From your answers so far it looks as if 3♣ could just about be a logical alternative.

 

North has unauthorized information from partner's failure to alert that 2♠ has not been correctly interpreted, and must carefully avoid taking advantage of this, but if NS have no agreement about 2♠, does it require an alert? The convention card made no mention of WJS, but does North's bid provide sufficient evidence that an agreement exists, and should I rule that EW were misinformed (law 75)?

 

BB2D2: Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert.

I've been tripped up by this regulation before. Does it mean that if there is any doubt in South's mind he should alert? If no alert is required then I think it is quite likely that the auction will follow the course it did, although the question still arises whether North's 3♠ is legal.

 

As if that weren't enough, North complained that EW should have led or switched to ♣K and defeated 4♠, so only have themselves to blame for their poor score.

 

Thankfully, East withdrew his request for a ruling, so I don't have to worry about it, but I'd welcome any further comments.

[mycroft]

What does the bidder think/ the area thinks a wjs is? Is partner going to be surprised if I have QJTxxx and out, even at unfavourable? If not, then this is HUGE, and 4♠ at least. If WJS is sort of like what they are here, where opener after 1♠-3♣ bids 3NT on a random 17 5323, and it comes in more often than not, then we've bid our hand; 2NT should be that random 17 BAL.

 

If partner opened a strong (say 16-18) NT, would I Texas her with this hand? Probably - that seventh spade *has* to be big. Of course, one of the reasons I would do it is to make competition/sacrifice harder; it's still only odds-on we're going to make, but we're probably going to win the partscore battle at 4♠. That reason goes away in this auction, as we know we're not going to get competition (or I already preempted them out last round). So that argues for 3♠.

 

I can't believe pass is an option, not with 7114 and a major.

 

Does that answer your "action/consider" constraint?

[Cyberyeti]

My suspicion would be that one player regularly plays WJS, the other SJS and it didn't occur to either of them that their partner didn't play the same system, so failure to alert is to be expected, and is not in itself an issue as it appears they had no agreement and it didn't even occur to S that the bid wasn't strong and thus unalertable.

 

Because of this I don't think E is entitled to know 2♠ was weak (the situation is essentially that N has misbid a strong 2♠ with added scrutiny on his subsequent actions due to the UI), so the auction proceeds as is, I don't see any real alternative to N's actions. S I suspect didn't expect N to pass 4♠, but there is no issue with him doing so.

 

A bit hard on EW, but they should beat 4♠.

[helene_t]

North's 3♠ bid is presumably stronger than 4♠ and even then South signed off in 4♠. I don't think the auction suggested the diamond suit to be an issue, the strength in the red suits is more likely to be with East who doubled 2♠. So I don't think we can force South to ask for aces over a 4♠ bid from North.

 

But maybe North should have bid 3♣ or 4♣ over 2NT after which South may get more excited.

[jeffford76]

Thankfully, East withdrew his request for a ruling, so I don't have to worry about it, but I'd welcome any further comments.

 

I think once you have been alerted to an irregularity, it is your job to make a ruling, regardless of any "withdrawal".

 

Law 10A reads "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative."

 

Law 81C3 says the director's duties include "[rectifying] an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner".

[mycroft]

Ah, but "I wish to withdraw my request for a ruling, because we lost by 65, and it's just going to be a waste of everybody's time" seems like a badly phrased 81C5 request to waive the rectification for cause, which the TD in this case would be willing to accept.

 

The ruling in this case would be "there was UI, there was LAs, there may or may not have been damage, but we're going to leave the table result because of reasons."

[weejonnie]

Since we are in EBU land it would appear the best thing to do (when not clear what would happen) is to assign weighted scores in accordance with 12C1c.

 

(East isn't allowed to know North is weak. He is allowed to know that there is no partnership understanding.) But we'll assume a pass.

 

As for South - holding at least 2nd round control in all suits he is likely to get excited and when North jumps in a forcing situation with a strong spade suit (ostensibly in Acol promising a solid suit but here it could be 7 spades to AQJT) then I think that South HAS to launch a slam enquiry - 7 spades to the AQ and the red suit aces make 7S Icy unless North is 7-2-2-2.

 

So we get

 

1 Club : 2 Spades

2 NT ; 4 Spades (strong remember)

4 NT : 5 Clubs (oops! Isn't this 0 or 3 'Aces and how can it be '0' if North is strong)

 

So now South has to choose between 5 Spades (pessimistically assuming 0 and waiting for North to Correct and then bid 7) or just bid 7 Spades.

North will pass 5 Spades.

 

Since weightings should be slightly biased against offenders

 

75% 7SX -3

25% 5S -1

 

(If I was a real SoB I would add a little bit of 7NTX - or even 7NTXX -6) However maybe North will pass the 4NT bid which might be 4NT -3

[aguahombre]

Good luck finding a peer group for a poll. The 5-point 1NT range, the failure to bid 1NT, the 2S response with a 3S response, the 2NT rebid under-strength by a bullet (if 2S were a wjs), and on and on.

[Cyberyeti]

Good luck finding a peer group for a poll. The 5-point 1NT range, the failure to bid 1NT, the 2S response with a 3S response, the 2NT rebid under-strength by a bullet (if 2S were a wjs), and on and on.

 

Failure to bid 1N is normal in the UK, most people here don't treat 5422s as balanced, and more only will if both minors.

 

3♠ rather than 2 would be a splinter for many.

 

2N was bid over what he thought was a SJS not a weak one and is one of the relatively normal responses.

[jeffford76]

Ah, but "I wish to withdraw my request for a ruling, because we lost by 65, and it's just going to be a waste of everybody's time" seems like a badly phrased 81C5 request to waive the rectification for cause, which the TD in this case would be willing to accept.

 

The ruling in this case would be "there was UI, there was LAs, there may or may not have been damage, but we're going to leave the table result because of reasons."

 

I don't know where this "down by 65" came from. The OP specified matchpoint pairs. Failing to make a proper ruling on the board likely affected other contestants' matchpoint results.

[lamford]

East maintained afterwards that if he had known that 2♠ was weak he would not have doubled. I'm inclined to believe this <snip>

You would be inclined to believe that the Pope is not a Catholic. East is a passed hand with 5-5 in the reds and they have bid 1C-2S(weak) and you let East pull the wool over your eyes? He was happy to double when he thought 2S was natural and game-forcing!

[weejonnie]

You would be inclined to believe that the Pope is not a Catholic. East is a passed hand with 5-5 in the reds and they have bid 1C-2S(weak) and you let East pull the wool over your eyes? He was happy to double when he thought 2S was natural and game-forcing!

 

But East does not know that North is weak. He knows that NS 'have no partnership understanding'. This suggests leaving them to it.

[VixTD]

North's 3♠ bid is presumably stronger than 4♠ and even then South signed off in 4♠. I don't think the auction suggested the diamond suit to be an issue, the strength in the red suits is more likely to be with East who doubled 2♠. So I don't think we can force South to ask for aces over a 4♠ bid from North.

 

But maybe North should have bid 3♣ or 4♣ over 2NT after which South may get more excited.

Strong jump-shifts traditionally show one of three hand types: (i) a single-suited hand, (ii) a hand with the bid suit and good support for partner, or (iii) a balanced hand with the suit bid. I was thinking that South would be more inclined to bid a slam opposite a single-suited hand, as it would presumably have much better spades than a hand with spades and club support.

 

If North bids 4♠ then South has to decide whether to end the auction (pass) or continue bidding. A "sign-off" of 4♠ over 3♠ presumably says that he has nothing more to add, but will not necessarily end the auction, as North could still make another bid, so I don't think the situations are the same. Even so, I'm not suggesting South would always bid on over 4♠.

[Trinidad]

MP pairs, all are strong club players but not in well-established partnerships. NS play Acol with five-card majors, better minor, 11-15 NT.

[hv=pc=n&n=sqt87543hqd4cjt53&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c(3+%20clubs)p2s(WJS)p2np]133|200[/hv]

What action would you take as North, and what other actions would you consider?

 

I think it's safe to say that the partnership discussion and experience has not yet reached this sort of situation, so it's no use asking me (or them) what specific agreements are in place.

I understand that there is a misunderstanding, but I am not willing to believe just yet that there is no agreement. Many (most?) pairs who play weak jump shifts play 2NT as an artificial enquiry, similar to a 2NT response to a weak two*. So, I would ask North:

• What he thought the range for his WJS was.
  
• What the range for his weak two is.
  
• And - after adjusting the hand by a a king or so for the difference in range - what his partnership would have bid after 2♠-Pass-2NT-Pass;??
  

 

(Probably South will say that they play strong twos. ;) )

 

Rik

 

* Should NS play Multi (seems unwise if you can't agree on your JS) then I would ask North what they would have bid after 2♦-Pass-2♥-Pass; 2♠-Pass-2NT-Pass;??