Three Weak Twos

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=s832h932d32cat852&w=skjt9hkqjtdkjt9cj&n=saq4ha54daq84cq64&e=s765h876d765ck973&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2c(strong)p2d(waiting)p3c(good%20suit)p3h(cue%20for%20clubs)p3np6nppdppp]399|300[/hv]

Table Result 6NTx=. Lead ♥K

 

The Rabbit had agreed to play three weak twos with the Hog on this hand, but he could not remember which three suits this meant, and opened a Blue Book compliant 2C on the South hand. North announced it as strong, however, and SB, West, decided to leave them to their own devices. He lost patience, however, when they stumbled into 6NT and thought he was on safe ground by doubling, especially with RR at the helm.

 

RR had recalled a lesson about ducking the opening lead but winning the second one with Axx opposite xxx in no-trumps, so he ducked the first trick, and won the second with the ace of hearts. His only hope seemed to be the Chinese finesse in clubs, which many an opponent had pulled off against him, so he led the queen of clubs, covered by East with West playing the jack. "Do you play normal count?" asked RR, peering at the jack of clubs. MM, East, confirmed that they did and RR took the diamond finesse and led the six of clubs, covered with East's seven. RR wondered if West's jack on the first round was a standard false-card with J9 doubleton and was tempted to rise with the ten, especially as East-West played normal count, but after much dithering he finessed the eight, which held. Now he finessed the queen of spades and even he was able to finesse the five of clubs successfully. The remaining clubs caught SB in a progressive squeeze and RR emerged with 12 unexpected tricks. "You should have kept a spade and a heart guard," he said to SB. "That was most careless of you, and quite rare for you to misdefend. I should never have made my eight of spades and nine of hearts."

 

SB was apoplectic. "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", he called.

"RR agreed to and did open a non-compliant "strong" 2C, without 12 HCP and 5 controls, and did not correct the wrong explanation before the opening lead.", he began. "If 2C had been explained as weak, which is a permitted agreement, then I would have doubled for takeout and it is very unlikely that NS would reach 6NT". He paused for breath. "And if RR had called the TD before the opening lead and indicated that there had been a wrong explanation, I might have found the diamond lead which breaks up the progressive squeeze by attacking the extended menace and interfering with the communications in the ending".

 

OO was unsure. "I don't buy the second part of that; he said," "I think if I polled the caretaker's dogs, they would all lead the king of hearts". "And as for the first part, the agreement to play three weak twos to anyone other than the Rabbit would mean weak twos in diamonds, hearts and spades, so 2C was a misbid".

 

The Rabbit blushed, aware that he was being ridiculed again. SB was not finished however. "21B1(b) states: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation

rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." He continued: "I think we can rule MI, can't we and adjust to what would have happened after 2C, correctly explained as weak, double by me, with North bidding 3NT and going three off on a heart lead when declarer misguesses the clubs by playing one to the ten." He concluded: "Can I score it as +150 to our side, please?"

 

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

No "we" cannot.

[Cyberyeti]

3 weak 2s to EVERYBODY means not clubs. The agreement is clear, no redress for that, but the question that needs to be asked is why N with an 18 count opposite a 2♣ opener failed to bid 7, body language ?

[barmar]

The "evidence to the contrary" is that everyone plays 2♣ that way unless they've made specific agreements otherwise, and no one would consider agreeing to play "three weak twos" to be "otherwise".

 

If the explanation was incorrect, then the accurate explanation would be something like "could be weak or could be strong, depending on which 3 suits RR thinks we agreed to play weak 2's in", not to explain it as weak (since they have no such specific agreement). But if North knew that they were not on firm agreement about which 3 weak 2's they were playing, he would never have bid as he did. North obviously considered their agreement to be that 2♣ is strong, and so would practically anyone else making that agreement.

 

Also, I suspect that actual non-agreement is probably not a permitted agreement in many jurisdictions -- I haven't checked EBU's regulations.

 

We've been through this many times before. The laws about disclosure have an implicit assumption that the players actually have agreements, and they're difficult to apply to pickup partnerships that have made agreements hastily and without discussing the details. They often agree on conventions by name, without realizing that they have different understandings about them.

[DozyDom]

3 weak 2s to EVERYBODY means not clubs. The agreement is clear, no redress for that, but the question that needs to be asked is why N with an 18 count opposite a 2♣ opener failed to bid 7, body language ?

Because the person playing it is someone who doesn't know which three weak twos he's playing, I'd guess, though RR seems much better at play than I remember from most of these stories.

[lamford]

<snip>I'd guess, though RR seems much better at play than I remember from most of these stories.

No, much worse, in fact, but his guardian angel protects him from his idiocies. And, in response to Cyberyeti, nobody raises RR to 7NT even if they can count 14 top tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

No, much worse, in fact, but his guardian angel protects him from his idiocies. And, in response to Cyberyeti, nobody raises RR to 7NT even if they can count 14 top tricks.

 

Yeah, but the Hog in typical style would have bid 7N not 3♥ foreseeing the issue.

[lamford]

Yeah, but the Hog in typical style would have bid 7N not 3♥ foreseeing the issue.

Nah, he would bid 4NT, knowing that RR would take it as simple Blackwood, covering all bases.

[Cyberyeti]

Nah, he would bid 4NT, knowing that RR would take it as simple Blackwood, covering all bases.

 

That would also do, but there is NO chance he'd take the risk of RR bidding NT first

[FelicityR]

Nice to know Mr Mollo's 'Menagerie Tales' are still alive and well :)

 

I have a first edition in my bookcase somewhere: time to re-read it.

[lamford]

That would also do, but there is NO chance he'd take the risk of RR bidding NT first

It is illegal to swap polarity when RR is dealer, so HH always runs the risk of RR opening 1NT or 2NT. Also responding 3NT on 6-5 hands tends to get tuts at the North London Club. And it is also illegal to play that RR never opens 1NT, as both sides have to play the same system, and SB is pretty hot on that ...On the actual hand, when South opened 2C and showed a good club suit, HH expected South to cue rather than bid 3NT. And there was nothing at all wrong with RR's play. He did in fact need to duck the first round of hearts, and then lead the six of clubs on the second round of that suit.

 

And the rule about fielding a systemic misbid was ruled illegal and removed from the statute books when the EBU was told in no uncertain terms that they were breaking the Law. HH can make any call he likes as long as it is not based on a pre-arranged CPU.

[helene_t]

Yes this is rub of the green. The explanation is correct and W will always lead the king of hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

 

And the rule about fielding a systemic misbid was ruled illegal and removed from the statute books when the EBU was told in no uncertain terms that they were breaking the Law. HH can make any call he likes as long as it is not based on a pre-arranged CPU.

 

Hence my comment about body language, if he picks up rabbit is unimpressed with his explanation ...

[lamford]

Hence my comment about body language, if he picks up rabbit is unimpressed with his explanation ...

RR would not know that "strong" was not the correct explanation of his 2C bid. After all, "strong" includes hands such as ♠A32 ♥A32 ♦KJ ♣65432 when 2C is correctly explained as "strong" even though it is a "weak NT". From RR's point of view, "strong" might be the "nouveau weak". And his body language is always one of complete panic, fearing he has done something ridiculous, so nothing can be gleaned from that. Now, if HH had passed 3NT, you might have a point ...

[Tramticket]

No, much worse, in fact, but his guardian angel protects him from his idiocies.

 

Maybe his have a guardian angel taught him the concept of mandatory false cards. :)

[lamford]

Maybe his guardian angel taught him the concept of mandatory false cards. :)

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again