How do you rule?

[jillybean]

Hi,

Here is a board from a recent tournament, I was called to the table by West re opps failure to alert 4♣. South started ranting when I queried the bid, North said it was lead directing.

 

How do you rule? Please don't bother replying if you think "clueless" or unqualified directors shouldn't be running tournaments, that its only a free tourney so who cares etc.

 

tyia

jillybean2

 

[hv=d=s&v=a&n=s2hj76dat4ck98653&w=saqj874hk953d7cq2&e=s95ht82dkqjcajt74&s=skt63haq4d986532c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 1♠    Pass  1NT   2♦

 2♠    3♦    3♠    4♣

 4♥    Pass  4♠    Dbl

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[helene_t]

Did EW ask for adjustment? On what ground? I don't see how the score could be influenced by the failure to alert 4♣. EW will end up in 4♠ dbl anyway, wont they? Or did they claim that they would have doubled 4♦ or bid 4NT otherwize?

 

Anyway, I doubt that NS, even if they are a regular partnership, have specific agreement as to whether 4♣ can be a void. It's just bridge logic that it's lead directing so it's not alertable.

 

No adjustment.

[Brandal]

Hi,

Here is a board from a recent tournament, I was called to the table by West re opps failure to alert 4♣. South started ranting when I queried the bid, North said it was lead directing.

 

How do you rule? Please don't bother replying if you think "clueless" or unqualified directors shouldn't be running tournaments, that its only a free tourney so who cares etc.

 

tyia

jillybean2

No adjustment.

 

Out of curiousity,did west call during bidding or after finish

playing?

 

I smell "we go down,4D doesn't make,South no alert" syndrome

here....

 

:D

[david_c]

I think I would tell South he should have alerted 4♣. North said it was lead-directing; South clearly intended it as lead-directing; that's enough to convince me that they have an agreement. And this agreement is alertable IMO - of course, South doesn't have to tell the opponents he has a void, but he does need to say that 4♣ is lead-directing rather than promising length.

 

Then you have to look to see if there was any damage. At first sight it doesn't seem like there was. But if E/W feel they have been damaged I will give them the opportunity to explain why.

[jillybean]

Out of curiousity,did west call during bidding or after finish

playing?

After trick 1

[cherdano]

Let's see what we have to check:

1. Was there misinformation?

2. Was there damage?

 

IMO 1. is fairly clear here. It is not "just bridge" that 4♣ is lead directing. Instead, many would play it as natural, suggesting a second suit, with interest to sacrifice against 4♠ if partner has a club fit, too.

Looking at the North hand (and his failure to bid 5 of a minor), it seems clear NS had an explicit or implicit agreement that 4♣ is purely lead directing; in that case, it has to be alerted.

So was there damage? I think yes. If 4♣ is a suit, West's hopes to find partner with a secondary fit in hearts increase, so if it's purely lead directing, there seems to be a better case for passing 4♣ and involving partner in the decision (who would double 4[CI] I suppose). If West claims he would pass 4♣ if it had been alerted and explained correctly, then there is a case for adjustment to 4♦X.

 

However, I suspect West called the TD after he put up the ♣A on trick one (because he feared the club lead might be a singleton) and saw it getting ruffed, and complained he would have played low with correct explanation. In that case, I believe you as TD should tell the players to continue to play, and come back at the end to find out whether there has been damage due to the play at trick one. If defense plays correctly (club ruff, diamond to the Ace, club ruff), West will never get to dummy, and it doesn't matter whether he saved the ♣A at trick one. So result stands.

 

However, I don't think the decision is clear-cut, and as player I would accept any TD ruling.

 

Arend

[Brandal]

Let's see what we have to check:

1. Was there misinformation?

2. Was there damage?

 

It is not "just bridge" that 4♣ is lead directing. Instead, many would play it as natural, suggesting a second suit, with interest to sacrifice against 4♠ if partner has a club fit, too.

 

However, I don't think the decision is clear-cut, and as player I would accept any TD ruling.

 

Arend

1. I agree it should be alerted as lead directing since

North said it was,it is an agreement.

Lead directing doesn't necessarily mean void I would think.

2. Hard to say,west can pass and see what unfolds,or dbl

and see what happens.

 

I also agree there is no such thing as "just bridge",that means

everyone would assume or know it's lead directing,and I doubt

that very much.

 

I stand by my original opinion,no adjust,tell south to alert

next time.

 

I would ofcourse accept any TD ruling,I always do

[BurnKryten]

In a competitive auction, North/South have bid and raised a suit. They are not going to be searching for a second suit, 4♣ is likely to be a lead director in this case.

 

1. Was there misinformation? Doubtful. North/South are clearly playing in diamonds - bidding clubs is not going to be an offer to play there. South is bidding clubs for a reason, and East/West should listen.

 

The director was called after trick #1 - so North explaining South's call as "lead directing" after the ruff has already happened doesn't mean they had any explicit partnership agreement to disclose.

 

As a defender, North is on lead and looks at his hand, with six clubs to the King, and wonders why partner bid clubs. It doesn't take long for a club to hit the table.

 

To me, this is just bridge. Result stands.

[Brandal]

As a defender, North is on lead and looks at his hand, with six clubs to the King, and wonders why partner bid clubs. It doesn't take long for a club to hit the table.

Aren't you basically saying "opps should know,we

don't have to tell them anything"?

 

Amazingly enough we came to the same result tho :D

[hrothgar]

As a defender, North is on lead and looks at his hand, with six clubs to the King, and wonders why partner bid clubs.  It doesn't take long for a club to hit the table.

Aren't you basically saying "opps should know,we

don't have to tell them anything"?

Strangely enough, bridge is a game of skill.

Accordingly, players who are unskilled will sometimes be at a disadvantage...

[pigpenz]

I see nothing wrong with the 4♣ bid, he is trying to set the defense, now if the opponents had passed it would be up to his partner. He stuck his neck out there and was rewarded for it.

[DrTodd13]

4♣ is just bridge. No alert necessary. No adjustment given.

[Brandal]

As a defender, North is on lead and looks at his hand, with six clubs to the King, and wonders why partner bid clubs.  It doesn't take long for a club to hit the table.

Aren't you basically saying "opps should know,we

don't have to tell them anything"?

Strangely enough, bridge is a game of skill.

Accordingly, players who are unskilled will sometimes be at a disadvantage...

constructive and enlightening

 

where do I say it isn't

where do I say they won't

[Brandal]

As a defender, North is on lead and looks at his hand, with six clubs to the King, and wonders why partner bid clubs.  It doesn't take long for a club to hit the table.

Aren't you basically saying "opps should know,we

don't have to tell them anything"?

Strangely enough, bridge is a game of skill.

Accordingly, players who are unskilled will sometimes be at a disadvantage...

constructive and enlightening

 

where do I say it isn't

where do I say they won't

What I wanted to know is if North knows the 4C is void/

lead directing bid,should it be alerted,and not if you

think more skilled players need the extra advantage.

[Rebound]

First of all, it seems E/W fixed themselves by over-bidding their way into a bad contract. Notice the first round of bidding. N/S passed the first round all together, and E bid 1NT over 1♠. What are they doing competing to 4♠?

 

Alert aside, the opponents don't deserve protection from their own choices.

[luke warm]

in my opinion, 4♣ was an *excellent* bid... if my partner bid it, i'd lead a club expecting A,Q or void or some such... if an op bid it, it would warn me off of a certain action... it does not require an alert, but should be explained if queried

[inquiry]

This is normal bridge (well, the 2♦ bid raises an eyebrow). They have found a fit (♦'s) and 4♣ is lead directing bid. Can be void, can be AQJ, can be AK, things like that. It would be an alert only if they had agreed the bid means void or singleton.

 

Ben

[Elianna]

I agree with what seems to be the general idea, that the non-alert of the 4♣ bid did not damage EW, but I do think that the reply of "This is just bridge" is misleading. Many people play that a bid of 4♣ there is a second suit, to help partner decide whether to sacrifice or not based on a double fit.

 

Saying this, though, I am not claiming to know whether or not either meaning of 4♣ is alertable, but I do feel that EW not knowing that it was purely lead-directing is not and indication that they are beginners, or any such thing.

[jillybean]

To the people who have answered: “4♣ is just bridge” :

 

When tournament rules state “Alert all conventional bids”, is this interpreted as “only alert conventional bids that experienced players won’t recognize”?

 

Surely 4♣ here is conventional or North would have raised?

 

 

As I saw it there was a clear failure to alert but I could not determine damage, I let result stand. I was interested to see if others thought there was damage.

 

 

jillybean2

[luke warm]

ben said it all, 4♣ is only alertable if it has a specific p'ship meaning.. it's only conventional if it has such a meaning... partner can't know whether it shows a 2nd suit or what, but it's common practice to bid that way on the way to another bid, in case the opps bid over you to make or sac

 

i've never seen it alerted, and if asked it has been explained as 'lead directing'

[helene_t]

To the people who have answered:  “4♣ is just bridge” :

 

When tournament rules state “Alert all conventional bids”, is this interpreted as “only alert conventional bids that experienced players won’t recognize”?

Good question. The term "conventional" is not stringently defined.

 

Bidding a new suit after a fit has been found is unlikely to be a proposal to make that suit trump. It could be lead-directing, it could be a notrump probe, it could be a long suit trial. In this case, it could be argued that a second suit, looking for the double fit, would be more natural than lead-directing. Consider this

1♦-2♦

2♠*

Responder denied a 4-card major so 2♠ can't be a proposal to play in spades. It could be argued that a 6-5 shape would be more natural than a notrump probe. But nobody would alert 2♠. Probably the lead-directing 4♣ is less obvious than this.

[jillybean]

1♦-2♦

2♠*

 

I understand and agree with this, it is showing strength.

 

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

 

It is NOT conventional if:

1. You are willing to play there

2. You have length there (3+)

3. You have strength

 

:)

 

And then it goes back to this big grey area of 'partnership agreements' :huh:

 

jillybean2

[luis]

4♣ is not conventional and doesn't require any alert.

Why it is not "conventional" ? Because conventional is a bid where you agree a specific meaning with your pd and I really doubt this pair has discussed this situation in particular. Many people confuse bids that don't show a suit with conventional bids, there're a lot of not-natural bids that are not conventional.

 

Adjusting would be ridiculous there's nothing nothing nothing even to analyze here.

[Rebound]

<snip>

The term "conventional" is not stringently defined.

Sure it is.

 

A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.

 

So, the first order of business in the actual case has more to do with whether N/S had a prior partnership agreement as to the meaning of the 4♣ call. If not, then it is, by definition, not alertable. It's hard to say in this case. There certainly is more than one possible meaning for the 4♣ call (well, perhaps exactly 2.) So, who do you believe?

 

My take is that, just because North's length tells him partner's lead directing call is based on shortness rather than strength, it is lead directing nevertheless and the opponents have no recourse.

 

Um seems I missed Luis's post - we seem to be more or less on the same page.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Rebound

[luis]

1♦-2♦

2♠*

 

I understand and agree with this, it is showing strength.

 

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

 

It is NOT conventional if:

1. You are willing to play there

2. You have length there (3+)

3. You have strength

 

:)

 

And then it goes back to this big grey area of 'partnership agreements' :huh:

 

jillybean2

1,2 and 3 are wrong.

A bid is conventional if there's an explicit or implicit partnership agreement about the meaning of the bid. Explicit is when it has been discussed or it is in the CC. Implicit is when it has appeared in similar situations before and the pair has agreed about the meaning of the bid.

 

Law 40-A:

A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.