Wrong bid, correct explanation

[Greyhorn77]

Duplicate in club, dealer south, EW vul.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj8ha9dkqj6caq93&w=sakt97642h87d3c65&n=s3hkjt653dt8c8742&e=s5hq42da97542ckjt&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2n(Alert!%205-5%20minors)4sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

 

Arbiter: it turned out, the explanation was correct, the bid was wrong. §75 C applies.

I remember something like north should bid as if the bid was according to his explanation (-> 5 Clubs?)

Thank you for your advice!

Edited November 24, 2019 by barmar
insert bidding diagram

[weejonnie]

In essence you are half correct: the TD has ascertained that the explanation was correct (although there is a presumption that the explanation is wrong) - so presumably he looked at convention cards or asked the players away from the table as to their actual agreements.

 

There is some doubt whether North has now picked up that South has mis-bid. If South is known to mis-bid a lot then this fact should be declared to the opponents and failure to do so is an infraction (misinformation) . The EBU has the following guidelines - white book 1.4.1 (in part)

 

"Players are required to disclose their agreements, both explicit and implicit. If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have deviated from the system this must be disclosed to the opponents. If a player properly discloses this possibility, the player will not be penalised for fielding it, although there may be a penalty for playing an illegal method."

 

(FWIW in the EBU a 2NT bid showing either 5-5 in the minors or a strong hand is a perfectly legal convention (I play a variation of it myself))

 

1.4.2.6 has this

 

"A partnership’s actions following a misbid may provide evidence of a partnership understanding which should have been properly disclosed. Unlike psyches, misbids are not classified as red, amber or green, but can be recorded.Because of the difference between the player’s understanding of their call and any alerts and answers to questions by their partner it is quite common for unauthorised information problems to be present."

 

So if South has no record of mis-bidding, North is fully entitled to assume that he has as there is no implicit agreement. He might, in the interest of full disclosure, tell opponents that it sounds from the double that South has mis-bid (not that that will be of any great comfort to West, of course).

 

What would be harder to explain would be if a double is actually for takeout (in the minors) - there is probably no partnership agreement on this - but what would South do if holding

-

X

KJTXXX

KJTXXX

 

for instance? (maybe bid 4NT? Some pairs will differentiate between a double and 4NT depending on the strength of the 2NT bid)

 

Note that even if South might have misbid and North has known this, West is not entitled to know whether a misbid has occurred. In effect he is only allowed to know "Shows 5-5 in the minors although we have played this as 20-21 balanced and South may have forgotton the change" or WTTE (This explanation is of course UI to South).

 

As Terence reese said - "a convention is an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to opponents"

 

In Summary.

 

1) North is not compelled to bid as though his explanation is correct.

2) If he has no reason to expect South has misbid then that is the end of the matter.

3) If he knows South has a tendency to misbid conventions (especially this one!) then he must declare it.

[pescetom]

If OP used a hand diagram as is customary it would be much easier to evaluate possible meanings of South's double and whether North could reasonably pass 4S with those black cards and that agreement about 2NT.

[Greyhorn77]

Yes, sorry, I tried to implement the distribution by a picture, didn't work, so I keyed in the hole thing. What is OP? (for a possible next post).

[pescetom]

No problem.

OP is just internet shorthand for 'Original Post', the first message of thread.

I'd be happy to create the diagram but I'm on a phone for a few days.

[blackshoe]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj8ha9dkqj6caq93&w=sakt97642h87d3c65&n=s3hkjt653dt8c8742&e=s5hq42da97542ckjt&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2n(Alert!%205-5%20minors)4sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

On the alert of 2!C by North, apparently East asked the meaning of the alert. This is improper procedure, since it's not East's turn to call. At a club, I wouldn't penalize this the first time it happens, simply explain to them the proper procedure. If East makes a habit of doing this, sooner or later he should get a PP.

The director apparently determined that North's alert and explanation were correct; South misbid. He's allowed to do that, and he doesn't have to tell the opponents he did it.

If North has no reason to expect South has misbid, his double makes sense as takeout for the better of South's presumed two minor suits. So on the facts presented, EW are stuck with their table result.

[sanst]

Do NS have an agreement about the strength of the 2NT? Did W ask about that? Could S have 3 aces and a king? Anyway, I don’t see why N should bid 5♣ with a not improbable trick (K♥). Only when there’s a reason to believe that S more often misbids 2NT, the TD should act.

Although it isn’t a extremely serious error, I would consider the 4♠ a wild action, certainly at this vulnerability. W can wait for N to respond and still bid spades if he is still inclined to do so.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't call it wild, although you're right that he could have waited to see what North would do. Given North thinks South has the minors, I expect he'd bid some number of clubs. Possibly West will still bid 4S. Will North double now? I dunno. Really doesn't matter though.

[weejonnie]

I wouldn't call it wild, although you're right that he could have waited to see what North would do. Given North thinks South has the minors, I expect he'd bid some number of clubs. Possibly West will still bid 4S. Will North double now? I dunno. Really doesn't matter though.

NB "Wild" is no longer part of the reason for denying redress.

 

Instead of "Serious error, wild or gambling" we have

"Extremely serious eror (unrelated to the infraction) or a gambling action which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification": obviously West has no idea there is a misbid/ misexplanation (and if there is a misbid then that is not a infraction anyweay) - and overbidding an 8-card suit is an oxymoron.

[pescetom]

I can't see that 4S here is even an error. If opponents are not good they may wrongly decide to defend or miss out on a slam, in any case a spades lead and ruff may well set game in whichever suit North decides.

[pescetom]

.

The director apparently determined that North's alert and explanation were correct; South misbid. He's allowed to do that, and he doesn't have to tell the opponents he did it.

 

 

If North has no reason to expect South has misbid, his double makes sense as takeout for the better of South's presumed two minor suits. So on the facts presented, EW are stuck with their table result.

 

As I read it, it was South that doubled, North passed. And North has no reason to ask for the better suit, having 4-card support for clubs. He could well bid 5C, although I agree it is not automatic unless he had UI about 2NT.

[sanst]

NB "Wild" is no longer part of the reason for denying redress.

 

Instead of "Serious error, wild or gambling" we have

"Extremely serious eror (unrelated to the infraction) or a gambling action which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification": obviously West has no idea there is a misbid/ misexplanation (and if there is a misbid then that is not a infraction anyweay) - and overbidding an 8-card suit is an oxymoron.

I wrote that it isn’t a extremely serious error, but just commented on W bidding which I considered not smart and called that wild. But nowhere I suggested that it’s self inflicted damage with no connection whatsoever to the misbid or the explanation.

[blackshoe]

NB "Wild" is no longer part of the reason for denying redress.

So I've heard. B-)

 

I wrote that it isn’t a extremely serious error, but just commented on W bidding which I considered not smart and called that wild.

Yeah, I got that.

[sfi]

I find it extraordinary that North didn't bid 5C over 4S and would be on the lookout for someone to mention UI by South that may have clued North in to what was going on. If nothing like that gets mentioned the so be it - North can do what they like. However, at the least I would like to ask North away from the table their logic behind passing 4S.

[blackshoe]

"Logic" at the table often isn't logical, so I probably wouldn't damn North if his logic... isn't.

[sfi]

"Logic" at the table often isn't logical, so I probably wouldn't damn North if his logic... isn't.

I agree, but at least I would like to ask the question.