What do you think of this situation?

[Free]

Last night I had an interesting board in my local club. I held something like KQT9x-Kxx-void-AQTxx and the bidding went:

1♦ - pass - 1♥ - 2♥

Dbl - pass - pass - 2♠

Dbl - all pass

 

My partner explained the 2♥ bid as natural (before the first Dbl), which is correct according to our agreements (my bid was wrong). I corrected to 2♠, LHO asked my partner again if the ♥'s were real, and he insisted that I had ♥s and ♠s, probably better ♥. Now LHO doubled again. After the 3 passes, LHO asked me if the information is correct and I said "yes", since the explanations were correct and my bid wasn't (I don't have to say I made a mistake do I?).

 

So we play 3 tricks, LHO has the lead, and he suddenly calls the TD to tell him something isn't right about my 2♥ bid. TD says ok, continue the play and call me again if you feel disadvantaged. I made my contract tnx to poor defense, and they called the TD again. He said he'd rule afterwards since he had to play that board later that night. Afterwards he ruled 60-40 in opponent's advantage.

 

Now I have several questions:

- Am I allowed to bid 2♠? Partner's explanation was correct, but my bid wasn't. I realized this before the explanation was asked, but that's hard to prove obviously...

- Should my partner explain the 2♠ bid as 'probably no ♥s anyway', or should he stick to his first (correct) explanation? It's imo quite obvious that I don't hold ♥: partner didn't RDbl for SOS, so he's ok with 2♥ if that's my suit. When I change to ♠ it's clear that I don't have ♥.

- Am I supposed to correct partner's explanations when LHO asked it (right before his lead, I know if the explanation is wrong that I have to correct it before the lead when I'm declarer), especially after the correction to 2♠?

- Is it ethical to call the TD in the middle of the play and point out that I couldn't have ♥s? At the same time he lets his partner in on the little secret...

- Was the ruling correct?

 

In case it's important, partner's hand was: xxx-Jxx-JT87xx-x.

[Elianna]

1) Am I allowed to bid 2♠?  Partner's explanation was correct, but my bid wasn't.  I realized this before the explanation was asked, but that's hard to prove obviously...

2) Should my partner explain the 2♠ bid as 'probably no ♥s anyway', or should he stick to his first (correct) explanation?  It's imo quite obvious that I don't hold ♥: partner didn't RDbl for SOS, so he's ok with 2♥ if that's my suit.  When I change to ♠ it's clear that I don't have ♥.

3) Am I supposed to correct partner's explanations when LHO asked it (right before his lead, I know if the explanation is wrong that I have to correct it before the lead when I'm declarer), especially after the correction to 2♠?

4) Is it ethical to call the TD in the middle of the play and point out that I couldn't have ♥s?  At the same time he lets his partner in on the little secret...

5) Was the ruling correct?

 

In case it's important, partner's hand was: xxx-Jxx-JT87xx-x.

 

(I added the numbers to make replying easier)

 

1) It depends on what your agreements are after you make an artificial bid that gets doubled for penalty, and partner passes. Are your agreements that the pass just asks you to bid (and if so, you are free to bid)? Or are they that the pass is a suggestion of playing there (if so, you are not allowed to pull)?

 

2) If your partner has reasons to suspect that you may have forgotten your agreement (he's seen you forget before, it's a fairly new addition, etc.) he should alert opponents to that, saying, for example: "it's supposed to mean x, but he's forgotten before, and in that case it's y". If he has no reason to think that you've forgotten (and it doesn't appear to be so by his hand-maybe he'd prefer to play at the 2-level than the 3-level) then I think that your partner did fine.

 

3) You ARE supposed to correct an incorrect explanation, but that does not seem to be the case here. You ARE NOT obliged to tell the opponents that you forgot the meaning of a bid that you made.

 

4) I do not believe it to be ethical to call the director in the middle of the play to point out that you don't have hearts. Law 9B1a says that a director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity, but I do not believe it applies in this case (I think that it applies to things like bids out of turn, revokes, etc) maybe a more experienced director can explain whether or not it applies. This answer I'm less sure of than the others. :D

 

5) First off, I believe that before changing a score (or making any other non-minor ruling) a director should explain it to the pairs involved, so that they at least know what the director is basing his ruling on. I would just it incorrect solely because you weren't told what you did wrong. I have no idea why the director ruled that way, I probably would have asked a few more questions before making a ruling, but from what you say, it seems that there was no misinformation, so it seems to be that the ruling was not correct on the face of it, but I am not sure about that, either.

[LH2650]

4) I do not believe it to be ethical to call the director in the middle of the play to point out that you don't have hearts.  Law 9B1a says that a director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity, but I do not believe it applies in this case (I think that it applies to things like bids out of turn, revokes, etc) maybe a more experienced director can explain whether or not it applies.  This answer I'm less sure of than the others.  :)

 

The Bridge World (July 2003 editorial) states that they believe the correct interpretation of the Law is that the director should be called when the irregularity comes to the "table's attention" (as opposed to that of one player). Therefore, when it became clear from the play that declarer did not have hearts, the director call would be required.

 

However, they suggest that the times for calling the director be clearly defined, and that in this situation that time should be at the conclusion of the deal.

 

I see no reason for a score adjustment, given the facts presented.

[inquiry]

Last night I had an interesting board in my local club. I held something like KQT9x-Kxx-void-AQTxx and the bidding went:

1♦ - pass - 1♥ - 2♥

Dbl - pass - pass - 2♠

Dbl - all pass

 

My partner explained the 2♥ bid as natural (before the first Dbl), which is correct according to our agreements (my bid was wrong). I corrected to 2♠, LHO asked my partner again if the ♥'s were real, and he insisted that I had ♥s and ♠s, probably better ♥. Now LHO doubled again. After the 3 passes, LHO asked me if the information is correct and I said "yes", since the explanations were correct and my bid wasn't (I don't have to say I made a mistake do I?).

 

So we play 3 tricks, LHO has the lead, and he suddenly calls the TD to tell him something isn't right about my 2♥ bid. TD says ok, continue the play and call me again if you feel disadvantaged. I made my contract tnx to poor defense, and they called the TD again. He said he'd rule afterwards since he had to play that board later that night. Afterwards he ruled 60-40 in opponent's advantage.

 

Now I have several questions:

- Am I allowed to bid 2♠? Partner's explanation was correct, but my bid wasn't. I realized this before the explanation was asked, but that's hard to prove obviously...

- Should my partner explain the 2♠ bid as 'probably no ♥s anyway', or should he stick to his first (correct) explanation? It's imo quite obvious that I don't hold ♥: partner didn't RDbl for SOS, so he's ok with 2♥ if that's my suit. When I change to ♠ it's clear that I don't have ♥.

- Am I supposed to correct partner's explanations when LHO asked it (right before his lead, I know if the explanation is wrong that I have to correct it before the lead when I'm declarer), especially after the correction to 2♠?

- Is it ethical to call the TD in the middle of the play and point out that I couldn't have ♥s? At the same time he lets his partner in on the little secret...

- Was the ruling correct?

 

In case it's important, partner's hand was: xxx-Jxx-JT87xx-x.

While it is true that you do no thave to tell them you misbid, the facts here are more or less iirrelevant. If I was directing, I would ask what your thought your initial 2H bid was (michaels it looks like). They doubled your michaels and your partner passed. You ahve a great hand for this pass. Partner is suggesting the chance to play 2♥X. You ahve three hearts, a diamond void. Heck you could make overtricks. That is, assuming your parnter chose to pass your michaels cuebid.

 

But here is the problem. Your partner alerted. Now you say, and I believe you, that you remembered on your own that your agreement is that 2H iis hearts. Your partners alert had nothing to do with remembering, but I would still rule against you. It is not rather a person actually took advantage of UI from a hesitation in the bidding, or play, it is if it possible that such a hesistation would give UI then what most people would have done. Once your partner alerts 2♥ as hearts the question becomes is would people with your hand who bid micheals run if partner was willing to play 2♥. I think the answer here is most would choose to stick. So I would rule the resulat as 2♥x and whatever happens to that.

 

Ben

[Elianna]

Last night I had an interesting board in my local club.  I held something like KQT9x-Kxx-void-AQTxx and the bidding went:

1♦ - pass - 1♥ - 2♥

Dbl - pass - pass - 2♠

Dbl - all pass

 

My partner explained the 2♥ bid as natural (before the first Dbl), which is correct according to our agreements (my bid was wrong).  I corrected to 2♠, LHO asked my partner again if the ♥'s were real, and he insisted that I had ♥s and ♠s, probably better ♥.  Now LHO doubled again.  After the 3 passes, LHO asked me if the information is correct and I said "yes", since the explanations were correct and my bid wasn't (I don't have to say I made a mistake do I?).

 

So we play 3 tricks, LHO has the lead, and he suddenly calls the TD to tell him something isn't right about my 2♥ bid.  TD says ok, continue the play and call me again if you feel disadvantaged.  I made my contract tnx to poor defense, and they called the TD again.  He said he'd rule afterwards since he had to play that board later that night.  Afterwards he ruled 60-40 in opponent's advantage.

 

Now I have several questions:

- Am I allowed to bid 2♠?  Partner's explanation was correct, but my bid wasn't.  I realized this before the explanation was asked, but that's hard to prove obviously...

- Should my partner explain the 2♠ bid as 'probably no ♥s anyway', or should he stick to his first (correct) explanation?  It's imo quite obvious that I don't hold ♥: partner didn't RDbl for SOS, so he's ok with 2♥ if that's my suit.  When I change to ♠ it's clear that I don't have ♥.

- Am I supposed to correct partner's explanations when LHO asked it (right before his lead, I know if the explanation is wrong that I have to correct it before the lead when I'm declarer), especially after the correction to 2♠?

- Is it ethical to call the TD in the middle of the play and point out that I couldn't have ♥s?  At the same time he lets his partner in on the little secret...

- Was the ruling correct?

 

In case it's important, partner's hand was: xxx-Jxx-JT87xx-x.

While it is true that you do no thave to tell them you misbid, the facts here are more or less iirrelevant. If I was directing, I would ask what your thought your initial 2H bid was (michaels it looks like). They doubled your michaels and your partner passed. You ahve a great hand for this pass. Partner is suggesting the chance to play 2♥X. You ahve three hearts, a diamond void. Heck you could make overtricks. That is, assuming your parnter chose to pass your michaels cuebid.

 

But here is the problem. Your partner alerted. Now you say, and I believe you, that you remembered on your own that your agreement is that 2H iis hearts. Your partners alert had nothing to do with remembering, but I would still rule against you. It is not rather a person actually took advantage of UI from a hesitation in the bidding, or play, it is if it possible that such a hesistation would give UI then what most people would have done. Once your partner alerts 2♥ as hearts the question becomes is would people with your hand who bid micheals run if partner was willing to play 2♥. I think the answer here is most would choose to stick. So I would rule the resulat as 2♥x and whatever happens to that.

 

Ben

What if they have the agreement that passing a double of an artificial bid is NOT an invitation to play there. For example, if they have had the auction (1♦)-2♦-(x) - pass in the past, and have discussed it and decided that the pass means "pick your best suit" and a redouble would be penalty. Wouldn't you rule that the guy had the perfect right to correct 2Hx to 2S?

 

Not that I'm saying that this is the case here, but I would have asked more questions to varify what was actually going on, and that's why I think that they director's ruling was wrong. (The end result may have been right, but I don't like the process)

[mike777]

Most important issue here is:

If your partner gives an incorrect explanation, you can only tell the opp if your side plays the hand and before the opening lead.

To repeat you can say nothing during the bidding or if you are on defense until the hand is over.

If your opp asks you is that explanation correct during the biddng, STOP Play and call the Director.

 

Of course you must ignore your partner's incorrect explanation and bid your hand as if she understands your bids.

 

In any event call Director at end of hand!

 

In this case you forgot the agreements not partner.

Of course the opp may or may not allowed an adjustment if you forget your agreements. If you do more than once then I would consider a very serious penalty. In fact I may bar you playing a complicated system if you cannot remember it.

 

See various bridge laws.

[Elianna]

Most important issue here is:

If your partner gives an incorrect explanation, you can only tell the opp if your side plays the hand and before the opening lead.

To repeat you can say nothing during the bidding or if you are on defense until the hand is over.

If your opp asks you is that explanation correct during the biddng, STOP Play and call the Director.

 

Of course you must ignore your partners incorrect explanation and bid your hand as if she understands your bids.

 

In any event call Director at end of hand!

Actually, the question seems to be: what do you do if pard gives correct information, but you forgot the actual agreement.

 

Answer: you are under no obligation to inform opponents of this during bidding/play. They likely will find out before the end of the hand is over, though.

 

I agree with calling the director at the end of the hand.

[Free]

To repeat you can say nothing during the bidding or if you are on defense until the hand is over.

If your opp asks you is that explanation correct during the biddng, STOP Play and call the Director.

Maybe there's a misinterpretation somewhere. My LHO asked if the explanations were correct AFTER the bidding and BEFORE his lead, so actually during the time that I'd have to correct my partner :)

[Echognome]

This is an interesting question. I believe the laws about psychs and misbids are similar. I imagine that if this were a psych involved, then your partner would be woken up to the fact that you psyched when you pulled 2♥ doubled to 2♠. Isn't it similar when you pull your overcalled suit to another that you have now "exposed" your own misbid.

 

Suppose the auction had gone:

 

1♦ - pass - 1♠ - 2♥

Dbl - pass - pass - 3♣

...

 

It's a very unusual auction and quite similar to the one you actually had (in my opinion).

 

What would you interpret 3♣ as in the above auction? I would guess that partner had psyched 2♥ and was now exposing it. The question is if I were asked about the auction should I say "It looks like he has clubs now and not hearts."?

 

Presumably your partner didn't find the auction as unusual as it sounded to me. I would certainly look at your partner's hand to determine if there had been a fielded misbid (categorised in the EBU similar to psychs). I would probably rule that pass after the second double wasn't fielding because it would be a level higher.

 

As per your explanations of the bidding, you would no more have to say what they were as if you were psyching. That is you only have to state what your agreements are and not that you have misbid.

[candybar]

Had the auction gone exactly as it did, but with no alerts or explanations, I think it's clear you have no problem bidding 2S. Partner did not overcall hearts, and hearts is a suit bid naturally by the opponents, so it is next to impossible that partner wants to play hearts on his own hand. Therefore, you, knowing that you don't have hearts, are perfectly free to bid 2S (even if you still thought you were playing Michaels).

 

In the actual situation, your partner's explanation is correct, so there is no 'correction' to be made. You do not have to reveal that you made a mistake, not during the hand, not when asked at the end of the auction, and not voluntarily at the end of the hand. If the director asks, just tell the truth, you misbid. The only explanation the opponents are entitled to is your actual agreement. The point about you forgetting frequently is valid, and should be mentioned if true.

 

However, your partner's explanation is clearly UI. You are not allowed to use that information, and the Law for this says:

 

Law 16A Extraneous Information from Partner

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may

suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a

question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis,

tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose

from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have

been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

That means you may not choose a call that may have been suggested by your partner's explanation, if any logical alternative exists.

 

Do you think there is any logical alternative to bidding 2S? I don't, and so I would let the result stand.

[Rebound]

To me, in the absence of an explanation to the contrary, a pass of 2♥X (were I the 2♥ bidder) would show equal length in the unbid suits and offering a choice. There is a non-zero chance the 2♥ bidder was off-shape for the bid and might prefer to play in the minor when partner is equal.

 

Therefore, according to Law 75, I would bid 2♠ anyway so there is no problem.

[mink]

Last night I had an interesting board in my local club.  I held something like KQT9x-Kxx-void-AQTxx and the bidding went:

1♦ - pass - 1♥ - 2♥

Dbl - pass - pass - 2♠

Dbl - all pass

...

- Am I allowed to bid 2♠?  Partner's explanation was correct, but my bid wasn't.  I realized this before the explanation was asked, but that's hard to prove obviously...

1♥ shows at least 4 cards in ♥, maybe more. If partner's pass really showed a hand that is suitable for 2♥ doubled, with no idea how many ♥ card I have and with opp's ♥cards behind him, then I have no idea why he did not overcall 1♥ in the first round of bidding. Therefore I do not think that Bens interpretation of partners second pass has any merit. Rather, assuming that partner takes the 2!H as showing the back suits, the meanig of the pass should be equal length in the black suits, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to bid 2♠.

 

Should my partner explain the 2♠ bid as 'probably no ♥s anyway', or should he stick to his first (correct) explanation?  It's imo quite obvious that I don't hold ♥: partner didn't RDbl for SOS, so he's ok with 2♥ if that's my suit.  When I change to ♠ it's clear that I don't have ♥.

He should stick to his first explanation and "no agreement" regarding the 2♠ bid.

 

Am I supposed to correct partner's explanations when LHO asked it (right before his lead, I know if the explanation is wrong that I have to correct it before the lead when I'm declarer), especially after the correction to 2♠?

Never.

 

Is it ethical to call the TD in the middle of the play and point out that I couldn't have ♥s?  At the same time he lets his partner in on the little secret...

It is legal to call the director at any time, but anything he say is UI for his partner.

 

- Was the ruling correct?

Not at all. First error was to assign an artificial score. If he thought the way Ben did he should have assigned 2♥ double down x. It is wrong to assign an artificial score when a result was achieved at the table. But here, I would let that result stand, reasons see above.

 

Karl

[Chamaco]

I think you should bid as if behind a screen, e.g. ignoring your pard alert, following the system agreements (or at least the agrements you *think* you had).

 

So IMO it boils down to the meaning of your pard's pass after LHO's double of a Michaels qbid:

 

a. if your p's pass means = "I have nothing to say, cannot make a free bid, pick your suit", then 2S is fine and ethical

 

b. if your p's pass means = "I don't mind playing 2H doubled", then you should be passing and not correcting to spades.

[Free]

1♥ shows at least 4 cards in ♥, maybe more. If partner's pass really showed a hand that is suitable for 2♥ doubled, with no idea how many ♥ card I have and with opp's ♥cards behind him, then I have no idea why he did not overcall 1♥ in the first round of bidding.

The 2♥ bid is NATURAL, SHOWS ♥. South shows 5+♥, North has a 3 card support. Why should North bid 1♥ on a 3 card the first round of bidding?? :blink: I guess you misread the problem and better analyze the situation again <_<

 

1♦ = 4+♦, opening

pass = nothing to say

1♥ = 4+♥

2♥ = NATURAL! (5)6+♥ -> NOT MICHAEL'S CUEBID!!!

Dbl = penalty

pass = ok, should be playable if you indeed have ♥s

pass = ok, lets play them down

2♠ = exposing the error, didn't want to show ♥

Dbl = penalty

pass = ok...

pass = ok...

pass = ok...

[temp3600]

Echognome described the situation very well : it is as if you had psyched 2♥.

When 2♥X is passed to you, you can bid 2♠. There can be no UI, because you see in your OWN hand that you don't have hearts.

When you bid 2♠, your partner can and should alert and when asked answer that 2♥ was a psych, that you don't have hearts.

 

Now, your partner believed you had hearts and spades, and surely longer hearts than spades. Why didn't he give preference to hearts then ? I think your partner's second explanation and his last pass don't match. I don't know how to rule about it.

 

Michael

[inquiry]

1♥ shows at least 4 cards in ♥, maybe more. If partner's pass really showed a hand that is suitable for 2♥ doubled, with no idea how many ♥ card I have and with opp's ♥cards behind him, then I have no idea why he did not overcall 1♥ in the first round of bidding. Therefore I do not think that Bens interpretation of partners second pass has any merit. Rather, assuming that partner takes the 2!H as showing the back suits, the meanig of the pass should be equal length in the black suits, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to bid 2♠.

I see several people thinking that IF 2♥ had been micheals by agreement, and if WEST doubled michaels, and if partner passed it is normal to remove 2♥. Well, lets see.

 

What does a michael cue-bid double show? Willingness to double one (or more) of the michaels bidder suits. IF partner was equal length in my suits, he WOULD BID 2♠ to play at the two level rather than the three level. To be honest, I can't see how partner can have no preference between my two promised suit here. For the two level has to be safer than three.

 

So if partner has no preference why did he pass. Those of you who play with partners who like to point the finger when things go horribly wrong need to get a new partner. Partner passed to tell us something. What was that something. Oh no partner, you are in trouble you pick? Oh no partner, 2♠ or 3♣ is going for a ton, you play it I hate going down? No, sorry that is a horrible reason. His pass says he has hearts. Not that he is overjoyed about playing in hearts mind you (mink is right he didn't overcall in hearts), but that if you happen to have two hearts, maybe hearts will be a much better spot.

 

I think partner is probably soemthing like ♠x ♥Qxxxxx ♦Jxxx ♣xx, and of course if you can't stand hearts, he will correct 2♠ to 3♣. I am sure you have had hands similar to this playing michaels. Even if partenr is 5-5 in the reds, rather than 6-4, playing in 2♥ is best.

 

So I would not buy the arguement that pass is "you pick partner". I guess should I ever become a director (heaven forbid), I will have to find out how the different level of players play this pass.... sicne so many people here suggest rescuing themselves, when no rescue is required. But this is not what you should do if 2♥ was michaels and partner passed. This doesn't mean you cant rescue yourself. If your red suits were reversed for instance, you should run, not walk to two spades. Even with 1♥ and 2♦, removing is ok. But with three? Never. Not with a partner who is a bridge player rather than a finger pointer. A player will choose between your suits. as requested and 2-2 or 3-3 he has a reason, 2♠ is cheaper than 3♣.

 

I even can imagine making 2♥ X for a tidy profit. Of course after partner's alert wakes me up to the fact that my 2♥ bid promised hearts (or could potentially wake me up to the fact that I claimed this is my suit), well then, of course I easily pull. Thus the adjustment.

 

Ben

[Echognome]

Ben - I appreciate you giving your views on what pass after a double of a Michael's cue bid SHOULD mean. However, as you know, it is only relevant as to what the actual partnership understanding is.

 

I thought this was an interesting problem because there is potential for MI, UI, and fielded misbid all in one problem.

 

After the 2♥ bid is alerted and explained, Free is not allowed to wake up. I believe Free that he realised it after he made the bid, but a competent TD should state that it doesn't make any difference whether he realised he had misbid before or after his partner explained his bid. Now his partner's explanation is UI and he MUST bid as though he had made a Michael's cue-bid. As such, if the partnership do not have an explicit agreement as to what a pass of the double shows, I would rule against and then inform them they can appeal. This is a judgment case where you have to determine if pass is a LA and I believe it is in absence of an agreement.

 

Then there's the potential MI given the explanation by Free's partner after he "exposed" his own misbid. I don't put much merit in this complaint as it seems pretty clear that Free's partner was as surprised as the opponents were. They had the AI the same as Free's partner did that the auction took quite a strange turn.

 

I've already talked about fielded misbid above. I think with 3-3 in the majors and no values, it is reasonable to let partner decide what to do instead of having to play a level higher. What I am not sure about is what if he had explained partner's bid as a possible misbid after he had pulled 2♥ to 2♠? Could he then have passed with say 24 in the majors and no values?

[olegru]

Now his partner's explanation is UI and he MUST bid as though he had made a Michael's cue-bid.  As such, if the partnership do not have an explicit agreement as to what a pass of the double shows, I would rule against and then.

Sorry, have to disagree.

To tell the true this statement doesn't have much sence for me.

How partnership could have an explicit agreement for meaning pass after opponents double on Michael's cue-bid if in fact they have agreed do not play Michael's cue-bid?

 

After the 2♥ bid is alerted and explained, Free is not allowed to wake up.

 

Agree, but I believe he still allowed to play bridge. As you correctly noticed

auction took quite a strange turn.

One opponent shows 4+♥, another 3+♥, he has 3 more. Partner can't have more than 3♥. Something must be wrong. You right he shoud not wake up if "alarm information" only came from partners alert and/or explanation. But it is not the case here. Opponents double and pass are another source of information and now he has rights to wake up.

[Elianna]

Now his partner's explanation is UI and he MUST bid as though he had made a Michael's cue-bid.  As such, if the partnership do not have an explicit agreement as to what a pass of the double shows, I would rule against and then.

Sorry, have to disagree.

To tell the true this statement doesn't have much sence for me.

How partnership could have an explicit agreement for meaning pass after opponents double on Michael's cue-bid if in fact they have agreed do not play Michael's cue-bid?

They may have agreed to play Michael's cue bid in other situations. For example, when only one suit has been bid, instead of two (as in this situation).

 

Also, they may have discussed what passing doubles of cuebids mean in other situations, for example, if they play suction over strong club. There are many similar circumstances where they may have discussed situations such as this. I for one would have asked a few questions to find out rather than deciding what they play. ;)