[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 09:57, said:

East said if he had known the hearts were offside he can squeeze North in the rounded suits for one down.

One might ask East why he thought the hearts were offside once he had discovered that South had solid diamonds and the ace of spades. If 1H asked for a heart stop, wouldn't South have bid 3NT over 3S?

Anyway, I believe that spades can be held to 10 tricks so we'd need to know how the play went...

[campboy]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-09, 14:42, said:

Note that this wasn't the main event but the first consolation event for teams eliminated earliest. NS are very keen players (who post here quite a lot) but I doubt they'll be offended if I say they wouldn't be counted as a 'top class pair'.
(I don't know who EW were)

No, it was the first round of the main event. NS and their team did subsequently go into the first consolation event, but it's safe to say EW and their team did not

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 09:57, said:

1♥ was described as "asking for heart stop for NT, 6-7". It was intended as natural, 6-7. N/S had system notes: they showed 1♦ dbl 1 ♥ as natural, but without reference to the meaning of double. North poiinted out that in analogous situatins where an opponent shows two known suits, bidding one of them asks for a stop.

West said, fairly reasonably, that he "knew" he had heart tricks from the 1♥ bid, and would not have bid 4♠ if 1 ♥ was described as natural. East said if he had known the hearts were offside he can squeeze North in the rounded suits for one down.

The correct full explanation would have been something like:

"In general, we play 1♦-(dbl)-1♥ as natural. However, we have not specifically discussed whether the meaning of 1♥ is affected by the meaning of the double. We also have a general agreement that in situations where an opponent shows two known suits, bidding one of them asks for a stop."

So was there misinformation? Clearly, yes.

Whether E/W were damaged by this misinformation is rather less clear.

East jumped to 3♠ at unfavourable vulnerability. Presumably this showed reasonable playing strength. In that context, I would expect West to raise to 4♠ anyway with a fifth trump and a decent hand. Also, even if 1♥ is known to be natural, there is still a fair chance that ♥K will be in the hand which has shown (usually) at least 16HCP, so I am not convinced that West would have bid differently with the correct explanation.

In my opinion, the damage in the auction for E/W was caused by East's decision to push on to 5♠, but the 5♠ bid was not (claimed to have been) affected by the misinformation.

I have a lot more sympathy with East's point that he might have made 10 tricks in 5♠ on a squeeze had he known about the hearts. The TD should find out how the play went and consider adjusting to 5♠x-1 by East, N/S +200.

[CamHenry]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-09, 14:42, said:

Note that this wasn't the main event but the first consolation event for teams eliminated earliest. NS are very keen players (who post here quite a lot) but I doubt they'll be offended if I say they wouldn't be counted as a 'top class pair'.
(I don't know who EW were)

Frances - this was actually the first-round triple; EW were very definitely a top class pair.

I was South; I think it's fair to say that we're "decent intermediates" or similar.

[CamHenry]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-09, 14:49, said:

Based purely on the evidence in this thread, I would tend to rule MI, although I would investigate what they mean by 'analogous' situations. Here are some examples (based on my systemic agreements):
-if an opponent shows a suit at a low level (e.g. opening 2D to show both majors, overcalling 1NT with 2C for the majors, making a Michaels cue-bid) then we play a bid of one of their suits as natural if they have only promised 4 cards and artificial if they have promised 5+ cards.
- after a negative double we play a 1-level suit bid as natural (1C 1H dbl 1S), but after a transfer response we play a 'cue' as artificial
- if an opponent makes any form of 2- or 3-suited take-out double, we play bids as natural

The third point is relevant. After a nebulous 1C opening, double described as, say, 'take-out but with emphasis on the majors', how would they play a bid of 1M? (or a transfer, if that's what they play)?

The point I'm trying to make, is that if I'd had this problem I could come up with 'analogous' sequences where a bid of their suit is artificial, but some different 'analogous' sequences where it's natural. After all, if the pair in the OP had the agreement that _all_ bids of opponents' suits were always artificial, they wouldn't have had the problem that led to the ruling....

The "analogous situations" I had in mind (I was S, and did not disagree with the ruling given) were our agreements about defending against known-two-suit openings (e.g. 2NT showing both minors). My agreement with the ruling comes from the fact that (a) we hadn't discussed defending against double=majors after a 1D opening, despite having played this system for a few years now and (b) the whole "in the absence of evidence..." clause.

The part I'm not sure about, though this may be my level of play, is the squeeze possibilities Jeffrey mentions: NS clearly take their two aces, and the remaining possible defensive tricks are the HK and a club honour. N needs 3 discards on the trumps; if declarer plays a dummy reversal and ruffs two trumps then N still needs 3 discards. If he pitches one club and two small hearts, does he not save a trick? (My recollection is that the defence started off with the DA, then a club - the risk is that N is endplayed in the round suits, rather than squeezed, but the club at trick 2 breaks this up.)

[jallerton]

CamHenry, on 2012-May-10, 08:40, said:

The part I'm not sure about, though this may be my level of play, is the squeeze possibilities Jeffrey mentions: NS clearly take their two aces, and the remaining possible defensive tricks are the HK and a club honour. N needs 3 discards on the trumps; if declarer plays a dummy reversal and ruffs two trumps then N still needs 3 discards. If he pitches one club and two small hearts, does he not save a trick? (My recollection is that the defence started off with the DA, then a club - the risk is that N is endplayed in the round suits, rather than squeezed, but the club at trick 2 breaks this up.)

Let me explain what happened at my table when I played this hand in 4♠x by West.
Diamond lead to the ace.
Heart switch, Q, K, low
Another diamond, ruffed by West
Trump to the K and A
Another heart back, won by the Ace.
Trump to the Q, drawing the remaining trumps
3rd round of Diamonds, ruffed by West
Trump to the Jack.
Now East's last spade was cashed, West discarding a club. In the 4-card ending, East held ♣A1076, West held ♥J9 ♣K9. North could not hold on to both ♥10x and ♣QJx.

At your table East was declarer, but South led ♦A at trick 1 transposing to the same position after trick 1. South can break up the squeeze by switching to a club at trick 2 and playing another club when in with ♠A. This is why I said in my previous post: "The TD should find out how the play went.."

[mycroft]

CamHenry, on 2012-May-10, 08:40, said:

we hadn't discussed defending against double=majors after a 1D opening, despite having played this system for a few years now

I am, as I said earlier, surprised. I've never played a strong diamond, but having a system against "double for the majors" over my strong club (and over 1♣-p-1♦-X) is first on the defence list. Is this defence less common in England?

Oh, and I bet you have such an agreement now :-)

All power to "dedicated intermediates" interested in playing this event; so this is not a criticism, just a "really? That's odd..."

[AlexJonson]

I think I missed when it was that the double was explained as majors.

Given this explanation, North must have dreamed to bid hearts, obvious misbid?

[CamHenry]

Mycroft said:

I am, as I said earlier, surprised. I've never played a strong diamond, but having a system against "double for the majors" over my strong club (and over 1♣-p-1♦-X) is first on the defence list. Is this defence less common in England?

Oh, and I bet you have such an agreement now :-)

Too right we do! The defence is quite common, yet somehow we'd never run up against it. Our agreement is now "treat it as two-suited, so a H bid asks for a H stop, a S bid promises a H stop)". Shame we didn't make that agreement one board earlier...

AlexJonson, on 2012-May-10, 14:41, said:

I think I missed when it was that the double was explained as majors.

Given this explanation, North must have dreamed to bid hearts, obvious misbid?

Not necessarily - competing against a strong minor opening frequently gains in itself, as any hand where you can get the auction to 2S before oppo exchange information is likely to be a good board. It's therefore worth doubling on (e.g.) Qxxxx/JTxx/x/xxx as it's likely to be the opponents' hand (especially if partner is a passed hand), so responder needs to be able to show hearts in case you have a 5-4 heart fit: even though it's breaking badly, you may be better off taking one trump loser than the possible H ruff - DA and ruff - H ruff in another suit.

[bluejak]

Compare 1NT (2♣ = majors) 2♥. I play it as showing the minors with one partner, but showing hearts with my regular partner. There is definitely an argument either way.

My apologies for the misprint in the result in the OP, now corrected.

Many posts, but not really saying how you think I should have ruled. I have two further questions but only after we decide the correct ruling.

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2012-May-09, 16:43, said:

In my opinion, the damage in the auction for E/W was caused by East's decision to push on to 5♠, but the 5♠ bid was not (claimed to have been) affected by the misinformation.

I have a lot more sympathy with East's point that he might have made 10 tricks in 5♠ on a squeeze had he known about the hearts. The TD should find out how the play went and consider adjusting to 5♠x-1 by East, N/S +200.

bluejak, on 2012-May-11, 16:56, said:

Many posts, but not really saying how you think I should have ruled. I have two further questions but only after we decide the correct ruling.

My ruling (final two paragraphs quoted above) was: no damage caused in the auction, but there might have been damage in the play. How did the play go?

[bluejak]

I do not know in detail, though declarer made no effort to squeeze the player with long hearts because he did not think he had them.

[c_corgi]

bluejak, on 2012-May-11, 16:56, said:

Many posts, but not really saying how you think I should have ruled. I have two further questions but only after we decide the correct ruling.

MI in the auction, but no damage.

bluejak, on 2012-May-12, 07:38, said:

I do not know in detail, though declarer made no effort to squeeze the player with long hearts because he did not think he had them.

Difficult to rule on the play without further info.

CamHenry, on 2012-May-10, 08:40, said:

(My recollection is that the defence started off with the DA, then a club - the risk is that N is endplayed in the round suits, rather than squeezed, but the club at trick 2 breaks this up.)

This looks like it would hold declarer to 9 tricks automatically. In other variations, the question remains, what did declarer play for if he was deflected from the successful line.


If I had to rule without further details I would say no damage in bidding or play.

[bluejak]

Ok. It appears that my view of the hand, and the view of the hand of the people with whom I consulted, is different from the people here who replied. In my view the hand that bid 4♠ "knew" the heart finesse worked or that partner had the ♥K because of the description of the 1♥ bid as asking for a stopper. With the description of natural, the difference of whether the hand has a useful heart holding is enormous, and we felt certain enough that the player would not have made a very aggressive 4♠ bid with the knowledge that 1♥ was natural. Thus we felt that there was damage, and adjusted for N/S to 4♦ -1. That seemed clear and obvious to us, and I am surprised that this forum does not agree.

But no matter. I have two additional questions: the first one is this:

Accepting as a premise the ruling as above for N/S [even if you personally would not rule that way] do you think that the 5♠ bid by East on a balanced hand after pre-empting the round before was SEWoG?

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 16:54, said:

Ok. It appears that my view of the hand, and the view of the hand of the people with whom I consulted, is different from the people here who replied. In my view the hand that bid 4♠ "knew" the heart finesse worked or that partner had the ♥K because of the description of the 1♥ bid as asking for a stopper. With the description of natural, the difference of whether the hand has a useful heart holding is enormous, and we felt certain enough that the player would not have made a very aggressive 4♠ bid with the knowledge that 1♥ was natural. Thus we felt that there was damage, and adjusted for N/S to 4♦ -1. That seemed clear and obvious to us, and I am surprised that this forum does not agree.

Maybe the player wouldn't have made a very aggressive 4♠ bid on a different explanation, but given that partner has jumped to 3♠ at unfavourable vulnerability, there's nothing particularly aggressive about bidding 4♠ on West's actual hand.

bluejak, on 2012-May-21, 16:54, said:

Accepting as a premise the ruling as above for N/S [even if you personally would not rule that way] do you think that the 5♠ bid by East on a balanced hand after pre-empting the round before was SEWoG?

That sounds like a leading question but I'm not taking the bait.

As I have to accept your premise that West would not normally need more playing strength than exists in his actual hand to bid 4♠, then that makes East's 5♠ bid not quite so bad.

Anyway, as a matter of Law, the TD shouldn't care whether or not 5♠ is an SE because it is not UTTI.
As a matter of bridge judgement, it is hard to see why bidding one more in a competitve auction should be classified as WoG.

[bluejak]

I just thought it the most dreadful bid of the tournament. While the players I discussed it with at the time did not mention it, and I did not think of it until later, since then others have agreed with my view and I was wondering whether it was wild. I actually think I made a mistake in not asking that specific question of those with whom I consulted.

[bluejak]

A pity that people are not interested in this but I shall persevere, because an interesting legal point occurred to me.

Suppose you had decided to adjust, as I did, but had also decided that East's 5♠ was SEWoG - wild, in fact - which Jeffrey did not agree with, and I did not decide at the time. Please accept those two as premises.

For N/S we adjust to 4♦ -1.

But for E/W? At first sight his 5♠ led to 5♠x -2, so perhaps result stands. But what about his argument that without MI he would play it differently. Let us say for the sake of argument we accept that without the MI he will make ten tricks half the time, nine tricks half the time. How do we adjust under Law 12C1B?

It seems to me that for E/W we should adjust to
.. 50% of 5♠x -2
+ 50% of 5♠x -1

Is this the correct way to do it?

[CamHenry]

bluejak, on 2012-May-24, 16:31, said:

But for E/W? At first sight his 5♠ led to 5♠x -2, so perhaps result stands. But what about his argument that without MI he would play it differently. Let us say for the sake of argument we accept that without the MI he will make ten tricks half the time, nine tricks half the time. How do we adjust under Law 12C1B?

Looking at the hand afterwards, I realise this isn't actually relevant as the defense began with DA then a club switch (as, in the South seat, I "knew" partner couldn't have the HK). That breaks up the squeeze for the 10th trick, so declarer's always held to 9.

Without that defense, I agree with your suggested ruling.

[jallerton]

CamHenry, on 2012-May-25, 03:45, said:

Looking at the hand afterwards, I realise this isn't actually relevant as the defense began with DA then a club switch (as, in the South seat, I "knew" partner couldn't have the HK). That breaks up the squeeze for the 10th trick, so declarer's always held to 9.

This is the best switch at trick 2, but do you recall what happened after that? In which hand did declarer win the club switch? Did he play spades next? If so, what did South play after winning ♠A?

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2012-May-24, 16:31, said:

A pity that people are not interested in this but I shall persevere, because an interesting legal point occurred to me.

Suppose you had decided to adjust, as I did, but had also decided that East's 5♠ was SEWoG - wild, in fact - which Jeffrey did not agree with, and I did not decide at the time. Please accept those two as premises.

For N/S we adjust to 4♦ -1.

But for E/W? At first sight his 5♠ led to 5♠x -2, so perhaps result stands. But what about his argument that without MI he would play it differently. Let us say for the sake of argument we accept that without the MI he will make ten tricks half the time, nine tricks half the time. How do we adjust under Law 12C1B?

It seems to me that for E/W we should adjust to
.. 50% of 5♠x -2
+ 50% of 5♠x -1

Is this the correct way to do it?

No, for arriving at the E/W score, that doesn't look like the correct technique to me.

Law 12C1b says:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

So you need to quantify "such part of the damage as is self-inflicted".

The table result was 5♠x-2(E), N/S+500

If East had not bid 5♠ (the action you have deemed to be wild or gambling), the table result would have been either 5♦-2 (S), N/S -100 or 5♦x-2(S), N/S -300.

Let's pretend it had been aggregate scoring for a moment.

The adjustment you made for N/S changes their score from +500 to -50, i.e. it makes their score 550 points worse (and the E/W score would become 550 points better for them were it not for Law 12C1b).

The effect of the 5♠ bid was to make E/W's score either 600 or 800 worse than it could have been. As both of these numbers are greater than 550, all of the damage is deemed to be self-inflicted, so the E/W assigned score is the table result.

In practice, it was IMP scoring, so you would need to IMP everything against the result at the other table to assess both the actual and the self-inflicted damage.

[The fact that East might have made 10 tricks in 5♠x is a red herring, I think. You have already adjusted for the misinformation in a more favourable manner to E/W than this when you assigned 4♦-1.

On the other hand it is possible in theory that weighting could come in to play when assessing what score the non-offending side might have achieved had the "wild or gambling action" not taken place.]