[Tramticket]

---

Pairs. Table result 4♣ making 11 tricks, on the lead of the ♠Q.

The 3♣ bid was alerted and described as "showing the red suits". There is clearly mis-information and in my opinion unauthorised information going on here. The director established that the North / South agreement was that the bid showed the red suits (north asserted that this was the agreement and South didn't dissent). The director asked North why he didn't bid on over the 4♣ bid and he replied that "she often gets these things muddled"!

In preface to giving his ruling the director noted that if North does continue with 4♦, South will now bid 5♣ and North would be entitled to pass at this point, so there was likely to be no damage because five clubs makes (it seems to need a trump lead to defeat 5♣). The director came up with a fudge ruling: E/W Av+, NS Av which was no doubt due to the fact that it was holiday bridge and he wanted to keep the punters happy! I was not minded to question the ruling.

I am not asking about the ruling itself, I'm sure that we can agree that it was wrong, but for opinions about the assertion that the auction would likely end in 5♣ without the Unauthorised Information. It seems to me that if N/S had been playing behind screen they would have been unlikely to stop in 5♣.

[The_Badger]

I think North realised quite quickly that his partner "was in a muddle" when he bid only 3♦ in reply in my opinion.

[Tramticket]

 The_Badger, on 2018-November-26, 05:04, said:

I think North realised quite quickly that his partner "was in a muddle" when he bid only 3♦ in reply in my opinion.

And if North jumps in diamonds (to 4♦? / 5♦?), how would South interpret this jump (by a passed hand)? Splinter in support of clubs?

[weejonnie]

Normally a TD polls players, so creating a poll e.g. at bridgewinners might help - but here are my thoughts.

1) South presumably thought they were making a strong jump overcall
2) North knows that the call shows the red suit.

(I am amazed North only bid 3♦ on that hand. It looks as if he has given the correct explanation and then decided that South had misbid. As long as there was no UI from South e.g. a facial grimace, then he can do what he wants. There is no automatic penalty for fielding a misbid now in the EBU and as this was holiday bridge North might have no idea that South is likely to misbid.)

We don't know the class of player - it is quite possible that the bidding could go
3♣ 3♦ 3♥ pass OR
3♣ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ pass

Equally to such a player there may not be an alternative to rebidding 4♣ - after all the suit isnt bad


(We don't know how 4♣+1 scored of course. One would hope that NS score over 50% and EW scored less than 60%, otherwise the TD has rewarded a breach of the laws.)

[Tramticket]

 weejonnie, on 2018-November-26, 05:50, said:

I am amazed North only bid 3♦ on that hand. It looks as if he has given the correct explanation and then decided that South had misbid.

I guess that a history of misbids + holding a six-card diamond suit are Authorised Information which might might suggest being cautious in case of a misbid ... but in this case their agreement might be argued to really be "The red suit or clubs"! But my feeling was the husband was aware of clues from the wife's body language (in my view, players all too often use such clues).

 weejonnie, on 2018-November-26, 05:50, said:

as this was holiday bridge North might have no idea that South is likely to misbid

They were a husband and wife pair.

 weejonnie, on 2018-November-26, 05:50, said:

We don't know how 4♣+1 scored of course. One would hope that NS score over 50% and EW scored less than 60%, otherwise the TD has rewarded a breach of the laws.

+150 scored 42% for N/S, 58% for E/W

[lamford]

Unless we have clear evidence of communication, we cannot decide that North has UI. His 3D bid shows that he did not trust South's misbid of 3C. If that was through body language, then that is unfair, and North would normally treat 4C as a cue bid for diamonds. If South bid a quick 4C, folded up his hand and started to right down the contract, I would adjust to 6Dx-2. North has a great hand if South does have the red suits. Assuming there was no UI it is, as weejonnie pointed out, a fielded misbid and there is no redress for that.

[cherdano]

 lamford, on 2018-November-26, 06:34, said:

Unless we have clear evidence of communication, we cannot decide that North has UI. His 3D bid shows that he did not trust South's misbid of 3C. If that was through body language, then that is unfair, and North would normally treat 4C as a cue bid for diamonds. If South bid a quick 4C, folded up his hand and started to right down the contract, I would adjust to 6Dx-2. North has a great hand if South does have the red suits. Assuming there was no UI it is, as weejonnie pointed out, a fielded misbid and there is no redress for that.

I don't think it's that easy.

• The combination of South forgetting the agreement, of North bidding 3D, and of North passing 4C, should be sufficicent evidence that the actual NS agreement is "clubs or the red suits". I don't think that changes much here, unless such an agreement was disallowed. (EW wouldn't enter the bidding on correct explanation either.)
  
• South has UI from the alert. Bidding 3H is clearly a logical alternative, and not bidding 3H is clearly suggested by the UI. Meanwhile, bidding 3H might lead to 5H down one - North is arguably worth a jump to 5H over 3H. (I admit this part isn't so clear - it might also lead to 4H making, which would be a great result for NS.)

[VixTD]

 cherdano, on 2018-November-26, 07:14, said:

The combination of South forgetting the agreement, of North bidding 3D, and of North passing 4C, should be sufficicent evidenece that the actual NS agreement is "clubs or the red suits". I don't think that changes much here, unless such an agreement was disallowed.

I don't know what jurisdiction the holiday was under, but in the EBU this agreement wouldn't be allowed at level 2 (a likely level for holiday bridge) or even at level 4. If there was no evidence that unauthorized information was passed, this should be scored 60%/40%.

[Tramticket]

 VixTD, on 2018-November-26, 08:24, said:

I don't know what jurisdiction the holiday was under

Played in England. No idea whether level 2, level 4 or some "house regulations".

[The_Badger]

 Tramticket, on 2018-November-26, 05:13, said:

And if North jumps in diamonds (to 4♦? / 5♦?), how would South interpret this jump (by a passed hand)? Splinter in support of clubs?

Yes I agree, there is a case for this as well, but by bidding 3♦ North was effectively hedging his bets if 3♣ was a strong overcall - some players still prefer to use 'old school' methods here - instead of Ghestem as 3NT could be in the frame, which indeed it is.

[RMB1]

North has not got UI. North has the understanding that "3C shows the major but he gets muddled". With that understanding, North can Pass 4C.

EW are entitled to know (during the auction) that "he gets muddled". There is misinformation but EW were not bidding.

The understanding "3C shows the majors but 4C rebid shows clubs" means "3C shows the majors or clubs". This is not a permitted agreement at level 2, level 4, (or level 5?). This means NS should get an artificial adjusted score of 40/60.

South has UI that South "has got muddled". He had forgotten the explicit agreement (majors). It is difficult to know what are logical alternatives, but someone might consider Pass, 3H, 3S, 3NT. 4C makes it clear (to North) what has happened and is suggested by the UI. If there are logical alternatives, then NS should get an assigned adjusted score based on South not bidding 4C, if the assigned adjusted score is worse that AVE-.

(This is not a "Simple Ruling".)

[Tramticket]

Thanks Robin and all, I raised it for interest only.

 RMB1, on 2018-November-26, 10:57, said:

This is not a "Simple Ruling".

Fair point!

 RMB1, on 2018-November-26, 10:57, said:

The understanding "3C shows the majors but 4C rebid shows clubs" means "3C shows the majors or clubs". This is not a permitted agreement at level 2, level 4, (or level 5?). This means NS should get an artificial adjusted score of 40/60.

3♣ purported to show the red suits, not the majors, but the point is still valid.

From this, am I right in thinking that E/W get no adjustment under this part?

 RMB1, on 2018-November-26, 10:57, said:

South has UI that South "has got muddled". He had forgotten the explicit agreement (majors). It is difficult to know what are logical alternatives, but someone might consider Pass, 3H, 3S, 3NT. 4C makes it clear (to North) what has happened and is suggested by the UI. If there are logical alternatives, then NS should get an assigned adjusted score based on South not bidding 4C, if the assigned adjusted score is worse that AVE-.

Should E/W also get the asigned adjusted score? (If better than the table result?)

[lamford]

 RMB1, on 2018-November-26, 10:57, said:

The understanding "3C shows the majors but 4C rebid shows clubs" means "3C shows the majors or clubs". This is not a permitted agreement at level 2, level 4, (or level 5?).

I don't think they have that agreement. South just forgot that 3C was Ghestem. She has misbid (as she had done before). She might have bid 3H, but North will just raise this to 4. (5H would never occur to North in a million years) and that should make. Note that if North does not have any UI, he can bid what he likes.

[nige1]

Especially when non-vul, many pairs seem to employ "Guessed-em" as a random psych. In the old days, there was a reasonable chance that an opponent with 6 cards in an advertised suit would end up in something like 7♦ XX. Nowadays, the alert procedure + UI from the overcaller has killed that enticing prospect. Directors routinely allow offenders to "wake up" quickly, suss out the miss-bid (or field the psych), and bail out at a low-level. The condoning of incomplete, inaccurate, or missing CCs is a widespread practice that exacerbates the problem.

 RMB1, on 2018-November-26, 10:57, said:

EW are entitled to know (during the auction) that "he gets muddled". There is misinformation but EW were not bidding.

Sometimes, in different circumstances, opponents who are familiar with this ploy, work out what's going on, but are inhibited from taking appropriate action because if it doesn't work and the director judges their unsuccessful action to be a gambling double-shot, then they would lose redress.

Perhaps Bobby Wolff with his convention-disruption crusade has a point

This post has been edited by nige1: 2018-November-26, 18:51

[weejonnie]

 Tramticket, on 2018-November-26, 11:28, said:

Thanks Robin and all, I raised it for interest only.


Fair point!


3♣ purported to show the red suits, not the majors, but the point is still valid.

From this, am I right in thinking that E/W get no adjustment under this part?



Should E/W also get the asigned adjusted score? (If better than the table result?)

Yes - the assigned adjusted score applies both ways. If playing an illegal convention.

2.8.3.3 Illegal method, fielding of psyche or deviation
If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche or deviation then the deal should be completed. If they attain a score of AVE− or less then the score stands. Otherwise they get AVE− and their opponents get AVE+.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2018-November-26, 12:15, said:

I don't think they have that agreement. South just forgot that 3C was Ghestem. She has misbid (as she had done before).

It's the "as she had done before" part that makes it an implicit agreement. And North hedging his bets is consistent with that "agreement".

[pescetom]

 nige1, on 2018-November-26, 12:19, said:

Perhaps Bobby Wolff with his convention-disruption crusade has a point

I'm surprised you weren't more scathing about the rules here, in particular the fact that EBU seems to allow fielding in absence of proven UI.

But I hadn't heard of the C-D crusade, so thanks for that. From what I can gather, it linked the problem to complicated conventions, which sounds dubious to me - there are people who play spirals faultlessly and people who never learn the second level of bidding in Stayman. In general I would say that bridge players progress to a set of conventions that is just beyond their capacity to effectively employ them, a variation of the Peter principle.

As an aside, an article on one of the last numbers of the Bridge d'Italia magazine mentioned a case in which during an international tournament an elderly player interfered 3♣ as natural, confounding his partner. The player was none other than Pierre Ghestem

[sanst]

 barmar, on 2018-November-26, 13:41, said:

It's the "as she had done before" part that makes it an implicit agreement. And North hedging his bets is consistent with that "agreement".

And as an implicit agreement it’s not allowed according to the Blue Book 9A3(b): “An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not show at least four cards in a known suit”.

[HardVector]

Seems clear to me that 5c would be showing a club void and begging partner for some kind of spade control, I'd bid 5d.

[helene_t]

South has UI from the alert and must make sure she doesn't do anything that is suggested by that UI. 3♥ or pass it is, therefore.

Assuming she bids 3♥, North will probably bid 4♥, since South has shown 6♥5♦ with extras. Maybe North should even make a slam try but I suppose that can't be expected at this level.

So 4♥ is the most likely end contract. 4♥x-1 would be my ruling in a jurisdiction that rarely uses weighted scores, but in EBU probably some weighted score would be needed.