[VixTD]

---

This occurred at the club last night. West and South are experienced regular county B-team players, East occasionally plays for the C-team, North is considerably less experienced. NS are a relatively new partnership, and have been playing together once a week or so for several months.

2♠ = weak two
X = takeout
2NT = Lebensohl (not alerted)

South announced at the end of the auction that 2NT should have been alerted, that it was Lebensohl. West was not minded to reopen the auction, and the hand was played out.

Result: 5♦(S)-1, NS -50.

West asked South why he had bid 4♦. South replied that he had a weak hand with six diamonds and couldn't stand 3NT. When West suggested this auction usually shows a strong hand, stronger than an immediate NT overcall (say 19+), South said they play 2NT as 17-20, and that it was not likely that North had a stronger hand than this. Under "defence to weak twos" the NS convention card had "X = takeout, 2NT = Lebensohl (0-9)" There was no mention of a range for NT overcalls, not on the CC, nor in several pages of system notes.

If called as director to give a ruling, what would you do?

[campboy]

People get dealt 21-counts from time to time. I don't see any reason to suppose that North does not have a strong hand other than the failure to alert. I think passing is a logical alternative, and would adjust to 3NT, probably with a weighted score between two or more numbers of tricks (6 and 7 look plausible).

[bluejak]

At first sight, it is not clear that E/W have been damaged. Surely West would lead a spade against 3NT, and South will only go off if he really plays it incompetently - and then only one off.

It is important to give N/S a PP. I explain to him the ramifications of Law 73C, and point out that "it was not likely that North had a stronger hand than this" is completely inadequate: he might have a stronger hand, and it is only the failure to alert that tells South otherwise.

[bluejak]

I posted the above while campboy was posting. If he can convince me of his bridge judgement, great: but I still do not see why 3NT should go off.

[campboy]

Ah, I was looking at 3NT by North

[PeterAlan]

bluejak, on 2012-March-20, 08:35, said:

At first sight, it is not clear that E/W have been damaged. Surely West would lead a spade against 3NT, and South will only go off if he really plays it incompetently - and then only one off.

Actually, it can always be taken 1 off on a ♠ lead (and 2 on a low ♣ or ♥). Say S wins the 7♠ lead and clears the ♦, W winning the second round. W now cashes A♠ and leads the ♥, and E-W will come to 2 ♥ tricks and A♣.

[aguahombre]

Gotta be the same in any jurisdiction, and gotta be what Bluejack said (his first post). Just the cut of the green that E/W can't further gain from what happened. Down one seems right.

[wank]

Even the most incompetent defence would be doing well to let declarer make 3N. Even if you make him lead a spade, which I wouldn't do myself, he'll see his partner discard on the second round of diamonds and presumably encourage hearts. If he switches at this point that's -2. If you make him cash a 2nd spade (absurdly), he can still switch to hearts for -1.

I think any weighting which involves it making is ridiculous and any weighting involving anything more than a token %age for -1 to be too generous to the offenders.

[PeterAlan]

wank, on 2012-March-20, 09:23, said:

Even the most incompetent defence would be doing well to let declarer make 3N. Even if you make him lead a spade, which I wouldn't do myself, he'll see his partner discard on the second round of diamonds and presumably encourage hearts. If he switches at this point that's -2. If you make him cash a 2nd spade (absurdly), he can still switch to hearts for -1.

I think any weighting which involves it making is ridiculous and any weighting involving anything more than a token %age for -1 to be too generous to the offenders.

It makes no difference whether W cashes ♠A or switches immediately to a ♥, it's -1 in both cases. In the second case, provided declarer ducks the ♥ in dummy and E's continuation, E's effectively endplayed for -1 not -2. -2 requires not leading ♠ in the first place.

[wank]

ok if declarer forsees squeezing himself, is willing to duck 2 hearts cutting himself off from his ace and his queen of spades, then gets the clubs right (ok that bit shouldn't be too tricky) he can escape for -1.

back in the real world....

[mgoetze]

Not only is pass a LA, I would go so far as to say that anything other than pass is clearly not a LA.

[wyman]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 14:14, said:

Not only is pass a LA, I would go so far as to say that anything other than pass is clearly not a LA.

... so no infraction?

[mgoetze]

wyman, on 2012-March-20, 14:16, said:

... so no infraction?

Hm, don't know how you got to that conclusion.

In case it wasn't clear I was talking about South's 4♦ bid. Having said that 4♦ is not a LA, the next question is was it demonstrably suggested by the UI? Definitely yes IMO. So there you have your infraction.

[wyman]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 18:10, said:

Hm, don't know how you got to that conclusion.

In case it wasn't clear I was talking about South's 4♦ bid. Having said that 4♦ is not a LA, the next question is was it demonstrably suggested by the UI? Definitely yes IMO. So there you have your infraction.

It's only illegal to select from among logical alternatives one suggested by the UI. If you rule that 4D is not a LA, then...

[Vampyr]

wyman, on 2012-March-20, 18:26, said:

It's only illegal to select from among logical alternatives one suggested by the UI. If you rule that 4D is not a LA, then...

This idea has long been discredited and is considered to be an error in the wording of the laws.

[aguahombre]

Yes. It would be ridiculous to allow a bid suggested by UI which would not even be considered otherwise.

How would the TD word his ruling to the table? "The bid you made stands even though it was suggested by unauthorized information; but since it was illogical without such information, I must allow it."

[wyman]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-20, 18:45, said:

This idea has long been discredited and is considered to be an error in the wording of the laws.

thats fine.

but then why bother pointing out that 4D is not a LA?

Also, the rule is clear to me, and the ruling on this hand is clear as well imo (adjust to 3N making some number, weighted or not depending on jurisdiction, PP for offender who should know better). But this game is complicated enough for beginners without having (lots of lots of detailed) laws, at least one of which has a literal meaning that has "long been discredited." There should really be something done about that.

[mgoetze]

wyman, on 2012-March-20, 19:15, said:

but then why bother pointing out that 4D is not a LA?

I meant to reinforce the notion of a PP. Of course I'm all for taking laws literally so if you want to do only the PP that's fine with me. Just make it a bit bigger to compensate.

[PeterAlan]

wank, on 2012-March-20, 10:51, said:

ok if declarer forsees squeezing himself, is willing to duck 2 hearts cutting himself off from his ace and his queen of spades, then gets the clubs right (ok that bit shouldn't be too tricky) he can escape for -1.

back in the real world....

This is secondary: the essential point of my original post was that, contrary to what was being suggested at the time, 3NT doesn't make: instead, it's -2 on an intial (low) ♣ or ♥ lead, -1 on a ♠.

I happen to disagree with you over whether anything more than -1 is likely in the latter case. Of course you're right to say that W shouldn't make it easy by cashing A♠ after winning the ♦ and before switching to ♥, but by the time E plays a second ♥ and W shows out, S has pretty much got a complete count on the hand, knows that he's not locked out of dummy permanently, and can also see that taking the ♥ and running the ♦ will squeeze dummy in the endgame. So he ducks again, and from that point on the hand pretty much plays itself for -1 since W can't have A♣. But we agree completely that 3NT making should have zero weight, and that the adjudication should be some mix of -1 and -2.

[mgoetze]

I'm sorry, I don't know your English levels very well. Is "complete count on the hand" a term normally used when discussing what might happen when a hand is played by "experienced regular county B-team players"?