[schulken]

---

Club game. ACBL. A players both directions. E's opener was announced as "could be short" - they play precision. N's bid of 1NT alerted by S and explained as showing the unbid suits, which is not the partnership agreement. The agreement is that it is a good hand with a two suiter, but it could be any two suits. E X, alerted as 3-card support. S bid of 2♠ alerted, but no explanation was requested and none was given. After W rebid 3♥, N had an agreed hesitation. The hand was played off 1. N led his two non-trump aces and exited with a ♣. When W tried to draw trump, N rose with his A and gave his partner a ♣ ruff.

The club manager and I discussed the hand and consulted with a TD who was playing. We came to three different conclusions. Not all of us can be right but all of us could be wrong. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

The club manager believes that S may bid on despite the hesitation with his length in ♠ and that the table result should stand. If I had been S, I would have preempted in ♠ at my first opportunity rather than passing - irrelevant, I know. However, now that he has alerted and explained to the opponents that his partner has ♣ and ♠ and more than a pulse, he must now preempt in ♠ at a minimum, if not go to game. My concern is that, after his erroneous explanation of their agreement and before his call, he realized that his explanation was or may have been in error. Otherwise, with a known 11-card fit, how can you not be in game? The TD, like me, thought that a preempt in ♠ by S at his first turn was appropriate but that is similarly irrelevant. Since he chose to show nothing more at his second turn to call, he has nothing further to say following his partner's hesitation.

We allowed the table result to stand since we couldn't come up with a better or consensus answer. While I don't think it's SEWOG, I think W is partly to blame for going too high. He doesn't know partner's shape from the auction (aside from the three-card ♥ suit), although E likely has ♦. E has limited his hand by not opening 1♣ and hasn't bid further, probably showing he doesn't have much. Bidding on to game with decent shape but a very ragged suit invites the given result.

[blackshoe]

"My concern is that, after his erroneous explanation of their agreement and before his call, he realized that his explanation was or may have been in error."

Then why did he not, as the law requires, call you and explain, in your presence, that he has mis-informed the opponents, and what the correct explanation is? If you had this concern, you should have asked him the question.

When I looked at South's hand, my first thought was "preempt?" I decided South didn't because he didn't like his suit quality. Or perhaps he's a point counter and thought he should pass with "only" three points. But these are A players, we're told, so I dunno.

The questions are the same as in all UI cases:

Was UI made available? Yes.

What, demonstrably, could the UI suggest? I think it could suggest that North has "a little something" in spades, though that is not one of his suits — but South already thinks Spades is one of North's suits. OTOH, North would never pass in a competitive auction with a known nine card (at least) fit and a good hand. So the pass might wake South up that he provided MI to the opps, and that North probably doesn't have spades. Could the UI suggest something else? I don't know. I can't think of anything.

What are the LAs? Seems to me 3♠ is in there? What about pass? What about 4♠? Maybe.

Could any LA demonstrably be suggested over another by the UI? If Pass and 4♠ are LAs, then I think 4♠ is suggested over 3♠ or pass, and 3♠ is suggested over pass. But I am not convinced that pass is an LA, in which case 3♠ is not prohibited.

On balance, I agree with allowing the table result to stand, as I think there's no LA to 3♠.

the SEWoG question only comes into play if you're going to adjust the score. Since you didn't adjust, it's irrelevant.

[lamford]

schulken, on 2015-January-03, 16:54, said:

The agreement is that it is a good hand with a two suiter, but it could be any two suits.

I presume it could be any two of the three suits other than hearts. It is not clear to me why the correct explanation would make it less likely that West would bid 4H. However, it does look like South did not believe his own explanation and he should have called the TD during the auction when he realised this, under Law 20F4. We should judge what would have happened if he had done so.

[Trinidad]

schulken, on 2015-January-03, 16:54, said:

While I don't think it's SEWOG, I think W is partly to blame for going too high.

If a player goes one off in a game contract, because of a ruff by the opponents, the term SEWoG should not even enter into the TD's mind.

If you are talking about SEWoG's, North's failure to lead a club, to give South two ruffs is a much bigger error and you didn't even notice it.

You can see that these are 13_in_a_dozen errors, the kind that bridge players make all the time at the table. They are not remotely close to SEWoGs.

Rik

[weejonnie]

I think you are missing the UI that South has when his 2♠ bid is alerted. This warns South that his explanation is incorrect - and as such can't be allowed.

Given South's original explanation, I can see no alternative but to bid 4 Spades. His 3 Spades looks as if it has bid from the UI and 4 Spades is obviously a LA.

[StevenG]

weejonnie, on 2015-January-04, 09:06, said:

Given South's original explanation, I can see no alternative but to bid 4 Spades. His 3 Spades looks as if it has bid from the UI and 4 Spades is obviously a LA.

If 4♠ is "obviously" a LA, wouldn't he have bid more than 2♠ first time around?

[weejonnie]

StevenG, on 2015-January-04, 09:23, said:

If 4♠ is "obviously" a LA, wouldn't he have bid more than 2♠ first time around?

I think that South was 'fielding' his partner's bid since he couldn't believe that partner had spades as well (even though he could). If that is the case then it is an obvious AV+ EW AV- NS

[blackshoe]

I think you should retire your overuse of "obvious". Also, AV+/AV- is highly unlikely to be a correct ruling, considering a result was obtained at the table.

[RMB1]

weejonnie, on 2015-January-04, 10:22, said:

If that is the case then it is an obvious AV+ EW AV- NS

.
The ACBL does not have artificial* adjustments for fielded misbids.

[ * We might claim the EBU regulation is a Law 12C1(d) adjustment, not an artificial (Law 12C2) adjustment;
except the regulation pre-dates Law 12C1(d). ]

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-04, 10:42, said:

AV+/AV- is highly unlikely to be a correct ruling, considering a result was obtained at the table.

When a result has been obtained at a table then the only law authorizing awarding an artificial (instead of an assigned) adjusted score is:

Law 12 C 1 d said:

If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

[nige1]

schulken, on 2015-January-03, 16:54, said:

Club game. ACBL. A players both directions. E's opener was announced as "could be short" - they play precision. N's bid of 1NT alerted by S and explained as showing the unbid suits, which is not the partnership agreement. The agreement is that it is a good hand with a two suiter, but it could be any two suits. E X, alerted as 3-card support. S bid of 2♠ alerted, but no explanation was requested and none was given. After W rebid 3♥, N had an agreed hesitation. The hand was played off 1. N led his two non-trump aces and exited with a ♣. When W tried to draw trump, N rose with his A and gave his partner a ♣ ruff.
The club manager and I discussed the hand and consulted with a TD who was playing. We came to three different conclusions. Not all of us can be right but all of us could be wrong. I'd appreciate your thoughts.
The club manager believes that S may bid on despite the hesitation with his length in ♠ and that the table result should stand. If I had been S, I would have preempted in ♠ at my first opportunity rather than passing - irrelevant, I know. However, now that he has alerted and explained to the opponents that his partner has ♣ and ♠ and more than a pulse, he must now preempt in ♠ at a minimum, if not go to game. My concern is that, after his erroneous explanation of their agreement and before his call, he realized that his explanation was or may have been in error. Otherwise, with a known 11-card fit, how can you not be in game? The TD, like me, thought that a preempt in ♠ by S at his first turn was appropriate but that is similarly irrelevant. Since he chose to show nothing more at his second turn to call, he has nothing further to say following his partner's hesitation.
We allowed the table result to stand since we couldn't come up with a better or consensus answer. While I don't think it's SEWOG, I think W is partly to blame for going too high. He doesn't know partner's shape from the auction (aside from the three-card ♥ suit), although E likely has ♦. E has limited his hand by not opening 1♣ and hasn't bid further, probably showing he doesn't have much. Bidding on to game with decent shape but a very ragged suit invites the given result.

---

Presumably, the director asked

• Whether South realized, during the auction, that his explanation was wrong.
• Why North alerted 2♠.
• What does double of 4♥ mean by a player who has earlier shown a black two-suiter.
• If the answer to the previous question was "not purely penalty" then why did South pass?

IMO,

In these fora, we have to assume that such pertinent questions were asked and that we are privy to all elicited relevant facts. Otherwise the door is open to endless quibbles.

Given South's explanation of his partner's 1N, I reckon that most good players would bid 4♠. Whatever South admitted, he might have distrusted his partner or been doubtful about his own explanation. Does the former justify his immediate conservative response? Doubt is disclosable but what about distrust? In any case, North's hesitant alert of 2♠, would confirm South's initial suspicions, making 4♠ even more fraught.

If the director rules that North's UI made 4♠ unattractive, then he might adjust to 4♠X - 2.

In this thread, some argue that a player who wanted to play in 2♠ (or 3♠ if pushed) would not decide later decide to bid 4♠. Strange, given that in a parallel thread, many argue that a South in receipt of UI, who initially wanted to play in 1N should be allowed to wake up later and bid 3N.

Probably irrelevant but there was no SEWOG In bidding 4♥ and going 1 down.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-January-04, 17:05, said:

In this thread, some argue that a player who wanted to play in 2♠ (or 3♠ if pushed) would not decide later decide to bid 4♠. Strange, given that in a parallel thread, many argue that a South in receipt of UI, who initially wanted to play in 1N should be allowed to wake up later and bid 3N.

The players in this thread are stated to be flight A -- i.e. good players. The player in that other thread was not, so we give less weight to their initial judgement about their hand.

[mycroft]

That 2♠ (only) call is suspicious. But frankly, at these colours, the initial pass over 1♦ is suspicious as to "flight A". So my first questions to South would be about those two calls and the thought process involved. That will help determine my peer-decisions given the UI from the unexpected Alert of 2♠ (I assume it was unexpected).

I'm guessing like many that what I'll find out is:
- Either this is one of those "25 black points a year for 50 years" A players, who's really a C player in thinking, and wouldn't dream of preempting without KQT-seventh and maybe an outside card, and can't instinctively see how 11 trumps means you're not buying it for 8 tricks, or
- She didn't believe her explanation either (or, looking at her hand, assumed partner forgot and was trying to get out for cheap rather than "follow system and -1100 later, partner will remember"). I'm betting, from the bidding, that if this is the case, rather than "...but, given 7 spades, I bet he thinks it's any two non-hearts", she is going to tell me "...but given 7 spades, I bet he thinks it's 15-18 BAL with red stoppers".

I do think this is pretty standard Life Novice bidding, even Silver Life Novice bidding; and if that's who it is (or the "used-to-be-A, but starting to lose it" player I'm sure we all know and hopefully will not become), then I don't think there's anything to adjust. Players who are in the "I bet one of us got this wrong, and I'm trying to get out for cheap" camp get hit by UI-affecting-brilliance rules.

I don't have a problem with the pass of the double; anybody who makes the first three of South's bids is passing the double, probably grateful that *they* didn't get doubled. I do think that 3♠ might get turned into 4♠, and from there, something interesting (UI); I might find that there's a different auction if the opponents know the real agreement ("any two non-heart suits") (MI - compounded by South's bidding according to a different belief in her agreement than what she said; I might say there's nothing here but "flight A" bidding.