[broze]

Let's try some bridge. How do you allocate blame here? East, West, some systemic failure? Or unlucky?

East's 3H raise was weak, with one eye on the vulnerability. 2D would have been a constructive raise to 2H. 2NT would have been limit+.

Scoring is MPs Swiss.

---

[neilkaz]

"East's 3H raise was weak, with one eye on the vulnerability."

This should read. "East's 3H raise was supposed to be weak, however both eyes did not seeing one of his kings"

Surely east can bid 2D in your system as a constructive raise to 2H!

[mgoetze]

I blame methods - you need some way to show partner you are max for your bidding, maybe put your bidding cards in the middle of the tray rather than starting at the edge?

[broze]

mgoetze, on 2015-August-30, 18:29, said:

I blame methods - you need some way to show partner you are max for your bidding, maybe put your bidding cards in the middle of the tray rather than starting at the edge?

Okay, I should have expected that.

[mgoetze]

More seriously, I feel like a preemptive/mixed raise on 3433 shape is always unlikely to be correct. 2♦ sounds like the better description.

[mr1303]

2D looks automatic. 3H should be about a 4-5 count with 4 trumps and a bit of shape, not a 9 count with 4333

[rmnka447]

I totally agree that the hand is worth at least a 2 ♦ constructive raise. Even though responder has 3433, the hand has 9 HCP and 1 1/2 QT. All the points are working together. IMO, the hand is getting near a limit raise, but is not quite there because of the flat distribution. So the hand is worth treating as a "very good" 9 value hand.

The problem with 3 ♥ is that it discourages opener from competing further for fear of a possible phone number set. If a constructive raise is made, opener, with a ♦ void opposite the opponents big fit, might be more apt to compete further. He'll know that responder is likely to hold some useful cards.

Don't be afraid to show constructive values at IMPs. Bidding and making close vulnerable games is winning IMP play. So some aggressiveness in bidding games is Ok as long as you're not ridiculous about it.

[BillPatch]

East-West explanation for responder's bid say one thing, responder's hand shows another. Did the opponents receive the discordant. The explanation would make the 4♦ to make that bid. If the explanation is the error a correction is required on the board for "Misinformation". If responder wittingly or un-wittingly deviated from the partnership agreements in making the board should be scored as played.

I do not understand scoring by "swiss mp". Does this imply we are playing a team game. If an adjustment were required it would be different in a team or a non-team game.

[aguahombre]

OP states the 3H bid was showing a weak hand. If that is their agreement, the lawdogs can back off; it is just poor evaluation. East's hand is a constructive raise in support of hearts. West might have tried for game opposite a constructive raise, or he might not have. But, East gets the blame because he didn't show a constructive raise.

Notice, however, that if East's minor suit honors were reversed, he would still have a constructive raise; and then the blame or credit for the result would be West's.

[jodepp]

Maybe if East was looking at the cards in hand rather than the vulnerability, a good descriptive bid might have been made.

I enjoy the discussion so far on the 'legality' issues of explaining that 3♥ was 'weak'. I admit that (if I was defending) if that dummy came down and I heard that explanation (weak), I'd be a bit miffed. I might be consoled that the opponents missed game because of the 'wrong bid at the wrong time'.

But if there's damage of some type because of the explanation of 'weak', I don't think there's much a director could do. The only thing that should be done is have West review with East (after the session) the differences between 'weak' and 'constructive' in their system. The opponents are not entitled to restitution because East apparently isn't sure what 'weak' is supposed to mean.

[gszes]

east 100% East has 2 opportunities to get this right.

The first is in the bidding. The east hand is glaringly far from weak (replace the club K and heart Q with x's). To give you an idea how poor 3h is IMHO
2d = 10 systemic constructive raise mainly because I can bid 3c to show a concentration of values and a max if p tries to sign off in 2h.
2n = 8 assuming this is a limit raise
2h = 6 the 4333 distribution is a negative but hardly a deal breaker so this is an underbid
4h = 3 not the worst bid on the planet but is just plain too optimistic
3h = 2 just a gross underbid but at least has some preemptive value (mainly against partner in this hand)

The second came after 4d p p. East should realize that even with an eye on the vulnerability partner is short in diamonds and the club KJ are well placed behind the original x. Partner may not have been able to act over the "weak" 3h bid but most minimum openers short in diamonds will probably be close to making 4h and if I had to decide between defending 4d or 5d I much prefer 5d. While it would have been too optimistic to bid 4h over 1h the fact that opener seems short in diamonds makes our hand much better than before and game is worth a shot now.

[aguahombre]

gszes, on 2015-August-31, 08:35, said:

The second came after 4d p p. East should realize that even with an eye on the vulnerability partner is short in diamonds and the club KJ are well placed behind the original x.

Yep, that's the excuse I would give after partner broke tempo.

[BillPatch]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-30, 21:58, said:

East-West explanation for responder's bid say one thing, responder's hand shows another. Did the opponents receive the discordant. The explanation would make the 4♦ to make that bid. If the explanation is the error a correction is required on the board for "Misinformation". If responder wittingly or un-wittingly deviated from the partnership agreements in making the board should be scored as played.

I do not understand scoring by "swiss mp". Does this imply we are playing a team game. If an adjustment were required it would be different in a team or a non-team game.

Silly me. Did not consider finding the par score before assigning blame. Since 4♥ is cold for an overtrick EW have blundered. My analysis would have been relevant if somehow responder had found the penalty double for a matchpoint top.