[kenrexford]

Scoring: MP

---

E-W were playing 2/1 GF.

East opened 1♦. Partner responded 1♥. So far, so good.

East's rebid was 1NT. West bid 2♣, a relay to 2♦ as a part of a 2-way Stayman approach. East bid 2♦. West bid 2♥, showing an invitational hand with five hearts. East bid 3♦, a call that was not discussed. West passed.

The end result was below average because East guessed to finesse the diamond Jack, catching Qx behind. +130. +150 would have been average plus.

3NT from West makes if diamonds are guessed. 3NT from East is hopeless (lead difference). 3NT making was a near-top. 3NT down was a near bottom.

East claimed that West should have jumped to 4♥ after the 3♦ call. He argued that the heart AQJ was a strong-enough holding to merit this bid. This was attributed as a charge for the poor overall result. 4♥, BTW, can be made on very careful play if you guess diamonds right. Making is a near top; down one is a near bottom.

West argued that 3♦ was anti-partnership as not discussed. West argued that 2♦ was the normal rebid with six diamond and that "super-accepting" the 2♣ relay with a 3♦ call might show this hand, if this was possible. West argued that East should not usually whip out an undiscussed bid but that it worked this time and that the pair reached the right contract.

East rebutted that 3♦ should not have been misunderstood, even without agreement.

West agreed that 3♦ was not in practice misunderstood and that passing was correct.

Assess.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm not going to judge all of it, but I certainly agree that East has a 2D rebid. What is there about his hand that wants to play in NT?

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Mar 10 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

 

Dealer: West Vul: E/W Scoring: MP

♠ Kx ♥ AQJxx ♦ xxx ♣ Jxx ♠ Axx ♥ xx ♦ KJ109xx ♣ Ax

E-W were playing 2/1 GF.

East opened 1♦.  Partner responded 1♥.  So far, so good.

East's rebid was 1NT.  West bid 2♣, a relay to 2♦ as a part of a 2-way Stayman approach.  East bid 2♦.  West bid 2♥, showing an invitational hand with five hearts.  East bid 3♦, a call that was not discussed.  West passed.

The end result was below average because East guessed to finesse the diamond Jack, catching Qx behind.  +130.  +150 would have been average plus.

3NT from West makes if diamonds are guessed.  3NT from East is hopeless (lead difference).  3NT making was a near-top.  3NT down was a near bottom.

East claimed that West should have jumped to 4♥ after the 3♦ call.  He argued that the heart AQJ was a strong-enough holding to merit this bid.  This was attributed as a charge for the poor overall result.  4♥, BTW, can be made on very careful play if you guess diamonds right.  Making is a near top; down one is a near bottom.

West argued that 3♦ was anti-partnership as not discussed.  West argued that 2♦ was the normal rebid with six diamond and that "super-accepting" the 2♣ relay with a 3♦ call might show this hand, if this was possible.  West argued that East should not usually whip out an undiscussed bid but that it worked this time and that the pair reached the right contract.

East rebutted that 3♦ should not have been misunderstood, even without agreement.

West agreed that 3♦ was not in practice misunderstood and that passing was correct.

Assess.

Comment 1: Agree with Frances. If you're going to waste time discussing charges focus on the real culprit - the initial decision to rebid 1NT rather than 2♦

Comment 2: Given the methods that you are playing, I'd read the 3♦ bid as showing a game try in Hearts. More a small Diamond to a small Heart and you have something that looks a lot more reasonable. Something like

♠ AJx
♥ Kxx
♦ AJT9x
♣ xx

looks prototypical. If you have an agreement that opener will freely raise on 3 card support and this hand impossible for a 1NT rebid than you might shift the requirements for 3♦ somewhat. You might want to allow Hx or xxx in Hearts or some such.

Comment 3: Given this interpretation, passing 3♦ is hardly the right call. One can certainly argue about the relative merits of 3♥ and 4♥, but passing Diamonds seems insane.

Comment 4: I don't think I'd ever want to play with either of these characters. Both made bad bids and seem far too pre-occupied with placing blame and assigning charges rather than having a real discussion.

[david_c]

Well, this topic is called "Judge the Litigants", and I'm happy to do that: it is completely ridiculous to hold an inquest about this board. They got to a normal contract, did they not? The MPs on this board are won or lost in the play (including what happens in 3NT at other tables, which you can do nothing about).

OK, I do think it is silly to rebid 1NT rather than 2♦. But this had nothing to do with the result.

[gnasher]

In no particular order, I think that:
- The 1NT rebid is a poor bid.
- I would want 3♦ to offer a choice of games with a strong doubleton heart and good diamonds.
- To expect someone to understand an undiscussed 3♦ is unduly optimistic.
- It's ridiculous to want to play in 4♥ on these two hands.
- At matchpoints I'd rather be in 2♥ than 3♦.
- 4♥ over 3♦ would be barking.
- I wouldn't want to play with East very often.

[whereagles]

Agree with david_c ^^

[cherdano]

Wait, so you were in a contract that gave you ave+ or ave-, depending on the diamond guess, which you got wrong. Then you started arguing why you didn't get to a contract that would give you a top or bottom, depending on the diamond guess?

So both get charged for ridiculous result mongering. Plead guilty, please. Oh and East will get sentenced for life for starting result mongering without apologizing for this ridiculous 1N bid.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Mar 10 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

Wait, so you were in a contract that gave you ave+ or ave-, depending on the diamond guess, which you got wrong. Then you started arguing why you didn't get to a contract that would give you a top or bottom, depending on the diamond guess?

So both get charged for ridiculous result mongering. Plead guilty, please. Oh and East will get sentenced for life for starting result mongering without apologizing for this ridiculous 1N bid.

LOl agree with Arend.

[Apollo81]

If anyone is to blame, it is East's fault for handhogging then making a NF 3♦ bid. I'd play it as NF anyway.

[han]

Agree with Arend, please tell me that you were not east Ken.

[ArtK78]

I would not take this case.

Seriously, the 1NT rebid was kind of silly. After that, confusion set in. The result: Perfectly normal.

The litigants can argue over their system until the cows come home, but this hand proves nothing.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Mar 10 2008, 08:19 AM, said:

Assess.

You added an extra 's'.

[kfay]

I wouldn't have bid 1NT but I have more sympathy for it than others since this is matchpoints, afterall.

The problem here is that if you do belong in NT you've wrong-sided it so... East should consider logistics in the future before (s)he starts masterminding.

[awm]

100% of the blame (if there is blame) on the 1NT call. This is a silly distortion -- holding Ax(x) in the blacks a notrump contract will play better from partner's side, and this diamond suit is easily good enough to rebid at the two-level. Why not simultaneously describe your hand and right-side a possible notrump contract?

Subsequent to the 1NT rebid, the wheels basically fell off. It might be nice to have an agreement about 3♦. My preference is that it's natural and forcing, suggesting doubt about the right strain for game (typically Hx in hearts and weak a black suit). While it's silly to assume such an agreement undiscussed, there is a good general rule that undiscussed bids that "might be forcing" are forcing. Nonetheless, opener's actual hand is not a possibility for this sequence (obvious 2♦ rebid) and any contract above 3♦ is going to be poor (especially since 3NT is now wrong sided). So no blame accrues to west for not "fielding" east's nonsense bidding.

[kenrexford]

I was West.

My thoughts throughout:

"1♥ -- easy."

"2♣ -- easy."

"2♥ -- easy."

"WTF??? OK, partner likes to make insane bids like this all the time. His usual default is that 'I heard your bid and want to play this contract.' So, I trust this silly sequence as showing what he has. Pass."

"WTP? 3♦ is the right contract. We got there stumble-bunny style, but it is right. Why are you blaming me for figuring out to pass and get us to the right place despite your insanity?"

"Will you please shut up."