[MFA]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding goes:

(3♦) - 4♣ *- 4♦ *
......... 4♠ - 5♦
......... 5♠ - pass

West has 4 trumps, but ♣K is onside and west has only Kx of diamonds, so 5♠ is untouchable, +450.

4♣ was alerted and upon request from west explained immediately as "5+♣, 5+M".
4♦ was also alerted, but there were no further questions from E-W. The rules are to alert at the 4-level in the first bidding round, so all this is fine.

NS is a strong expert partnership having played together for 10+ years, and it's not like one of them forgot. For some reason they just disagreed whether this 4♣ treatment had been adopted in the system or not - they had surely discussed it, but unfortunately without reaching a clear conclusion.

5♦ was a control asking bid with step responses.
5♠ showed a ♦-control and 1 ace. North's logical conclusion was then to pass 5♠, and he did.

The issue is: Is south taking advantage of his partner's surprising explanation at any point?
For instance when choosing 5♠. If spades are trumps, then the correct answer would be 5NT, ♦-control + 2 aces. But what are trumps here, ♠ or ♣?
Is 4♠ kosher after this explanation of 4♣?

Any comments on this rather convoluted situation? Feel free to ask for additional info.
I have tried to present it as we saw it as EW. Does this case merit a TD call? Does it merit an appeal of an adverse ruling?

[blackshoe]

What did 4 ♦ mean in their system?

If North's explanation was "surprising" to South, then at the end of the auction, South should have called the director and explained that he believed there was MI (Law 75B). It seems that did not happen. If indeed it did not, why not?

the ♠ K is not an ace. It may be considered a key card. Was the agreement to show aces, or to show key cards?

[MFA]

Quote

What did 4 ♦ mean in their system?

Don't know for sure, didn't ask after the misunderstanding was revealed. I find it safe to assume that it's not something completely weird. An advancer's cue to keep the ball roling most likely.

Quote

If North's explanation was "surprising" to South, then at the end of the auction, South should have called the director and explained that he believed there was MI (Law 75B). It seems that did not happen.  If indeed it did not, why not?

It was resolved after the bidding. South stated that he disagreed with his partner's explanation that 4♣ showed clubs and a major.

Quote

the ♠ K is not an ace. It may be considered a key card. Was the agreement to show aces, or to show key cards?

Sorry. Key cards.

[blackshoe]

It may be safe to assume a meaning for a player's purposes, but it is not safe for a TD to make such assumptions.

"Resolved"? No. There's a reason the law says to call the TD here. What did South think the agreement was? What did the CCs say?

Only the TD can rule on the questions of MI, UI, use of UI, and damage therefrom. If you know the opponents are supposed to call the TD, but they don't, call him yourself. If you believe there may have been an infraction of law, call the TD. If you don't like the TD's ruling, you certainly have a right to appeal. Whether such an appeal would have merit depends on its basis - and that depends on the ruling.

If south believed that 4♣ was natural, and if 4♦ was simply a cue bid, it is presumably in support of clubs. From south's point of view, then, clubs are established as trumps. 4♠ would seem to be a cue bid (though why not 4♥?) 5♠ seems the correct response to 5♦. So it does not appear to me, at this point, that south has done anything wrong - but I would want to investigate further before making a table ruling.

[Rossoneri]

Yes, please call the director.

[barmar]

I wonder if South's 4♠ bid could have been taking advantage of the UI. As blackshoe says, why did he cue bid ♠ rather than ♥? Knowing that North thinks he has a two-suiter, the 4♦ bid was probably asking for his major, so he showed the closest thing to a 5-card suit.

I presume the ♣ distribution was 3-1, so NS didn't miss a making ♣ slam.

[mycroft]

Are you sure South's hand wasn't K8xxx Kx x AQJxx? At least for his first two bids?

[MFA]

mycroft, on Sep 9 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

Are you sure South's hand wasn't K8xxx Kx x AQJxx?  At least for his first two bids?

You mean south could have missorted? No, they definitely had a misunderstanding. They told us so after the bidding had finished. It was just a coincidence that south had a 4card major on the side.

[MFA]

barmar, on Sep 9 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

I wonder if South's 4♠ bid could have been taking advantage of the UI.  As blackshoe says, why did he cue bid ♠ rather than ♥?  Knowing that North thinks he has a two-suiter, the 4♦ bid was probably asking for his major, so he showed the closest thing to a 5-card suit.

I presume the ♣ distribution was 3-1, so NS didn't miss a making ♣ slam.

Exactly that seems to be a dilemma. If 4♦ shows clubs support and launches cuebids, then why not 4♥? If 4♦ doesn't show club support, then why are clubs trumps in the subsequent bidding after 4♠? Hmm.

[MFA]

This board came up in the national cup tournament. Was board #1 actually!

The problem in this tournament is that the matches are private with no TD on the site. It's possible to phone one or have a decision pending, but all this is somewhat cumbersome.

We decided at the table not to do anything about this case. After all it's all very muddy imo. But we sort of regretted this during the first break, feeling that a ruling would have been nice. In the end it didn't matter for the outcome of the match, however, since we won by 15.

I agree that it might be crucial for the TD decision to get some more information about the opponents system. Since we didn't do anything about it, such investigations were simply not made.

I'm still interested in comments on the case, however, if any can be made on what I have presented so far .

[ansoe]

A possible explanation of the auction is

4♦ = what is your major
5♦ = control asking bid in ♦
5♠ = second round control

Knowing of a certain ♦ looser North decided against a slam.

[MFA]

ansoe, on Sep 10 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

A possible explanation of the auction is

4♦  = what is your major
5♦  = control asking bid in ♦
5♠ = second round control

Knowing of a certain ♦ looser North decided against a slam.

The kind of asking bids in use had the following responses. I have played them myself 10 years ago, so I know them quite well.

1.step: no control or 0 key cards
2.step: control, 1 or 4 key cards
3.step: control, 2 or 5 key cards
4.step: control, 3 key cards OR void and 0 key cards
5.step: void, 1 key card
6.step: void, 2 key cards
7.step: void, 3 key cards

There is no distinguishing between 1st and 2nd round control (except for voids).

But I agree that north almost certainly intended 4♦ as "what is your major".

[skjaeran]

South has to bid on under the premise that he has shown CLUBS as intended.

Thus, if 4♦ is a cuebid agreeing clubs, there's no way he can bid 4♠ instead of 4♥, that is blatant use of UI.

I'd definitely adjust this board as a TD. I can't see adjusting to a contract lower than 6♣, but might possibly end up adjusting to 6♥x or 7♣x, or a weighted score based on those three contracts - maybe given equal weight. I'd have to consider this closely, preferrably discussing it with another seasoned TD.

[helene_t]

Maybe Harald is right but it wouldnt occur to me that 4♦ agrees clubs. If not then 4♠ is a normal bid.

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Sep 10 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

Maybe Harald is right but it wouldnt occur to me that 4♦ agrees clubs. If not then 4♠ is a normal bid.

Why wouldn't it occur to you that 4♦ agreed clubs over a natural 4♣ overcall?? It certainly would to me normally (unless playing transfer advances), and remember, overcaller did make a natural overcall - the alert and explanation made it clear to him that partner expected him to hold five-five in clubs and a major. He's got to forget everything about partner's explanation and bid on under the premise that 4♣ really was natural.

What he CAN bid over 4♦ depends on what that cuebid would mean over a natural 4♣ overcall. My guess is that it'd agree clubs in that situation for most people.