[TylerE]

Scoring: MP

(1♦ - Precision) - X - (1♠) - P
(1NT - 13-15) - Pass after 30-45 seconds - (2♥) - 3♣
(X) - 3♠ - (p) - 4♦
(X) - 4♠ (All Pass)

---

Note: The hand given is WEST. The east hand was something like AKQxxxx of ♠ with like 4.5 or 5 loser hand. Opening lead was a ♦, and the contract was made. Double dummy the contract can be beaten.

Yes, that auction actually occurred. South called the director after the 3♣ bid to reserve rights, and called back after the hand, unhappy with the 3♣ bid, asking that if W really wanted to enter the auction, why didn't she do it over 1♠, rather than later backing in on an auction where the opponents haven't found a fit, with a bad 4 card suit vuln at the 3 level.

[peachy]

Was anything said about South's psych? Or did North rebid 1NT with singleton or void in spades?

I agree there is UI from East's hesitation over 1NT and that this UI [extras] made it more comfortable for West to bid 3C. However, if West passes over 2H, East is not going to pass. East is most likely not going to pass even if North raises hearts but I would like to see the actual hand for this judgment, not just the spade suit.

If NS could have beaten the hand with double-dummy defense, what action by EW prevented them from executing that defense?

I would rule no damage, no adjustment.

[TylerE]

Yes, north decided to rebid 1NT on a void for whatever reason. South had something like

9xxxx
QJTx
xx
Kx

As to your question regarding the defense, at least in ACBL land, not beating a contract you shouldn't have been defending is not grounds for denying redress.

[blackshoe]

It might help in these if the OP would give all four hands.

[TylerE]

I would have if I could remember them

[bluejak]

Let us not worry about all the hands just yet. We have an agreed BIT, so are we going to allow West's 3♣ bid? Whether an opponent psyched/had his bid/bid like a moron does not affect this at all. Would I [that's me, Jeremy ] have bid the previous round? Certainly, but that does not affect whether we are going to allow 3♣.

Sure, without all the hands it is tricky to decide what would happen if we do disallow 3♣. But let us think about that later.

• Does the BIT suggest bidding 3♣ over passing?
  
• For a person who thinks it is correct to pass over 1♠ with this hand, is pass of 2♥ an LA?

If the answer to both is Yes then we can consider adjusting.

[TylerE]

---

Asked my friend who played the hand, this is what he remembers. Looks like south might have been playing around a bit. This might not be perfect, but should be fairly close.

[peachy]

TylerE, on Sep 30 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

Yes, north decided to rebid 1NT on a void for whatever reason. South had something like

9xxxx
QJTx
xx
Kx

As to your question regarding the defense, at least in ACBL land, not beating a contract you shouldn't have been defending is not grounds for denying redress.

"If" there is an infraction by EW (there might have been, 3C was likely influenced by the BIT), there _also_ has to be damage to NS in order for any adjustment or redress of damage. What is the damage? When there is none, result stands.

[TylerE]

The damage is that it is highly unlikely that EW reach game without the 3♣ bid, because west has no ♠ fit and E isn't strong enough to blast opposite a hand that can't bid.

[iviehoff]

TylerE, on Oct 1 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

Asked my friend who played the hand, this is what he remembers.

If that is reasonably representative of the hand, then describing the defence to defeat 4S as "double dummy" is a bit of an overstatement.

[peachy]

TylerE, on Sep 30 2009, 11:12 PM, said:

The damage is that it is highly unlikely that EW reach game without the 3♣ bid, because west has no ♠ fit and E isn't strong enough to blast opposite a hand that can't bid.

I already explained before why 4S will be the contract, with or without the infracting 3C bid. East will bid spades, whether opener passes 2H or raises or does something else, and West will raise with his 9HCP. Even West's diamonds could well be useful in context of a 13-15 NT hand with opener. IMO, you will not find anybody who passes the hand out at 2H or 3H with East's hand.

Besides, when the hands are not known (only estimated from a friend's memory), any references to double dummy defenses become worthless. Before, they could be considered "if" the EW actions somehow hindered finding the double dummy defense, but in actuality there was nothing to hinder NS from finding that defense (if it existed)

[TylerE]

Well, FWIW, no one else out of 7 tables played the hand in game. So at least for the class of players in question (not especially good, and EW are one of the weaker pairs in the field), I find the assumption that they reach game to be a faulty one.

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on Oct 1 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

Well, FWIW, no one else out of 7 tables played the hand in game. So at least for the class of players in question (not especially good, and EW are one of the weaker pairs in the field), I find the assumption that they reach game to be a faulty one.

Maybe no e/w pair played it in game, which seems likely to go down one, but it would be hard to believe that no one bid 4S over 1m--and if they did, apparently n/s played it in 5H which should go down. Seems as if n/s committed suicide on defense when a plus was available for an excellent score.

[TylerE]

N/S aren't saying that they didn't blow the defense, but instead argued that they never should have been defending 4 in the first place.

[bluejak]

Ok, so no-one except me cares whether there was an infraction.

The West hand is the sort of hand that puzzles poorer players. They have been told that bidding the opponent's suit is artificial. Sure, they know they have a reasonable hand but they 'cannot' bid their long suit. Furthermore, one of the mistakes that poor players [and fair players, to my surprise] do is to pass after 1X dbl 1Y with fair and reasonable hands. So while I do not approve of the pass over 1♠ I can understand it [and my approval is irrelevant anyway ].

But players with fair hands do worry and there is a tendency to bid later. So, while it may be difficult to poll suitable players, I have the feeling that pass over 2♥ is not an LA. Of course, the choice of 3♣ is poor: 3♦ seems normal, but again, this player probably neither considered it nor thinks partner would understand it as diamonds [and he may be right]. So for this level of player I think 3♣ might be considered evident. No infraction, no adjustment, no worries.



Much of the discussion has been about the defence to 4♠. Of course if the hand is really as shown it must have been dreadful for 4♠ to make, and probably bad enough to deny redress for N/S. Bu that does not mean you do not adjust for E/W!



While I do not think pass over 2♥ is an LA, I expect some of you do. If so, where do we go? Well, one view is that 4♠ will be reached automatically. I am less confident of this than others. When 2♥ gets round to the doubler, he might bid 2♠: would partner pass? Do something silly? What happens when opener raises?

Remember this is the ACBL. For the offending side we assign the most unfavourable result that was possible: are you sure that they would get to 4♠ a high enough proportion of the time for this to be the case? You do not think that with a pair that clearly has little idea what it is doing and a spade bid from the opposition, that they will always get to this bad game? I am unconvinced.

I think that several of the responses to this thread are along the lines of what would happen, or is most likely to happen, and so on. But that is not what we do for rulings: we look at all the possibilities, and then pick the one that fits into Law 12C1E's standards, which is often a result that is not particularly likely.