[bluejak]

Scoring: IMP

   W      N      E      S
                        1♣#1
2♣#2  2♠#3  3♥    P
   P       Dbl    P    5♣
   P        P     Dbl   P
   P      P#4

Result:
 5♣ dbld -3
 NS -800

---

#1 Announced: "May be short"
#2 As he bid 2♣ West said "May be long"
#3 Bid without asking meaning of 2♣: alerted: South asked meaning of 2♣: told both majors: South was not quite sure whether 2♠ showed value raise in clubs or good hand with diamonds.
#4 At end of auction North reported West's comment to TD: told to finish hand.

At end of hand TD recalled: North explained he presumed West had shown long clubs because of the comment and he bid 2♠ naturally. However over Michaels, 2♠ would be artificial.

So, what do you think?

[bali 2]

I observe a lot of errors in the N/S side :
- South opens with 9 HCP and nothing in the majors
- North bids 2S without asking what means 2 C
- South do not know what means 2S
- North doubles 3H with nothing for defense ( they can make 4H )
- South believes his hand is worth eleven tricks and bid the game in the absolute darkness

For all these reasons I would have made the result stand.

What for the bad "joke" of West, who probably wanted to have a nice word, thinking that everyone will understand what was his bid ? A reprimand and some P.P. to learn him to be more cautious in the future.

[bluejak]

This a forum on rulings, not how to bid. I really think that you cannot let the result stand because you do not like the opening bid. The double of 3♥ is for takeout, of course, so does not need any defence to hearts.

As for South's 5♣ bid, if North has the fit he has promised, and then the extra values shown by his double, why is 5♣ so bad? It was only so bad because North had a different hand from that shown, and this was because of West's remark, n'est-ce-pas?

[pran]

Legally:
#2 As he bid 2♣ West said "May be long"
This remark is of course improper regardless of agreements about the 2♣ bid. In the context I would not have been surprised if this was said with a smile (as a joke), a fact that can only be ascertained by the director at the time.

#3 Bid without asking meaning of 2♣: alerted: South asked meaning of 2♣: told both majors:
The facts here are unclear: Was the 2♣ bid properly alerted by East, and South now asked the meaning of it, or did South just alert the 2♠ bid and, before answering question, asked for an explanation of the 2♣ bid?
In any case at this time North and South both have correct information about the 2♣ bid.

South was not quite sure whether 2♠ showed value raise in clubs or good hand with diamonds.
Apparently South's doubt is caused by being unsure how North understood the alerted 2♣ bid since North didn't ask. This is irrelevant, South shall not attempt to explain the actual hand held by North, he shall explain the relevant agreements within their partnership. And as South now had correct information on the 2♣ bid he had no reason to indicate anything else than that 2♠ was artificial (and base his further actions on that assumption).

Edit: I am not sure if I have misunderstood South's doubt here: Was his doubt about in what way 2♠ would be artificial? In that case he apparently unfortunately guessed that North had clubs rather than diamonds, this mistake would be his own responsibility.

As I don't know ACBL regulations I can only state my own reactions: North and South might have had a case if they (while following correct procedures) could show damage from the improper remark by West. As it is they have contributed to their own damage to the extent that I would let the table result stand, at least for North/South, probably also for East/West.

[blackshoe]

Michaels is not alertable in the ACBL, so it was proper that there was no alert of 2♣. Which may make West's comment even more problematic, if NS were not from North America. It is most likely that West was joking, but as Sven says, that's something the table TD would have to determine. I'm not sure that should affect the ruling, though.

West's comment is MI to NS (even if it was meant as a joke).

It seems clear to me from David's #3 that when N bid 2♠, S alerted (because, probably, he suspected 2♣ was Michaels, and in that case 2♠ is alertable). That, and West's comment, is why, IMO, S asked the meaning of 2♣ before explaining 2♠. Note that at this point, S has not called, and N, under Law 21, would be allowed to change his call if he so desired. IMO he should have called the TD as soon as he heard the explanation of 2♣.

The way I read it, when 2♣ is Michaels, 2♠ is artificial. The question is whether it shows a club raise, or diamonds, and S wasn't sure. Certainly, under ACBL alerting rules, it is appropriate, when you know it's one or the other, but aren't sure which, to say so, and to explain both options.

N's double bothers me. I don't know what it means, so I don't know if we're in "failure to play bridge" territory. That will affect the score adjustment, in the end. Still, I'm pretty sure there should be a score adjustment, given that North made at least one call based on MI, and NS got into trouble because of that.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on Nov 29 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

It seems clear to me from David's #3 that when N bid 2♠, S alerted (because, probably, he suspected 2♣ was Michaels, and in that case 2♠ is alertable). That, and West's comment, is why, IMO, S asked the meaning of 2♣ before explaining 2♠. Note that at this point, S has not called, and N, under Law 21, would be allowed to change his call if he so desired. IMO he should have called the TD as soon as he heard the explanation of 2♣.

This sounded very sensible to me the first time I read it, but thinking about it from North's perspective he may suddenly feel that he has put himself in a stupid situation.

If he believed, from West's comment, that 2♣ showed clubs then he should have called the Director at this point or at least asked East what it showed. As two-suited cue bids are not alertable in the ACBL, although 2♣ is normally Michaels it could have shown the red suits and it is reasonable to ask. As (I believe) a natural 2♣ is alertable then there is an additional reason to ask.

Now, two calls later, he discovers that East has failed to alert a call that is not alertable. He may now feel pretty silly calling the Director for that, although clearly he should because of West's comment.

If North (and West) are experienced players, then I can imagine finding that North failed to protect his interests (which I believe is more common in the ACBL) and leave the table result to stand, but could see that West may incur a PP.

[pran]

At the time North heard East explaining the 2♣bid South had not yet made any call. (As Blackshoe also states)

Therefore North now had every reason to interrupt all proceedings and call the Director with a demand to change his 2♠ call (Law 21B1a) if he wanted to.

Had he done that there would not have been any case of misinformation (only a possible warning to West for making an improper remark).

This is a situation where I consider North's failure to protect his interests so grave that I shall not provide any subsequent rectification for the alleged misinformation caused by West.

[bluejak]

pran, on Nov 29 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

Apparently South's doubt is caused by being unsure how North understood the alerted 2♣ bid since North didn't ask.

South does not play unethically. Not everyone knows how they play 1♣ (2♣) 2♠, especially with a partner with whom they are playing for the second time. To be honest, I do not know how I play that sequence with a majority of my partners: are you sure you do?

I dislike the presumption that South is unethical because he does not know how he plays an obscure sequence.

blackshoe, on Nov 29 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

Michaels is not alertable in the ACBL, so it was proper that there was no alert of 2♣. Which may make West's comment even more problematic, if NS were not from North America. It is most likely that West was joking, but as Sven says, that's something the table TD would have to determine. I'm not sure that should affect the ruling, though.

North is from San Francisco CA. South understood West's comment as a joke - there had been several jokes previously during the match.

[barmar]

South apparently assumed that 2♠ was Unusual vs. Unusual, but I don't understand why he was unsure what it showed. There are two common forms of this convention: lower=lower, and lower=support. In the first form, a bid of the lower of the opponent's two suits shows the lower of opener's suit and the 4th suit; in the second form, the lower cue bid shows support for opener's suit, the other cue bid shows the 4th suit. But when the opening bid is 1♣, they're equivalent, so 2♠ should show a good hand with ♦.

Since none of the likely meanings of 2♠ (natural, U/U low=low, U/U low=support) imply ♣ support, I think South dug his own grave when he bid 5♣. Even if there is a possibility that 2♠ shows support, South wasn't sure if this was what they were playing. The bad result was caused by his not knowing their agreements, and not directly due to the MI. Not to mention both N and S showing good hands when all they had were distributional 9 counts.

Although I understand that West's comment was a joke, and was probably made in an appropriately jovial manner, it still seems improper. By definition, a Michaels cue bid can't be long in the suit, so the comment could suggest that the pair plays natural overcalls over short clubs. If he wanted to joke without potentially confusing the opponents, he could have said something like "could be shorter". He deserves a warning or PP.

[pran]

bluejak, on Nov 29 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

pran, on Nov 29 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

Apparently South's doubt is caused by being unsure how North understood the alerted 2♣ bid since North didn't ask.

South does not play unethically. Not everyone knows how they play 1♣ (2♣) 2♠, especially with a partner with whom they are playing for the second time. To be honest, I do not know how I play that sequence with a majority of my partners: are you sure you do?

I dislike the presumption that South is unethical because he does not know how he plays an obscure sequence.

And I dislike the insinuation that I consider South to be unethical.

I do not, a fact that ought to be apparent from my post (unless maybe of course to someone who ignores essential parts of it).

To repeat myself: I consider any alleged damage to North/South to be caused by North's failure to request a Law 21B1a rectification when he heard the explanation given by East. Therefore my opinion is to let the table result stand.

[nige1]

I'm not a director but my sympathies are with North-South. I think it's obvious that North mistook West's "May be long" jocular remark as the truth and his side's problems stemmed from that misconception. I agree that West's remark should have resulted in an earlier director call and all the players at the table may be responsible to some extent for that omission. Nevertheless, I think North-South deserve redress in spite of their tardy director call. As a player, I know it is hard to follow correct procedure after you've become the victim of a rare type of infraction. I don't think West deserves a procedural penalty for what seems to have been intended as an innocent joke.

[blackshoe]

Sven attributes any damage to NS to North. Barmar attributes it to South. The latter argument makes more sense to me.

West's remark is extraneous, and could certainly convey UI if either of NS did not understand West was kidding. North did not understand that - he took it as saying that the bid was natural, or so he said. Either he was telling the truth, or he was not. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not going to make that judgment without talking to North, or hearing from the TD who was at the table what his opinion was.

On the evidence, there was MI from West. Potentially, there was damage (NS might have ended in some number of diamonds, making, or EW might have played in some failing contract). If the damage was caused by South's "failure to play bridge", then NS should get no adjustment. That does not preclude an adjustment for EW — and I agree that at least a warning is appropriate.

[jdonn]

No adjustment from NS regardless of the bridge aspect. West just told a dumb joke, north had no reason to assume he was announcing what his bid meant. For one thing it's obvious based on the wording, for another the wrong player would have announced it, and for another no one would have announced it at all. All that and north didn't even ask to make sure despite that fact that "everyone" in the US plays direct cuebids as michaels (I could literally go years in between encountering anything else).

The law is clear that you draw inferences from your opponents' behavior at your own risk. If the director wants to have a quick word with west then fine, otherwise result stands. And frankly I find this very easy to decide and am shocked that anyone wants to give NS anything or that this could have generated so much discussion. West's comment is not MI because it's not I.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Nov 29 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

and for another no one would have announced it at all.

And yet someone did.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 29 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 29 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

and for another no one would have announced it at all.

And yet someone did.

Um, exactly!

[bluejak]

pran, on Nov 29 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

And I dislike the insinuation that I consider South to be unethical.

You wrote

Quote

Apparently South's doubt is caused by being unsure how North understood the alerted 2♣ bid since North didn't ask.

not me. You know perfectly well that for a player to allow his decisions to be formed based on whether partner has asked is completely unethical, thus this comment suggests South is unethical.

barmar, on Nov 29 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

South apparently assumed that 2♠ was Unusual vs. Unusual, but I don't understand why he was unsure what it showed. There are two common forms of this convention: lower=lower, and lower=support.

Not in my experience. I have found that there are two common forms of this convention: lower=lower, and higher=support. I have not met anyone that I know of who plays lower=support.

[jeremy69]

Perhaps this thread tells us how what is perceived as a joke can go wrong. I don't have all that much sympathy for NS but the whole problem was induced by West deciding he would be amusing (not!).

Many years ago when I was but a callow youth I played a hand and when it was dummy's turn to play I called grandly for "Le Roi". RHO didn't look and thought I had called for a low one. Maybe my French accent wasn't up to much.It didn't come to light until I led to the next trick when he thought he was on lead.

By the time this was sorted out RHO had been told he should look more carefully and I had been admonished for speaking a language other than English at the table. I offered the man his card back as I had induced the whole position but by now he was sulking and would accept no favours from me. I think I would have given myself a procedural penalty for this and I would give West one also on this hand which might ensure his future jokes were, at least, funny!

[pran]

bluejak, on Nov 30 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

pran, on Nov 29 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

And I dislike the insinuation that I consider South to be unethical.

You wrote

Quote

Apparently South's doubt is caused by being unsure how North understood the alerted 2♣ bid since North didn't ask.

not me. You know perfectly well that for a player to allow his decisions to be formed based on whether partner has asked is completely unethical, thus this comment suggests South is unethical.

I wrote:
Apparently South's doubt is caused by being unsure how North understood the alerted 2♣ bid since North didn't ask. This is irrelevant, South shall not attempt to explain the actual hand held by North, he shall explain the relevant agreements within their partnership. And as South now had correct information on the 2♣ bid he had no reason to indicate anything else than that 2♠ was artificial (and base his further actions on that assumption).

And on realizing that I might have misunderstood what South was uncertain about I almost immediately edited my post with the following addition:
Edit: I am not sure if I have misunderstood South's doubt here: Was his doubt about in what way 2♠ would be artificial? In that case he apparently unfortunately guessed that North had clubs rather than diamonds, this mistake would be his own responsibility.

But of course, when you just take a part of what I write out of connection you can easily end up with whatever conclusion you want.

[bluejak]

Sorry: when you wrote something I stupidly assumed you meant exactly what you wrote.

[barmar]

bluejak, on Nov 30 2009, 04:27 AM, said:

barmar, on Nov 29 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

South apparently assumed that 2♠ was Unusual vs. Unusual, but I don't understand why he was unsure what it showed. There are two common forms of this convention: lower=lower, and lower=support.

Not in my experience. I have found that there are two common forms of this convention: lower=lower, and higher=support. I have not met anyone that I know of who plays lower=support.

Now you have, I play it with a number of partners. The theory is that if you can announce a fit immediately, you want to have as many cue bids or game tries available as possible, so the cheapest bid should be used for this.

I've heard the opposite argument, though, for higher=support. In that case, you want to allow room for opener to cue bid the opponent's other suit to suggest NT if you don't have a fit in either of your suits.