[Chris3875]

Scoring: MP

---

Auction went -

S W N E

P P P 1C
2C* 2S P 3C
P P P

2C is alerted and described as Michael's cue bid showing 5+ of both majors.
3C makes 6 tricks = 150 N/S
There is disagreement between N/S as to their system - North says she alerted and advised their correct system (Michael's cue bid) - South says that 2C over a short club opening bid shows genuine clubs.

I rule misinformation - opponents were damaged - and readjust the score to 2S making 8 tricks = +110 E/W.

[gordontd]

L21B1b

Quote

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than
Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

But, would West call 2♠ with the correct information?
And would East be able to pass it?
Might not North bid 3♠?
And could South pass that?

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2009-December-16, 05:18

[duschek]

Chris3875, on Dec 16 2009, 02:48 AM, said:

There is disagreement between N/S as to their system - North says she alerted and advised their correct system (Michael's cue bid) - South says that 2C over a short club opening bid shows genuine clubs.

However, South's clubs were not particularly genuine

After answering Gordon's questions I am going to adjust the score to 2♠ making the same 8 tricks for E/W, but the contract played by North.

[campboy]

Where was this played? If in the EBU, there is conveniently a space on the convention card for "defence to short club"; if there is nothing there to say they play a different defence to a natural 1C, I would expect to rule MI.

As Gordon says, we need to know what West would have done with the correct information. His actual choice is bizarre to say the least if he was told that 2♣ showed the majors, so I don't think I can guess what he might have done otherwise; indeed 2♠ is more reasonable with the correct information (though the 3♣ bid, of course, is not).

[duschek]

duschek, on Dec 16 2009, 08:22 AM, said:

After answering Gordon's questions I am going to adjust the score to 2♠ making the same 8 tricks for E/W, but the contract played by North.

Ahem, my ruling was based on an actual misexplanation of 2♣ being natural...

It is hard to see why West would have done differently if he had indeed received that explanation. Therefore, score stands.

[campboy]

Even if West would not have acted differently, surely East would have bid 2NT rather than 3♣ with correct information (he can hardly do this without a heart stop on the information he was given). EW look to be making at least 7 tricks in NT.

[jdonn]

If west had correct information then after his 2♠ bid and 2NT by east he would bid 3♥, which could lead to 4♥ making. So if we are adjusting then I vote for +420 EW.

I am curious why he bid 2♠ though, having been told south had the majors. How did he mean it?

[richlp]

jdonn, on Dec 16 2009, 01:36 PM, said:

If west had correct information then after his 2♠ bid and 2NT by east he would bid 3♥, which could lead to 4♥ making. So if we are adjusting then I vote for +420 EW.

I am curious why he bid 2♠ though, having been told south had the majors. How did he mean it?

Don't know the answers, but I'm curious.....

Does anybody play 1C (possibly short), 2C (natural)

X = negative?????

Would you make a negative X with the West hand????

[blackshoe]

I suspect that none of these players has much of a clue what they're doing.

I'm guessing that 1♣ was in fact alerted and explained as possibly short. I bet neither of NS had a SC at the table (and possibly neither of EW, as well).

Clearly there was MI. What might have happened absent the MI is considerably less clear.

There's no apostrophe in "Michaels".

Pretty sure this happened in Australia.

[bluejak]

richlp, on Dec 16 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

Does anybody play 1C (possibly short), 2C (natural)

X = negative?????

Yes, me.

[Chris3875]

The 1♣ bid was NOT alerted.

None of the players had a system card at the table.

The 2♠ bidder thought she was showing a stopper in spades in case her partner wanted to consider NT (she didn't like it because of her lousy diamond holding). After her partner went to 3♣ she left it there not knowing that South had such a strong club holding (it had been alerted as MICHAELS without the apostrophe) and she only had 8HCP. Her explanation made sense to me - but then I am only a poor Australian player.

[bluejak]

Now, hang on: you are now telling us that E/W did not inform N/S it was a short club either through SC or alert? If that is so then they caused the problem and result stands.

It is common in clubs for players not to have SCs, but if there is a problem because of this then they must expect to be ruled against. Such players should be especially careful with their alerting.

[blackshoe]

Quote

South says that 2C over a short club opening bid shows genuine clubs.

If it wasn't alerted, how did South know it was a short club?

[Chris3875]

Probably because 90% of players in this area are taught and continue to play short club opening - and while we encourage players to have system cards and to alert a short club opening - it doesn't always happen. South just ASSUMED it was a short club opening because that is the norm here.

[Elianna]

Chris3875, on Dec 17 2009, 03:45 PM, said:

Probably because 90% of players in this area are taught and continue to play short club opening - and while we encourage players to have system cards and to alert a short club opening - it doesn't always happen. South just ASSUMED it was a short club opening because that is the norm here.

And were EW actually playing short club, or was that just an assumption South made?

[Chris3875]

They do play a short club, yes.

[bluejak]

If North assumed it was not a short club because it was not alerted then it is time we looked at this hand correctly, with E/W the offending side, and N/S damaged by MI.

Sure, Chris, quite a lot of players do not follow regulations. But they must be made to suffer when their opponents go wrong as a result: the fact that most other people do not follow the regulation is no defence.

We do not penalise players in clubs who do not follow regulations, but we do adjust when their failure damages opponents.

[Chris3875]

OK - thanks all for your input. The reason I asked the question was because I was unsure about the decision I made at the time .. and it seems I was right to question what I did.

I did, in fact, speak to 2 other senior players before making my final decision - neither of them were aware of South's claim that 2♣ over the opponent's 1♣ (short) was natural and from North's reaction, I suspect that this must be something very new in their repertoire. I also think I need to ask more questions at the table (or away from it) to get the FULL picture.

Cheers