[whereagles]

Hi all,

Here's a misexplanation case. Should score be adjusted or not?

Scoring: IMP

---

South .. West .. North .. East
1♣a) ... 2♣ b.) .. pass ... 2♥
2♠ ....... pass ..... 3♠ ... pass
4♠ (AP)

a) Polish style. Either natural or a GF hand (the case here).
b.) Alerted. North asks and is explained as either majors or a very strong hand.

Making 6. It turns out the correct explanation of 2♣ is "no agreement" East alerted because, in his opinion, it's standard that 2♣ shows the majors.

Declarer feels damaged. He feels he'd have reached slam if given the correct explanation. Director is summoned and adjusts to 6♠ making.

E/W don't appeal, but other players in the room heard the story and feel it shouldn't be adjusted.

Was Director's adjustment correct? Thx in advance.

[helene_t]

I suppose there is an error in the auction diagram (it was North who bid 3♠, not West. And South who bid 4♠, not East).

I think North should have been more specific. That he "feels" that he would have reached 6♠ isn't really basis for an adjustment. I wonder why South bid 3♦ instead of 2♠. Would 2♠ have shown something else even if the 2♣ overcall was explained as "no agreement", or is it just because 2♠ would be some kind of cuebid now that W has shown the majors? If South would have bid 2♠ given a correct explanation I suppose they would have had a less awkward auction. If he would have bid 3♦ regardless I am not convinced.

[whereagles]

Sorry, I messed it up. Hang on a sec.

There. Fixed now. Note that South bid 2♠, not 3♦, in his 2nd round. I was in a bit of a rush when I posted it... sorry. Have another go at it. Thx.

[Fluffy]

I fail to see the damage.

[greenender]

If E thought that it was standard to play 2♣ as majors, why did he add "or a very strong hand"?.

I don't get to defend against Polish-style 1♣ openings that often, but I can't see why it should be standard to play 2♣ as majors, let alone what E actually said, which seems a very odd defence.

I think it is difficult to judge the extent to which the MI may have affected things without knowing some of the inferences from the methods N/S were playing, but if 2♠ was GF and 3♠, as a consequence, probably stronger than 4, S's failure to cue-bid seems bizarre, whatever explanation he has had.

[jvage]

greenender, on Apr 13 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

If E thought that it was standard to play 2♣ as majors, why did he add "or a very strong hand"?.

I don't get to defend against Polish-style 1♣ openings that often, but I can't see why it should be standard to play 2♣ as majors, let alone what E actually said, which seems a very odd defence.

I think it is difficult to judge the extent to which the MI may have affected things without knowing some of the inferences from the methods N/S were playing, but if 2♠ was GF and 3♠, as a consequence, probably stronger than 4, S's failure to cue-bid seems bizarre, whatever explanation he has had.

I agree that "or a very strong hand" sounds strange. However a normal and sensible defence to Polish club is to use the same as over a "could be short" (2+) club, at least around here many use 2♣ as both majors. This is because it is easier to play the same defence against only slightly different openings and because 1♣ is very often either balanced or natural (18+ is less frequent).

North may have splintered over 2♠ and South should definitely have done more than 4♠ (4♣ seems obvious). If 2♠ had been taken as a cuebid N/S would likely have been damaged, but as it was I also wonder why N/S actually felt damaged and what they would have done differently with another explanation.

John

[helene_t]

Maybe South signed off because he wouldn't want to be in slam when he knew trump were 4-0?

Am I allowed to give a weighted score?

[Trinidad]

jvage, on Apr 13 2010, 01:59 PM, said:

North may have splintered over 2♠ and South should definitely have done more than 4♠ (4♣ seems obvious). If 2♠ had been taken as a cuebid N/S would likely have been damaged, but as it was I also wonder why N/S actually felt damaged and what they would have done differently with another explanation.

John

What would South have thought If North would have splintered?

(1♣-2♣-Pass-2♥
2♠-Pass-4♣-...)

As North, I would never bid 4♣ because I would be sure that my partner would take it as natural (given the explanation of the 2♣ bid).

That means that the MI robbed NS of the possibility to have a decent auction to slam (or at the very least took the firm ground under it away). That seems enough reason to adjust for me.

The point here is that it is easy for us to say what North or South should have done when we see 52 cards and know that the explanation was incorrect. But when you can see only 13 cards and don't know that the explanation is incorrect, the situation is much more difficult.

Rik

[whereagles]

helene_t, on Apr 13 2010, 01:08 PM, said:

Maybe South signed off because he wouldn't want to be in slam when he knew trump were 4-0?

That was one of the arguments he later gave. A suggested auction with the correct explanation would be

1♣ (2♣) dbl
3♣ 3♥
3♠ 4♣
etc.

3♣ = cue, strong variant
3♠ = sets trumps
4♣ = 1st or 2nd round control.

After 4♣ it's really easy to reach slam. It is plausible that N/S, who are a regular partnership with lots of agreements, can indeed produce this auction.

[jallerton]

whereagles, on Apr 13 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 13 2010, 01:08 PM, said:

Maybe South signed off because he wouldn't want to be in slam when he knew trump were 4-0?

That was one of the arguments he later gave. A suggested auction with the correct explanation would be .....

The TD should pay more attention to what North and South said when the TD was first called. Just as it is easier for us to construct an auction to slam looking at all four hands, it is also far easier for North and South to do so knowing the same thing.

If South's bidding was affected by the misexplanation, then South should have been able to tell the TD how he would have bid differently and why.

If North's bidding was affected by the misexplanation, then North should have been able to tell the TD how he would have bid differently and why.

Trinidad said:

What would South have thought If North would have splintered?

(1♣-2♣-Pass-2♥
2♠-Pass-4♣-...)

As North, I would never bid 4♣ because I would be sure that my partner would take it as natural (given the explanation of the 2♣ bid).

That means that the MI robbed NS of the possibility to have a decent auction to slam (or at the very least took the firm ground under it away). That seems enough reason to adjust for me.

But the correct explanation was "no agreement". Would you suddenly be happy to risk a misunderstanding over 4♣ now?

Quote

Am I allowed to give a weighted score?

Yes (as long as the hand was from outside the ACBL.) If having heard the facts you consider that slam may or may not have been bid given the correct explanation, that's exactly what you should do!

[dburn]

One is always a little suspicious of this "no agreement" business. Is it really the case that West has never bid 2♣ over a Polish-style 1♣ before? Or that East and West have never discussed the possibility that one of them might?

[bluejak]

I find th actual auction unconvincing. If the correct explanation is 'no agreement' I cannot believe that this pair would bid so much more aggressively as to reach slam a lot of the time. Give them 20% of a slam, maybe! Lots of scope for polling I would think, so long as we can find people who think not trying for slam reasonable because of a 4-0 break.

helene_t, on Apr 13 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

Am I allowed to give a weighted score?

I presume so. We do ask OPs to state a jurisdiction, but I am guessing Portugal. Weighted scores are the norm outside North America: there are a few Law 12C1E jurisdictions [including one who use Law 12C1E for TDs and 12C1C for ACs ] but not many.

[whereagles]

dburn, on Apr 13 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

One is always a little suspicious of this "no agreement" business.

1. Is it really the case that West has never bid 2♣ over a Polish-style 1♣ before?

2. Or that East and West have never discussed the possibility that one of them might?

1. Yes. Polish club is pretty unusual around here (Portugal). East's "majors or strong" (mis)explanation is a sort of catch-all explanation, which probably confirms that E/W indeed had no agreement.

2. No idea.

[whereagles]

bluejak, on Apr 14 2010, 01:32 AM, said:

I find th actual auction unconvincing.

South did not want to cue 4♣ over 3♠ because he was still not sure as to what pard took 2♠ for (spades or some general-purpose cue). If South cues 4♣, North might get confused as to what 2♠ meant after all.. he might even pass!

Thus South opted for 4♠, which confirmed a spade suit (thus strong hand as well), hoping North would carry on with some extras.

How do you see this argument?

[Rossoneri]

I would be tempted to give a weighted score, 20% seems a bit little though!

Agree that it is unconvincing that NS will always reach slam.

[bluejak]

whereagles, on Apr 14 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

bluejak, on Apr 14 2010, 01:32 AM, said:

I find th actual auction unconvincing.

South did not want to cue 4♣ over 3♠ because he was still not sure as to what pard took 2♠ for (spades or some general-purpose cue). If South cues 4♣, North might get confused as to what 2♠ meant after all.. he might even pass!

Thus South opted for 4♠, which confirmed a spade suit (thus strong hand as well), hoping North would carry on with some extras.

How do you see this argument?

Not much of an argument. The worries would be the same if the bid was correctly described as "no agreement".

[whereagles]

Well, if East gave the correct explanation, i.e. "no agreement", N/S could have a way out, which I saw being done a couple times:

Call Director, ask to take East out of the table, after which West tells N/S what he meant by 2♣. Then only East would be confused.

Actually... I see a snag here: which is East might ask N/S a couple of questions about their subsequent bidding, which might clear up for him what 2♣ meant. Example:

1♣ 2♣ dbl

"what is dbl?"
"take-out"
...oh, so 2♣ must have been natural.

So... probably what I saw being done wasn't a correct procedure.

[jvage]

whereagles, on Apr 21 2010, 06:37 AM, said:

Well, if East gave the correct explanation, i.e. "no agreement", N/S could have a way out, which I saw being done a couple times:

Call Director, ask to take East out of the table, after which West tells N/S what he meant by 2♣. Then only East would be confused.

Actually... I see a snag here: which is East might ask N/S a couple of questions about their subsequent bidding, which might clear up for him what 2♣ meant. Example:

1♣ 2♣ dbl

"what is dbl?"
"take-out"
...oh, so 2♣ must have been natural.

So... probably what I saw being done wasn't a correct procedure.

It seems not all TD's agree on how often a player should be removed and his partner explain. It was recomended in some situations at the TD course in San Remo, but I don't think "no agreement-cases" are typical (if "no agreement" is the correct answer that is all the opponents are entitled to). This procedure is mainly for the situation when the player asked (partner of the bidder) thinks/knows they have an agreement but doesn't remember it.

One solution to the problem you refer to is:
Q: "What is double?"
A: "If 2♣ is natural we play takeout, if it is Michaels we play it shows penalty interest in one or more suits (or whatever they have agreed) "

[bluejak]

The correct procedure is to send the player away from the table, and then tell his partner that if and only if they have an agreement he should now describe it. The warning is very important: you do not expect players to just describe their hand.

[Free]

It just doesn't feel right to adjust. So what if they start cuebidding? How will declarer know that his partner has 5 ♥s and 4 ♠s?