[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

.P...2♠(1)..3♥..X(2)
.P.....3♠......P....4♠
.P......P......P

---

(1) Not announced, but asked and explained as "strong"
(2) Not alerted, but asked and explained as "penalties"
NS later asked whether 2♠ was an Acol two. This was confirmed by West.

Result: 4♠(E) =, NS -620

North called the TD at the end of play to challenge this description of the hand as either "strong" or an Acol two. The director asked to see EW's convention card. They didn't have one, but had a typed list of their methods on the table, which included "opening two bids: strong". When this was pointed out to him, East said "I'm sorry, I should have put 'or eight playing tricks'", and amended the form.

What action should the director take?

[helene_t]

The question "is it an Acol 2?" is silly. "Acol 2" is no more specific than "strong", and it is not good to ask that kind of leading questions.

Would be nice to know what exactly EW's agreements are. Absent evidence to the contrary I will assume that the 2♠ opening fits their agreement. Given proper disclosure, N will often do something. Most likely double 4♠, which S may or may not pull to 5♣. I think W will double 5♣ and it will usually make (if W leads a spade and get a spade back, declarer will usually ruff with the queen).

I doubt that NS failure to beat the 4♠ contract can be attributed to the MI. Presumably S Played ♣A and another club, that must be a misdefense regardless of the MI. But maybe he is more likely to get it right if he knows that E could be this weak so N could have stuff in diamonds.

[RMB1]

I think this is solely a misinformation case. 2♠ should be described better when asked and even "strong or 8 playing tricks" on the convention card is insufficient, something about lack of outside cards/defensive values. 2♠ showing length in spades and any strength is permitted. This one should probably be announced as "intermediate or strong".

I don't think NS were damaged in the auction but perhaps they were damaged in the play. How did the play go? If NS knew East might have no cards outside spades, could they had a better go at cashing their four tricks. Perhaps an adjustment to a weighting of 9 and 10 tricks in 4♠ might be appropriate.

[RMB1]

helene_t, on Apr 21 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

I think W will double 5♣ and it will usually make (if W leads a spade and get a spade back, declarer will usually ruff with the queen).

I don't think so much of South's chances in 5♣. Declarer has to ruff two hearts in dummy and probably draw a round of trumps to stop East over ruffing. If West does not over ruff the ♣K at trick two, he will usually make two trump tricks.

[VixTD]

It was clear that East thought that "eight playing tricks" was a true description of his agreement, and that he was not deviating from his system.

I agree with Robin, this is a case of inadequate disclosure. I explained to EW that if they were going to open this kind of hand 2♠, along with anything up to an Acol two, they would have to announce it as "weak to strong" and explain that it could be pre-emptive in nature, and amend their "convention card" accordingly.

I asked South if he would have bid differently with a correct explanation and he said, "I dunno, I think I might have doubled". Had he doubled, North is likely to have bid diamonds, and NS would have been more likely to defeat 4♠, so I adjusted to 50% of 4♠(E) -1 and 50% of 4♠(E)=.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on Apr 21 2010, 09:42 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 21 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

I think W will double 5♣ and it will usually make (if W leads a spade and get a spade back, declarer will usually ruff with the queen).

I don't think so much of South's chances in 5♣. Declarer has to ruff two hearts in dummy and probably draw a round of trumps to stop East over ruffing. If West does not over ruff the ♣K at trick two, he will usually make two trump tricks.

Am I missing something, ruff the spade at trick 2 with the Q, presumably W discards, play C A and another, later ruff the diamonds good. 5♣ is not a problem.

[aguahombre]

VixTD, on Apr 22 2010, 07:32 AM, said:

I explained to EW that if they were going to open this kind of hand 2♠, along with anything up to an Acol two, they would have to announce it as "weak to strong" and explain that it could be pre-emptive in nature, and amend their "convention card" accordingly.

If I asked, and was told "weak to strong, could be preemptive", I would be very confused.

[Pict]

This strikes me as a very difficult problem.

How much of 5C doubled do we allow. How much of 4S going off do we allow.

I'd be inclined to go for 20% of 5C bid and always making, and 30% of 4S going off. Interested to see other views.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Apr 22 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

If I asked, and was told "weak to strong, could be preemptive", I would be very confused.

How about "eight playing tricks, maybe preemptive, maybe strong, or anywhere in between"?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Apr 22 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Apr 22 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

If I asked, and was told "weak to strong, could be preemptive", I would be very confused.

How about "eight playing tricks, maybe preemptive, maybe strong, or anywhere in between"?

If the bid really shows 8 playing tricks for spades "8 playing tricks for spades" would work for me. 2S is, by definition, preemptive --since it preempts the other three people at the table; so that term is not particularly helpful.

"Strong or 8 playing tricks" would also work, if that is the agreement.

[jdonn]

Instead of the rather confusing (and evasive) sounding "maybe preemptive, maybe strong, or anywhere in between" why not just "any strength"?

Certainly I wouldn't call the original hand in this post "strong", that must be wrong.

[blackshoe]

"Any eight playing tricks"? (That may be an overbid — I would be surprised if there were no "eight playing trick" hands they wouldn't open).

[aguahombre]

who is being quoted using the word "any"? If the bid shows 8 playing tricks for spades, that doesn't inversely mean all 8 trick hands with spades are opened that way.

[blackshoe]

No one is being quoted — I was suggesting a possible way (not a very good one, I expect) of explaining their agreement, just as I did (with a different phrase in quotes) in my previous post.

[CamHenry]

helene_t, on Apr 21 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

The question "is it an Acol 2?" is silly. "Acol 2" is no more specific than "strong", and it is not good to ask that kind of leading questions.

I agree that leading questions rarely get the best answers, but I have to disagree with the other part of this statement. Just about every textbook defines an Acol 2 as "a hand of power and quality", and the EBU's Orange Book explains what is actually meant by a "strong" hand.

As a TD, I would rule MI on this occasion. I'm not sure what adjustment, if any, I would give; but I would explain to EW that they need to give a better explanation in future.

[helene_t]

CamHenry, maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that "strong", or "Acol Two" is vague. I was just saying that the two terms mean roughly the same. Maybe textbooks are a little more specific about what is meant by "Acol Two" than by "Strong", but one shouldn't assume random opps read the same text books as one does.

2♠ was explained as "Strong". If that isn't specific enough, then it's better to ask what their precise agreements are. They might have agreed on the number of quick tricks, the number of HCPs or w/e. Getting opps to say the name of the agreement won't help.

[mjj29]

helene_t, on Apr 23 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

CamHenry, maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that "strong", or "Acol Two" is vague. I was just saying that the two terms mean roughly the same. Maybe textbooks are a little more specific about what is meant by "Acol Two" than by "Strong", but one shouldn't assume random opps read the same text books as one does.

2♠ was explained as "Strong". If that isn't specific enough, then it's better to ask what their precise agreements are. They might have agreed on the number of quick tricks, the number of HCPs or w/e. Getting opps to say the name of the agreement won't help.

That's not the case - 'Strong' is a technical definition in the OB of "meets the extended rule of 25" (R25 or any 16HCP or 8CCT and opening strength). An acol two is significantly better than that. AQJxxx KJx K Qxx is not an acol two, but it does have 16HCP.