[bluejak]

Scoring: Total Points

---

W     N         E         S
      2♦ #1 2♥ #2 Dbl #3
P       2♠         P       P
3♣     P         3NT     P
P       P

# 1 Alerted: asked: described as "A weak two in either major".
# 2 Alerted: asked: described as "Takeout, with some length in hearts".
# 3 Alerted: asked: described as "Pass or Correct, ie pass with hearts, bid 2♠ with spades".

The Hubert Phillips is Mixed Pivot Aggregate knockout. I was South. I told our opponents after the hand I would seek a ruling, but by agreement since no-one competent was present it was deferred to the end: by then it could not affect who won so was not pursued.

At the end of the auction East said his 2♥ had been misdescribed: he believed 2♦ was a Multi opening, so bid 2♥ as per their Multi defence, which meant it showed a good hand, with hearts.

While I did not believe th MI affected us, I was unhappy at East progressing over 3♣, since from his description he had shown his hand. I wondered whether he had been affected by his partner's misexplanation.

How would you rule?

[wank]

personally i'd rule no LA to 3nt

[campboy]

I don't think 3NT is suggested by the misexplanation. I would expect West to need a much better suit to introduce clubs after a natural 2♥ than he would after what he has explained, since he is expecting three+ clubs opposite. So if 2♥ was not alerted I would be confident of getting 5 or 6 club tricks in 3NT, but after partner's explanation that seems much less likely.

[blackshoe]

While "no LA" is certainly possible, I'd want to investigate before deciding, and probably poll East's peers.

It occurs to me that East must have a little something, since he bid voluntarily at the three level. Probably that makes "no LA" more likely.

[peachy]

I would rule no LA to 3NT, result stands.
3NT is not suggested by the misexplanation, it is suggested by the slight extras combined with West's showing some values with 3C. Had East rebid hearts, that is what I would rule as using the UI that *West does not know E has hearts*.

[RMB1]

I would like to know what is the actual difference between the two explanations.

"Takeout, with some length in hearts": Minimum HCP? Minimum heart length?

" a good hand, with hearts": Minimum HCP? Minimum heart length?

[bluejak]

Well, since you were saved a late phone call by there being no need to go into this further, we did not. But one thing that occurred to me after I posted the above was that I did say something about extras at the end of the hand and the 2♥ bidder seemed to indicate he did not have them.

Based on my experience since we did not go into detail, I would have thought "takeout with hearts" includes a 1=4=4=4 12 count, or at least that is how I used to play it. A good hand with hearts? Maybe good 16, poor 17, with five hearts? Less? More? I am guessing admittedly. The whole match was played in good spirit, including at this time, and I did not want an interrogation that could be completely irrelevant.

Say, for argument's sake, that my description here is correct: how would you rule?

Putting on my hat as the player seeking the ruling, I would argue that while 2♥ has shown most of his hand, the UI tells him that partner may be allowing for him to have only 12 HCP, so suggests bidding on.

[PanRak]

I, personally, don't see a LA to 3NT after partner volunteers ♣ and you have ♠AK, although perhaps I might think differently at matchpoints, rather than the actual (quirky) aggregate scoring.

However, there is another possible way that Bluejak may have been damaged by the MI - had he been given the correct explanation at the time of the 2♥ bid, might he have found a bid of e.g. 3♥ pass/correct rather than double? - surely much less likely partner has hearts now than after the given (misleading) explanation.

This might lead to a different final contract, as the 3NT bidder could justify his 3NT bid only by partner's 3♣.

Glad to hear it didn't affect the final result

[ggwhiz]

I also would let 3nt stand as regardless of the mis-expanation, I can easily think of a number of 3♣ bids on hands where 3nt has no play.

The 3nt bid carried enough risk to be allowed as continuing to play bridge? where a 3♥ "safety" bid could be more objectionable.

Just my inclination in that my mind could be changed. Either way, I certainly don't think East was up to no good.

[TimG]

I'd be curious about whether EW had agreements regarding a direct and delayed 3♣.

It seems possible that a direct 3♣ is weaker than a delayed 3♣, so that west's actual choice shows some values.

Absent such an agreement, I would think that West could balance with 3♣ on weaker and/or less suitable hands with the expectation of finding club support in East's hand. And, that passing 3♣ was a LA.

Tim

[FrancesHinden]

I'm very confused by the proposed EW methods. What is East supposed to do over the double on the same hand, but with the king of spades replaced by a low one?

(I suppose I am trying to get at what "a good hand with hearts" is supposed to mean)

[jallerton]

campboy, on Jun 10 2010, 04:15 AM, said:

I don't think 3NT is suggested by the misexplanation. I would expect West to need a much better suit to introduce clubs after a natural 2♥ than he would after what he has explained, since he is expecting three+ clubs opposite. So if 2♥ was not alerted I would be confident of getting 5 or 6 club tricks in 3NT, but after partner's explanation that seems much less likely.

I agree. From East's point of view, the UI makes it less likely that 3NT will make than the authorised auction would suggest. Thus the 3NT call complies with Law 73C and Law 16A.

No adjustment for UI.

PanRak said:

However, there is another possible way that Bluejak may have been damaged by the MI - had he been given the correct explanation at the time of the 2♥ bid, might he have found a bid of e.g. 3♥ pass/correct rather than double? - surely much less likely partner has hearts now than after the given (misleading) explanation.

Unlikely, because South, who understands the Laws better than 99.99% of players,
states that he "did not believe th MI affected us".

[RMB1]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 10 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

I'm very confused by the proposed EW methods.  What is East supposed to do over the double on the same hand, but with the king of spades replaced by a low one?

East did not have a call over the double (?)

Did you mean: What does East call over 2♦ with Ax AQxxx J9x Kxx ?

What would (2♦)-2♥-(X)-2NT and (2♦)-2♥-(X)-P-(2♠)-P-(P)-2NT mean?

[bluejak]

ggwhiz, on Jun 10 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

Either way, I certainly don't think East was up to no good.

No-one suggested otherwise.

[mycroft]

Do they play Lebensohl or the like in this situation? If 3C after "waiting to see" - I assume pass was "comfortable playing 2Hx if on the off chance South has hearts" - shows some values, then I don't see anything wrong with 3NT.

If it could be 1444 with 12, I definitely have extras. I do, in fact, have a takeout hand with some length in hearts - not that that's relevant.

If I thought I'd shown a "good hand with hearts", I think I still have extras - and with partner showing clubs enough to either overrule me or fit non-jump me, Kxx looks like at least one running suit to me. Yeah, a diamond lead may sink me - and I likely will get one - but I would expect to make it more often than not.

[bluejak]

That last post is interesting. If this was a discussion board on how to bid it might easily convince me that 3NT is better than pass - but that does not mean that we rule that 3NT is acceptable. The question is whether 3NT is suggested by the UI and whether pass is an LA, not whether 3NT is a reasonable bid.

[shyams]

I'd go for no adjustment. I think campboy and jallerton have stated good reasons why 3NT is not suggested by UI etc.