[bluejak]

I received this email from a local club Director. Note that in "Benji" a 2♦ opening is equivalent to an Acol 2♣, ie a game force or 23+ balanced.

I was asked to adjudicate on this hand

---

EW were playing Benji.
N alerted the 3D explained as the majors.
West second pass after a notional game force bid was explained as inhibited by the presumed bad break (he could have bid 4C or 4D of course).
3S was 1 off. E reserves rights when it became clear that there had been a mis-explanation.

I awarded an adjusted score of 4H making 10 – assuming loss of a trump, a club, and eventually a spade.

Right? Wrong?

Ok. I thought the basis easy, assuming 3♦ really was MI, but let us assume that. But there was one little wrinkle so let us see what you think.

[Bbradley62]

North alerted 3♦ as majors then passed? What's up with that?

[Coelacanth]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-26, 13:03, said:

North alerted 3♦ as majors then passed? What's up with that?

I suspect South reacted to the alert in some fashion, thus giving UI to North that the bid was intended as natural.

In the putative behind-screens auction, S explains 3♦ to W as natural, N alerts it to E as showing the majors and bids 3♠. East doubles and I think South is now allowed to run to 4♦, doubled by W. E may pass this for 500. If for some reason S passes 3♠X, that's 1400.

[Trinidad]

I get really tired of people who explain partner's bid and on the first round of bidding show that they play partner for something else. I know what I would like to do... :

I will rule that North somehow (gesture, facial expression) has UI that South doesn´t have the majors. By passing the 3♦ bid, he used that UI where a 4♠ bid was a logical alternative. East doubles and South doesn't have any reason to run. The AS is going to be 4♠X-5 = -1100.

I know, Rik, keep dreaming.

Nevertheless, I would ask North why he didn't bid the "obvious" 4♠. If I get evidence that there was UI, I will rule as above. If this evidence doesn't show, I will penalize (warn) North for not calling the TD and correcting the explanation before his pass. I will adjust the score to 4♥+1. Declarer loses a trump and a club: He wins the opening lead and plunks down the ♥A and another. After this, he will ruff 2 spades in dummy, establishing the last spade as a winner.

Rik

[ggwhiz]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-26, 15:12, said:

I will adjust the score to 4♥+1. Declarer loses a trump and a club: He wins the opening lead and plunks down the ♥A and another. After this, he will ruff 2 spades in dummy, establishing the last spade as a winner.

I won't get into the alert followed by pass details without more info but can't imagine declarer pooching the overtrick.

If there was funny business should this not be the ruling with a possible additional penalty for the offenders? It doesn't seem fair to the field to award 1100 or some such.

[mycroft]

I like Coelecanth's reasoning, except that 3♠ seems pusillanimous, and having bid only 3♠, it must be because he is going to hit what they bid. So either 5♦x, or 4♠x, *or* 4♥x by north on a known bad fit and two tricks. But it's only legal if it's legal.

If their agreement is that 3♦ is the majors, I want to know *exactly why* North passed. I'm not very likely to believe him, either. I also want to know if 3♦ = diamonds *or* majors is a legal agreement (I assume it is), and why, if North is going to bid like that, that he doesn't explain the agreement that way (or "majors, but partner forgets").

Maybe he decided to psych the 3♦ pass, knowing if it gets doubled that he can run to 3♠ hoping to screw them up (after all, 3♦-7 should be a great score; 3♦-8 if East only has one club is a terrific score, and even after doubling-and-running, it's going to be hard for them to find the diamond contract). But you don't get to play those games if:
- partner reacts to the explanation of 3♦
- you've seen partner forget this before
- you've ever done it before with this partner (I can not believe that partner would forget this one).

If their agreement is that 3♦ is natural, then MI, and 4♥+1 (I'm going to allow East to guess the trumps for one loser, then the sixth spade comes in). I'm still going to ask North why he passed, and whether he did what he needed to do with "MI corrected by explainer".

[RMB1]

I think it is difficult to rule without asking North why they passed 3♦.

If 3♦ is explained as natural, West might double (minimum values, concentrated in opponent's suit?)

Then North might not feel able to pass (depending on the reasons for their original pass) and who knows where the auction would end.

[bluejak]

ggwhiz, on 2011-October-26, 15:22, said:

I won't get into the alert followed by pass details without more info but can't imagine declarer pooching the overtrick.

If there was funny business should this not be the ruling with a possible additional penalty for the offenders? It doesn't seem fair to the field to award 1100 or some such.

Either it is legally correct to award -1100 or it isn't. If it is not legally correct, fine, no problem.

But if it is legally correct to award an adjusted score of -1100 then you are being totally unfair to the field not to award it: you are saying that you are not going to apply the Laws of bridge. I would not want to play in any event where the TD refuses to apply the Laws. Who knows what such a TD will do next? Give a pair an extra 10% because the female looks cute?

RMB1, on 2011-October-26, 15:33, said:

I think it is difficult to rule without asking North why they passed 3♦.

As you will realise I have no more information than I gave you. But I do have a lot of experience of bridge at this level, and I would take a large bet that I can tell you what actually happened.

Either

• partner gave him UI in which case I agree with -1400 or whatever, or
  
• he realised it was different over an artificial opening, changed his mind as to the meaning of 3D, and did nothing about it, or
  
• he decided he wasn't sure one way or the other, panicked, and passed

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-October-26, 12:52, said:

I awarded an adjusted score of 4H making 10 – assuming loss of a trump, a club, and eventually a spade.

Right? Wrong?

Ok. I thought the basis easy, assuming 3♦ really was MI, but let us assume that. But there was one little wrinkle so let us see what you think.

I fail to see how you could possibly make a ruling on such limited facts. As minimum you need to find out:

• was 2♦ alerted and, if so, how was it described?
  
• what is the North-South partnership agreement for 3♦ over artificial and natural 2♦ openings respectively?
  
• why did North pass 3♦?
  
• was there any reaction, mannerism or other UI from South when his 3♦ bid was described as majors?

[barmar]

If North saw a reaction from South that made him change his mind about what the 3♦ bid showed, why didn't he correct his explanation at that point?

Since we haven't gotten the answer from North about why he passed, I suppose there's one possible legitimate reason: he looked at his hand, and decided that it was more likely that South forgot the agreement he thought they had. And unless South has midbid like this enough times for it to become an implicit understanding, he's under no obligation to disclose it. And as long as his action isn't based on undisclosed partnership understandings, he's allowed to bid however he likes.

We do need to know what NS's actual agreement is in this case. My suspicion (based on what I suspect is more common) is that they play natural 3♦ over artificial 2♦, not Michaels, so South bid correctly, North mis-remembered, but thought that South was mis-remembering, and thus correctly guessed to pass. It's pretty suspicious, and if there's any hint of UI I'd throw the book at NS.

[sfi]

There is another alternative - North may simply have judged that 3♦ down several undoubled is a good sacrifice against an E-W game. Unless there is any actual UI, there is no reason to rule based on a suspicion that it exists.

As for the ruling, it seems clear that East would be more likely to bid 4♦ over 3♦ with the correct explanation. West's pass in a GF auction does not seem outrageous given the available information, so adjusting to 4♥= looks normal.

[barmar]

That's quite a position to take. What game does he think EW can make? Probably not 5♦, since NS should take 2 top clubs and a club ruff (and even if South doesn't lead a club), maybe he has a defensive trick in hearts). And not 3NT if the diamonds are evenly split, since NS should be able to set up their spade suit before EW can run 9 tricks.

[sfi]

I'm just saying that everyone is jumping to the UI conclusion without actual evidence. I'm not arguing that a pass of 3♦ is a good gambit on this hand.

[c_corgi]

While it would be nice to find out more about North's thought process before ruling, given the information available I cannot see past 4SX by North down lots. However, it looks like West's final pass and East's 3S are both clear SEWoGs. From West's point of view, East chose to bid a natural GF 3S despite knowledge of the bad breaks. Any sympathy with West's pass based on the suspected misfit emphasises that East should double given that he 'knows for sure' about the misfit. So E/W keep the table score.

[mycroft]

The diamonds are split. East can't have SA, 5 running hearts, and 4 good diamonds? East has a Game-forcing opener after all, and partner's bid on 5-4s with ♥Txxx before. How about 4 diamonds, 3 hearts and ♠AK? What can East have as a game-force that doesn't have a play for some game? And if they don't have game, it's partner's 3♦ that turned a plus into a minus; I'm just trying to fiddle the minus.

No, I'm not expecting 3♦ to go all change, but if it does, am I really expecting a much worse result at 50-a-trick than I am doubled in my awesome spade fit? 300 vs 400? Okay... And they believe me and bid, they'll never find their own diamond game, and they might play their other contract wrong, or miss the only making game (viz. 3NT) before they figure me out. If they don't believe me and double, when I run to 3♠, is West going to know that East's diamonds are *that good*? He could just be doubling because we can't play undoubled, and have a flattish 23 he doesn't like his 3NT chances on with all the suits breaking badly. Even at expert level, I can't imagine people having great defences to this kind of thing.

Having said that, my point above stands - I'm not buying "I decided to throw a spanner" on this auction without a *lot* of convincing; "partner flinched" is *much* more likely.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-October-26, 16:33, said:

was 2♦ alerted and, if so, how was it described?

I told you it was Benji. Of course it would be alerted - why ever not?

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-October-26, 19:41, said:

I told you it was Benji. Of course it would be alerted - why ever not?

I wouldn't make that assumption. People fail to alert alertable bids with surprising regularity.

So if we are to assume 2♦ was alerted, my next question is did South ask what it meant?

[bluejak]

That I cannot tell you. I expect so.

While later in the auction people may get alerts wrong, it is very very rare for people not to alert artificial openings here, apart from a Gambling 3NT opening which many people do not realise is artificial. This is especially the case for a two of a suit opening, which is always alertable or announceable.

[Free]

Agree with mrdct, there are a lot of relevant questions unanswered.

[ggwhiz]

bluejak, on 2011-October-26, 16:16, said:

Either it is legally correct to award -1100 or it isn't. If it is not legally correct, fine, no problem.

But if it is legally correct to award an adjusted score of -1100 then you are being totally unfair to the field not to award it: you are saying that you are not going to apply the Laws of bridge.

Thank you for the clarification. I was thinking along the lines of a procedural penalty and the fact I would really like to hang-em higher than perhaps reasonable.

Never thought I was on firm ground though and never understood the legal basis for split scores.