[bluejak]

I am not 100% sure whether this was Teams or Pairs, since there were three Pairs finals, an Open Pairs, and a Consolation Mixed Pivot Teams! But I think it was Pairs.

---

North complained that West had described 2♦ as diamonds and hearts, but had not said it could be strong. Note that it definitely does show diamonds and hearts, despite the actual hand: the two SCs were a model of clarity.

While the TD did not enquire at the time, it was suggested to him he should ask East why he bid 2♦ rather than 2♣ which shows clubs and a red suit. He seemed confused, and it appears was confused: he had not played this system before, which he called Modified Halmic. Modified Halmic is like the defence Modified Cappelletti over 1NT in the ACBL which means any defence whatever, so players make something up and call it Modified Halmic. Many pairs who play running agreements have no way of showing a strong hand except pass.

So, any reason to uphold North’s complaint?

Incidentally, while you can make a grand slam in either hearts or clubs, we happened to notice that several pairs played part scores, most others were in game. My regular partner, playing teams with the East hand, bid

---

Her partner raised despite believing 3♥ to be non-forcing, but they bid a slam in the other room.

[nigel_k]

It seems highly unlikely E/W had the agreement that 2♦ could be strong. Apart from the fact West passed it, it is just normal bridge to escape from 1NT doubled with weak hands and try to play in your best fit at the two level. East bid 2♦ with a strong hand because he thought they were playing system on and 2♦ was a transfer. The suggestion they had agreed 2♦ showed the red suits and could be strong is contrary to the evidence and common sense.

If most E/W pairs were in at least game, there is not a lot of damage and in any case I would not assign a very high probability to N/S stopping lower than 3♠ even if they were told that 2♦ could be strong.

[ahydra]

I'm not convinced of nigel_k's argument: there's a huge amount of damage for -800, because it's pairs (unlike the 4 imps or so at teams), and South could have a hand suitable of defence, but still holding the expected ~6-7 pts, to explain the passes. Definitely can't class 3S as SEWOG.

If the SCs (CCs, since this is EBU/WBU? ) were "a model of clarity", did they not list the strength range for 2D? What would XX mean?

Given the usual expectation is "take out 1NTX if you're weak", I think the possibly unexpected strength is a necessary part of the explanation here, and so would find EW guilty of misinformation. Not sure East would bid any differently though with a shapely weak hand, so can we really adjust - not sure.

ahydra

[Jeremy69A]

When you x 1NT and then bid 2S on the next round which part of your hand hadn't you shown?

[ggwhiz]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-November-15, 14:10, said:

When you x 1NT and then bid 2S on the next round which part of your hand hadn't you shown?

Yes and particularly when partner can (and should be the one) to act over 3♦ in passout seat. Self inflicted damage.

[mycroft]

Is there anything to be looking at East's 3♣ call with the UI from the explanation? Or is East saying that he decided to lie to "do his best" to get a chance to get to game?

Having said that, the only thing that North's 3♠ call showed was his massive contempt for his partner's bidding judgement.

All that "run" showed was "1NTxx isn't going to play well", which, oddly enough, it won't unless west guesses right as 6 spades hit the table. If North doesn't know that, well, then it's time to learn. Don't care, either, on this hand; if North passes like any non-mastermind player would, South can decide all on his own, looking at his supposed 6-8 HCP, what to do. Having said that, South, with his actual 0 and four spades, might just bid 3♠ anyway...

Re: Mod Capp - I know I'm always one to ruin a good joke, but while "a modification to Cappelletti" could be anything, "Modified Cappelletti" I've never heard mean anything but "2♣ is diamonds or a Major-minor (or, possibly, clubs), 2 Major is natural".

[edit: heh. crossposted with ggwhiz]

[nigel_k]

ahydra, on 2011-November-15, 13:42, said:

I'm not convinced of nigel_k's argument: there's a huge amount of damage for -800, because it's pairs (unlike the 4 imps or so at teams), and South could have a hand suitable of defence, but still holding the expected ~6-7 pts, to explain the passes. Definitely can't class 3S as SEWOG.

If the SCs (CCs, since this is EBU/WBU? ) were "a model of clarity", did they not list the strength range for 2D? What would XX mean?

Given the usual expectation is "take out 1NTX if you're weak", I think the possibly unexpected strength is a necessary part of the explanation here, and so would find EW guilty of misinformation. Not sure East would bid any differently though with a shapely weak hand, so can we really adjust - not sure.

ahydra

It's only 500 vs a vulnerable game for E/W.

To find there is misinformation, first you have to find there was an agreement that was misdescribed. The evidence suggests to me there was no such agreement and East bid 2♦ because he forgot the system.

[ahydra]

Sorry, it is 500 (thought they were in 4S).

As bluejak mentioned the normal way to show a strong hand is to pass, or (in normal SWINE/Helmic and most variants) passing to force an XX then passing that. Hence when you run it is weak. If this partnership had discussed such things, but still play 2D as possibly strong (how given it's surely NF I don't know), then I think there is misinformation. If the CC simply says 2C = clubs and red suit, 2D = D and H, etc and nowhere is any method suitable for a strong hand listed, then there is no misinformation. Similarly there's no MI if it was described as weak and that's what's on the CC - it's a simple misbid as nigel_k said. That's my take.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

"Incidentally, while you can make a grand slam in either hearts or clubs, we happened to notice that several pairs played part scores..."

Maybe E/W had the same accident at those tables, but North was smart enough not to bid his same hand a third time.

[campboy]

mycroft, on 2011-November-15, 17:08, said:

Re: Mod Capp - I know I'm always one to ruin a good joke, but while "a modification to Cappelletti" could be anything, "Modified Cappelletti" I've never heard mean anything but "2♣ is diamonds or a Major-minor (or, possibly, clubs), 2 Major is natural".

I think I've seen it used for "2♣=majors, 2♦=any one suit, 2M=M+m" (which admittedly would be very rare in the ACBL as it isn't GCC). I've also seen people use "Capp" and "Mod Capp" to distinguish between "2♣=any suit" and "2♣=any suit except clubs".

[paulg]

It doesn't seem that there is any MI, East just seems to have forgotten their agreement.

More interesting is the UI provided to East, presumably before his second call. What should East think when his partner passes two diamonds? If East is one of the 90% of those at Porthcawl who has never seen their partner psych, then he would probably be thinking, "my partner never psyches and I would not expect him to start with a weak notrump, second in hand, vulnerable against not". In these circumstances it can be difficult to concoct hands for partner, but I think most would expect the 1NT bidder to hold a couple of hearts and 5-6 diamonds, hoping to get out undoubled.

So I think East has been quite ethical in his subsequent actions. He has continued to bid normally, did not try to reinforce the message he had good hearts, and doubled three spades when he knows the opponents have a 9- or 10-card fit. So I do not feel East has taken advantage of the UI and the table result stands.

[bluejak]

The TDs could not see any reason to adjust so did not. No MI, no use of UI.

[mycroft]

Uglily enough, I saw on a card this weekend "Mod Capp" as the explanation for each individual 2suit call. I explained that that is *clearly* not sufficient and that they should correct their card for the future.