[bluejak]

3NT = /W NS -400

---

2♥ shows a weak two-suiter with 5♥s and another suit. 2♠ asks. It was described both in answer to a question and to the TD as especially being interested in spades, but the SCs do not support that: a 2NT response is natural, and 2♠ is the only way to find out the second suit. We believe N/S were experimenting with a new bit of system.

West asked several questions before his second pass. N/S asked for a ruling because they felt East's bid was made easier by the questions.

While Deep says 3NT goes four off it actually made. I reckon a diamond lead is the way to really destroy it, but is very unlikely on the bidding.

Merely out of interest, and nothing to do with the ruling, my regular partner was playing in the other room in this team, which won the main event last year. Sadly they had a very bad time, and needed a ruling their favour here to get into the secondary event. They did not get it, and an appeal upheld the TD - and they had a dreadful evening in the tertiary event.

How would you rule?

[mrdct]

I couldn't imagine passing with the East hand with a nice 5-card suit and shortness in both of LHO's suits, but a huddle by partner certainly removes any doubt. We need a little bit more info about East's general skill level and style and perhaps conduct a poll if feasible.

[Cascade]

1. I assume this is IMPs. I don't think it says but there is a side reference to teams.

2. I don't think the misexplanation from NS is relevant. I don't think it affected EW and they don't appear to be complaining about any damage.

3. West doesn't seem to have any reason to ask for an explanation mid auction. While it is allowed I don't think it is best practice and I would make sure that he knows the consequences of asking questions and showing an interest in a potentially competitive auction.

4. I think a signifcant number of east's would seriously consider pass and some would choose that call. Therefore it is a logical alternative and I believe it is suggested by the questions of west. Indeed I think pass would be the normal action with these cards see my comments below.

5. I can't immediately see how 9 tricks would be made. I can see an easy road to 8 tricks. It seems possible that NS did commit a serious error unrelated to the infraction.

Therefore I would rule

i/ If it was determined that there was a SEWOG that for EW the ruling is 3C down some - i haven't looked at this yet and for NS the table result since they caused the damage by their misdefense

ii/ If there was no SEWOG I would rule 3C down some for both sides.

In addition I would consider penalizing East for not carefully avoiding taking advantage of his partner's tempo. I would need a good reason to not impose such a penalty. I don't believe it is standard to balanced at the three level at IMPs with a nearly balanced 10-count.

[barmar]

GIB says 3NT makes on a ♣ lead.

[iviehoff]

9 tricks are easy if N leads a heart and S covers dummy's card. S shouldn't do that, but it's hardly SEWOG.

[Zelandakh]

What were the questions that West asked? It seems to me that X is the call which is most strongly suggested here, catering both to West having a club stack and to long spades. That West has a few values is strongly suggested by the auction. A poll for East's call is surely necessary. I can understand East thinking pass is not a LA and that the questions ruled out double leaving only 3D as a possibility.

[paulg]

Cascade, on 2011-November-17, 00:41, said:

Therefore I would rule

i/ If it was determined that there was a SEWOG that for EW the ruling is 3C down some - i haven't looked at this yet and for NS the table result since they caused the damage by their misdefense

ii/ If there was no SEWOG I would rule 3C down some for both sides.

In addition I would consider penalizing East for not carefully avoiding taking advantage of his partner's tempo. I would need a good reason to not impose such a penalty. I don't believe it is standard to balanced at the three level at IMPs with a nearly balanced 10-count.

I largely agree with Wayne. Although West is marked with some values it is not clear that EW have the balance of points until the questions arrive. I may well not pass if given a free run but once partner has shown interest I think pass is the right call.

However I'm not inclined to penalise East - I would need a good reason to impose a PP rather than the other way around.

[c_corgi]

I think you are being much too kind to the 3D bidder. West is marked with some heart length, but not enough to overcall 2NT, so E/W are unlikely to have game, and may well not have the balance of strength. It also looks like a misfit to at least some extent and North was likely intending to pass South's 3D if that had been his second suit, implying diamond length. East's club holding is not promising either. 3D is quite likely to result in a large penalty against a part-score, possibly without even finding their best fit. I certainly don't allow 3D.

The most likely ways to let in 3NT appear to be a club lead or covering both dummy's heart pips. Neither of these is well advised IMO, but not close to a SEWoG (well, maybe the latter at Bermuda Bowl level!)

[ggwhiz]

bluejak, on 2011-November-16, 19:39, said:

3NT = /W NS -400

---

We believe N/S were experimenting with a new bit of system.

Anytime you trot out new or unusual methods I would think more than the usual amount of questions are to be expected and personally lower the bar on transmission of UI.

West could be at a huge disadvantage by not asking when he did. ie. asking later and digesting a lot of info before making a very slow 3nt bid putting East on the spot. That and the fact the 3♦ bid looks very normal to me says the result stands.

Oh yeah, the MI of 2 spades showing interest in that suit brings me closer to ruling 4 spades +1 (on a heart lead) for E/W than ruling against them.

The fact that something is fishy in the bidding (as explained) is a mitigating factor in the need to know questioning.

[bluejak]

A few comments.

First, does not AK87 opposite T9 with QJ432 onside play for four tricks whether covered or not?

Second, a Lucas two is nowadays very common here. The only strangeness is about this 2♠ response and its description.

Third, I wonder about N/S's familiarity with Lucas altogether. I play it with my regular partner, and when I respond to 2♥ I either have game interest or a singleton heart. So when protecting on this sequence I would rather assume a misfit. Of course, it was not actually true: North neither had game interest nor a singleton heart!

Fourth, sorry, yes, should have explained this was imps. Teams qualifying.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-November-17, 19:25, said:

A few comments.

First, does not AK87 opposite T9 with QJ432 onside play for four tricks whether covered or not?

I don't think so.

Trick one T not covered wins
Trick two 9 covered K wins
Trick three A wins for three tricks
Trick four 8 loses.

The same result if the first trick is covered

1: T J K 5

2: 9 2 7 6

3: A (x) (x) 3

4: 8 (x) (x) Q

You only make four tricks if you can convince the defender to lead the suit on the third round or if he obligingly covers both times or ducks both times.

[StevenG]

I'm interested in hearing about what are standard ways of defending against Lucas Twos. I'd be grateful if someone could post a pointer to a suitable printed authority on the subject for the British club player, since I've never seen one.

[gordontd]

StevenG, on 2011-November-18, 04:32, said:

I'm interested in hearing about what are standard ways of defending against Lucas Twos. I'd be grateful if someone could post a pointer to a suitable printed authority on the subject for the British club player, since I've never seen one.

There's a bit about them at http://chrisryall.net/bridge/weak.two/

I think most players just treat them like weak twos, but don't worry too much if they only have tolerance for one minor when making a takeout double. It's worth agreeing what a double from fourth hand means if they've made a Pass-or-Correct 3♣ (or 3♦) response.

[campboy]

I think some adjustment is definitely called for. If the 3♦ bid is illegal we must adjust to 3♣; if it is legal then surely West would have bid 3♠ with the correct explanation, so it seems right to adjust to 4♠.

Personally I think West asking here does show an unusual amount of interest. Much less UI would be transmitted by East asking about 2♠ immediately, but it is rare to ask about LHO's call unless there is a particular reason. I also think that pass is likely to be an LA.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-November-17, 21:44, said:

I don't think so.

Silly me.

StevenG, on 2011-November-18, 04:32, said:

I'm interested in hearing about what are standard ways of defending against Lucas Twos. I'd be grateful if someone could post a pointer to a suitable printed authority on the subject for the British club player, since I've never seen one.

It is easy to give advice, and I and no doubt others are happy to do so.

But why do you want a "suitable printed authority" rather than just advice?

Everyone I know plays a call directly over the Lucas bid as over a weak two, and similarly in fourth if it is passed: over a pass or correct 3m I play and believe everyone else around here does double as takeout.

[gordontd]

Nobody [edit - other than Campboy] cares about the misinformation?

[StevenG]

Bluejak,

I think there is a problem if TDs assume that players actually have a method for defending things like Lucas Twos. I'm sure that the top tournament players do, but players at my level (experienced at club level, less so at tournament level) don't actually have the knowledge base, nor any easy way of acquiring it. Gordon pointed me to Chris Ryall's website - that isn't exactly as obvious a resource as would be an article in English Bridge every couple of years.

I don't see Lucas Twos very often where I play. Those who play them are the Multi players, and Multi isn't common around my way. Consequently, I meet Lucas a handful of times a year, as, in all probability, do the other local inexperienced tournament players. I'd guess we all just muddle through, combining our methods against weak twos with general meta-agreements. We don't have experienced partners to learn from, just other players of similar experience to ourselves.

So I wouldn't want to comment on EW's bidding on this hand without knowing their experience levels, both generally and against Lucas.

(Personally, on my own philosophy of sound overcalls and light protection, I'd think that West's pass and East's 3♦ were both pretty automatic, and pass as East wouldn't be a LA for me; it's just a shame that West was so stupid as to do the questioning.]

[ggwhiz]

gordontd, on 2011-November-18, 09:37, said:

Nobody [edit - other than Campboy] cares about the misinformation?

??? I suggested I might rule 4♠ +1 above not to mention it as a legit reason for the questioning.

[ahydra]

I'm tempted to say that:

- EW were kept out of 4S by the misinformation - West reluctant to bid spades when North supposedly holds at least 4
- E used UI - I'd agree pass is an LA there (poll to confirm?)
- Would need to analyse the play to see whether NS made a SEWOG - unlikely but it may have happened because there do appear to be only 8 tricks, and a defence to hold it to 5.

What happens when you've got to adjust for UI and for MI? Picking one to decide the score then issuing a PP for the other doesn't seem fair/sensible here.

ahydra

[c_corgi]

Even if we conclude that there was misinformation, the auction would still have proceeded as at the table until the point when East bid 3D. East would then have logical alternatives of X and pass, the latter being dictated due to the UI. So the score still reverts to 3C by S (edit).

I am not sure what the position is regarding the possible MI. It is hardly abnormal to be more interested in finding major fits than minor, and they may have more detailed ways of showing H&S over 2S than H&minor. Or maybe 2S could have been the first part of a GF auction with 5+S should N have bid on over South's 3D. The exact wording could create a different context. Also, it seems plausible that West's questions (apart from being inappropriate given that he hardly has an action over 3C but not 2H) were spade-centric, this being in part the source of the confusion.