[mb_dunedin]

Playing a club game, a rather unusual auction progressed :

South West North East
pass - pass - pass - 1♥
[3♣] - pass - pass - 3♥
pass - pass - [4♣] - 4♥
pass - pass - [5♣] - pass
pass - X - pass - pass
[5D] - pass - pass - X
all pass.

The 5D bid got a long "oh" from the bidder's partner. Before the opening lead declarer informed us that the 3C bid showed at least 5-5 in spades and diamonds, not clubs. As is the norm at the club, no convention card was on the table.

We were vulnerable, they weren't. With perfect (but not obvious) defence we could have taken them 4-light for 800, but we only managed to score 500. Unfortunately with a couple of kings onside, 4H made 5 so our 500 got us just 20% on the board with most EWs making 650 against less enthusiastic pre-empting from north (who held 5x clubs, but only 3x diamonds and spades.)

At the table I assumed we were going to take them for a huge number, so didn't think to wonder if I should have called the director. If I had, what do you think he would have done?

[ArtK78]

Nothing.

There was nothing that the opponents did outside of the auction that caused you any harm. When South bid 5♦, which he is allowed to do, North's "Oh!" was after the fact, indicating that he finally remembered that the 3♣ bid showed the spade - diamond 2 suiter. Clearly, South did nothing to that point to cause North to realize that the 3♣ bid was anything other than a club preempt, and you did not indicate that anything other than the "Oh!" over 5♦ was outside of the usual auction procedure.

You did not indicate that anything that happened at the table outside of the auction would have caused South to know that North did not remember the convention. It seems clear to me (and, obviously to South) that North forgot from his repeated club raises. South is permitted to take that inference from the auction.

Seems to me that they had to push you to 4♥. They could have passed out 3♥ and you would have gotten an even worse score. But you got there only to have them bid over you and give you a chance for a good score.

They got to 5♦. You have to make them pay.

[Fluffy]

wrong forum, but south used UI to bid 5♦, I think there is enough evidence for him to bid 5♦ even with screens but I'm not fully sure.

[WellSpyder]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-11, 08:10, said:

You did not indicate that anything that happened at the table outside of the auction would have caused South to know that North did not remember the convention. [....] South is permitted to take that inference from the auction.

Except that the OP has the sub-title "failure to alert". If 3♣ should have been alerted but wasn't, then that does provide UI to South. It also seems clear that this UI would suggest bidding on over 5♣x rather than passing. To judge whether pass was a LA to bidding 5♦ we need to see the South hand - and we need to see the full hand to judge what damage might have arisen if we conclude (as is likely) that pass was indeed a LA.

[aguahombre]

Maybe Art is right, but I would be interested in opinions about South. He had UI from the failure to alert, but also AI after 4C that North didn't preempt in 3rd chair on the first round.

Is the combination of convention disruption plus a pyche Pass (the pass of 5C), then only correcting when doubled O.K.?

I don't know, but I think I would have liked an answer from a director at the table. Maybe our result is our own fault; but maybe the opponents are not entitled to that same result.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-October-11, 10:17

[ggwhiz]

I may be wrong but it appears that you were properly informed in time as to how to defend.

The only issue seems to be if pass of 5♣ doubled is a logical alternative given the UI from the non-alert. Unlikely opposite a passed hand? Only the full hand will tell.

[nige1]

mb_dunedin, on 2011-October-11, 05:37, said:

Playing a club game, a rather unusual auction progressed :
South West North East
pass - pass - pass - 1♥
[3♣] - pass - pass - 3♥
pass - pass - [4♣] - 4♥
pass - pass - [5♣] - pass
pass - X - pass - pass
5♦ - pass - pass - X
all pass.
The 5D bid got a long "oh" from the bidder's partner. Before the opening lead declarer informed us that the 3C bid showed at least 5-5 in spades and diamonds, not clubs. As is the norm at the club, no convention card was on the table. We were vulnerable, they weren't. With perfect (but not obvious) defence we could have taken them 4-light for 800, but we only managed to score 500. Unfortunately with a couple of kings onside, 4H made 5 so our 500 got us just 20% on the board with most EWs making 650 against less enthusiastic pre-empting from north (who held 5x clubs, but only 3x diamonds and spades.) At the table I assumed we were going to take them for a huge number, so didn't think to wonder if I should have called the director. If I had, what do you think he would have done?

North's failure to alert 3♣ is UI to South.. If mb_dunedin had asked for a ruling and the director judged pass to be a LA and that the UI suggested 5♦, then the director might roll the auction back to 5♣X. Artk78 points out that the putative offenders could have passed out 3♥ but that is of doubtful relevance to the ruling. Some directors might reduce redress if they judged the misdefence to be a serious error.

[Bbradley62]

It is seldom possible to answer the question "were we harmed?" without seeing the hands. Among my questions would be: Does West claim that he would have done something different at his second or third opportunity to bid if he had been properly informed of the meaning of 3♣?

[rduran1216]

At the pasadena regional in the BAM, Marshall Miles opened 4m intending it as a preempt, his partner alerted and bid 4M, which turned out to be Marshall's void, at his turn to call he passed.

South is not entitled to pull this. had his partner alerted 3C, and this auction proceeded, wouldnt it be reasonable that North was concealing some monster club holding and trying to get to some number of clubs doubled? North could have passed 3H, North could've passed 4H, we can't pull it based on what we think is going on since he didnt alert.

North's oh is immaterial to the discussion, even without it E/W is entitled to defend 5Cx

[ArtK78]

rduran1216, on 2011-October-11, 11:31, said:

At the pasadena regional in the BAM, Marshall Miles opened 4m intending it as a preempt, his partner alerted and bid 4M, which turned out to be Marshall's void, at his turn to call he passed.

South is not entitled to pull this. had his partner alerted 3C, and this auction proceeded, wouldnt it be reasonable that North was concealing some monster club holding and trying to get to some number of clubs doubled? North could have passed 3H, North could've passed 4H, we can't pull it based on what we think is going on since he didnt alert.

North's oh is immaterial to the discussion, even without it E/W is entitled to defend 5Cx

As did the 3♣ bidder on the hand cited in the OP. However, when 5♣ was doubled, that is when he pulled.

Was Marshall ever doubled in 4M?

[ArtK78]

By the way, on the auction presented, I find it hard to believe (really hard to believe) that North was concealing a monster club holding. And, while the failure to alert 3♣ was UI, the idea that North had a sufficient club holding to compete to 4♣ over 3♥ and then 5♣ over 4♥ is stretching it a bit too much.

[rduran1216]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-11, 12:44, said:

By the way, on the auction presented, I find it hard to believe (really hard to believe) that North was concealing a monster club holding. And, while the failure to alert 3♣ was UI, the idea that North had a sufficient club holding to compete to 4♣ over 3♥ and then 5♣ over 4♥ is stretching it a bit too much.

Its obvious to the whole world that there was a misunderstanding once 5Cx gets pulled to 5D. The point is that once 3C isn't alerted and North bids 4C and 5C freely, south isn't allowed to interpret that North forgot and pull to 5D.

The issue isn't that South "knows" they're going for a zip code. The issue is that South isn't entitled to "know" they're going for a zip code. If your partner alerted ur call, explained it properly, and this auction continued like this, would u pull?

[Cyberyeti]

rduran1216, on 2011-October-11, 13:59, said:

Its obvious to the whole world that there was a misunderstanding once 5Cx gets pulled to 5D. The point is that once 3C isn't alerted and North bids 4C and 5C freely, south isn't allowed to interpret that North forgot and pull to 5D.

The issue isn't that South "knows" they're going for a zip code. The issue is that South isn't entitled to "know" they're going for a zip code. If your partner alerted ur call, explained it properly, and this auction continued like this, would u pull?

What hand can S have, I'm getting a new partner if he bids like this having alerted (he should have bid 5♣ second time not 4 then 5 to avoid the last guess).

He's a passed hand, he's showing 9 or 10 clubs here and he hasn't opened (he wants to play 5♣ to make 10+ tricks opposite 5/5 in ♠/♦ and say an 8 count). Is this possible ? Well you know your partner, it is for me, not for my partner.

If N decides that this is impossible, he may decide that what is going on has been exposed, and thus a pass of 5♣x is not a logical alternative.

[jmcw]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-11, 08:10, said:

Nothing.

There was nothing that the opponents did outside of the auction that caused you any harm. When South bid 5♦, which he is allowed to do, North's "Oh!" was after the fact, indicating that he finally remembered that the 3♣ bid showed the spade - diamond 2 suiter. Clearly, South did nothing to that point to cause North to realize that the 3♣ bid was anything other than a club preempt, and you did not indicate that anything other than the "Oh!" over 5♦ was outside of the usual auction procedure.

You did not indicate that anything that happened at the table outside of the auction would have caused South to know that North did not remember the convention. It seems clear to me (and, obviously to South) that North forgot from his repeated club raises. South is permitted to take that inference from the auction.

Seems to me that they had to push you to 4♥. They could have passed out 3♥ and you would have gotten an even worse score. But you got there only to have them bid over you and give you a chance for a good score.

They got to 5♦. You have to make them pay.

The opponents failed to alert. How can you determine from the facts provided that no damage has been done?.
For example maybe West would X 3♣ given a correct explaination!, or maybe even raise ♥ at some stage?.
In the given auction what would North's repeated ♣ bids show...an 8 card suit and no interest in partner's?

[mrdct]

A good way to look at these sorts of hands is to ask yourself what action(s) South would've taken if 3♣ had been alerted and confidently described by North as "5-5 in ♠ & ♦". Without the hand it's difficult to conclude, but absent the UI it does seem that South has already described his hand and it's really up to North to decide whether or not to rip it to 5♦ or 5♠.

The basic test is does the UI (the non-alert) suggest the action of bidding 5♦ and were other logical alternatives available to South which would've been less successful? On what we know so far, the UI that North is under a misapprehension that South holds length in ♣ most definately suggests that 5♦ will be a better spot than 5♣x so South would need to be something like a 5170 to allow the rip.

The other thing that a TD might check is whether or not the misdefence that led to +500 rather than +800 was a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" as described in Law 12C1b in which case the ruling might be NS+500 (the table result) and EW-1400 (or whatever 5♣x was likely to yield).

As alluded to by Fluffy, the correct forum for this is Laws & Rulings.

[JLOGIC]

The pass/4C/5C bidder was third seat and passed rather than bid some number of clubs. He cannot logically have a hand to bid this way, so it is not UI that they are having a bidding misunderstanding, it is bridge logic. Result stands.

It sucks when they get a really good board from a misunderstanding (in fact this tilts me more than anything in bridge for some reason), but there was no damage. If the guy had not passed in third seat then definitely the other hand cannot pull.

[barmar]

I agree with the people who say that UI is not a big problem.

However, there IS a MI problem. If the 3♣ bid had been alerted properly, maybe EW would have been able to find their 5♥ contract, rather than defending 5♦.

And as someone else said, we need to see all the hands. That would help us decide how EW could have bid over a properly alerted 3♣ bid.

[mb_dunedin]

Quote

As alluded to by Fluffy, the correct forum for this is Laws & Rulings.

Sorry, I've never actually scrolled that far down the main page, so didn't know such a thing existed!

Thanks for the replies. My feeling was we had a couple of chances to get a top or near-top board here so didn't really deserve an adjustment.
I think it's a slightly perverse aspect to bridge that the opposition could get an 80% result for this hand though...

[kenberg]

I'm with the OP on how he handled it. Somehow I just can't see myself explaining "We could have bid 5♥ and didn't, and we could have beat it 800 and didn't, but they failed to alert and here I am." Sometimes you just have to let it go.


I understand the argument that in some legal sense we are to imagine that we heard this auction with the 3♣ bid alerted and then ponder whether the 3♣ bidder would still have pulled. Honestly, I suppose he wouldn't. But it's a fantasy. Pard starts by passing and then, after I inform him of my diamonds and spades, decides he wants to sac in 5♣? So we are asked to ponder a scenario that would never happen.

I realize my argument is not legally informative, quite possibly even legally wrong, but for strictly legal questions go to a different forum (one I seldom read and never contribute to). I enjoy a little craziness in my life, bridge and otherwise, and this qualifies.

But fwiw, if I were S in this situation, I would pass 5♣ doubled. These things happen, and I like to be trusted at the table.

[nige1]

rduran1216, on 2011-October-11, 13:59, said:

The issue isn't that South "knows" they're going for a zip code. The issue is that South isn't entitled to "know" they're going for a zip code. If your partner alerted ur call, explained it properly, and this auction continued like this, would u pull?

I agree with rduran1216 although a director might quibble with the way he states the test.

JLOGIC, on 2011-October-11, 20:11, said:

The pass/4C/5C bidder was third seat and passed rather than bid some number of clubs. He cannot logically have a hand to bid this way, so it is not UI that they are having a bidding misunderstanding, it is bridge logic. Result stands.

JLOGIC's argument seems reasonable but bridge-players sometimes employ a profound logic, too deep for ordinary players to fathom. In a current thread:, for example, experts advocate a pass with seven ♠ headed by the ace in a fair hand. Many have witnessed similar events at the table. For instance: In a Gold Cup match, Michael Rosenberg passed as dealer with ten solid ♥, among other goodies. He later overcalled an opponent's 4♠ pre-empt with with a jump to 6♥

barmar, on 2011-October-11, 22:36, said:

I agree with the people who say that UI is not a big problem. However, there IS a MI problem. If the 3♣ bid had been alerted properly, maybe EW would have been able to find their 5♥ contract, rather than defending 5♦. And as someone else said, we need to see all the hands. That would help us decide how EW could have bid over a properly alerted 3♣ bid.

I also agree with Barmar.