[VixTD]

Another one from the county pairs final (matchpoints):

---

1NT was announced as 15-17
2♦ was alerted and explained on asking as both majors
2NT was a natural raise
The doubles were for penalties. The first one should have been alerted, but very few players can get the hang of this, and I expect all the players round the table assumed the doubles were for penalties.

Before her final pass, South hesitated and said "perhaps he's showing only diamonds" and passed. West, who recently completed the EBU club TD course, called me and asked whether South had to act as though North is making a forward-going move agreeing spades, i.e. whether she was allowed to pass.

I checked with the convention card that the explanation was correct (North admitted he had misbid), and I said that I couldn't express an opinion on their choices of action at this point, but I told them all that any alerts, explanations and comments by North and South constitute unauthorized information which they must take care to avoid using to their advantage. EW should call me back at the end of play if they suspected that NS may have used such information.

Result: 4♦X(N)-2, NS-300.

West called me back and still wanted to know if South was allowed to pass. What do you think?

[Bbradley62]

South knows that North has another call coming, so why not? If East had passed, then maybe you can argue that South can't. But South should get a PP for the comment.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-29, 07:36, said:

South knows that North has another call coming, so why not? If East had passed, then maybe you can argue that South can't.

Agree with this part. Of course south can pass the decision to partner after the intervening double. In fact, it might be the best call, even still assuming north has the majors.

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-29, 07:36, said:

But South should get a PP for the comment.

But not this part. It sounds like south was motivated by a desire to give full disclosure, which is not cause for a PP in my opinion.

[aguahombre]

Doubly agree with BillW55

BTW, if West's Double after this previous auction should have been alerted, I would never get the hang of EBU regulations either.

[barmar]

Unless North has done something that suggests he misbid (e.g. a facial expression when hearing the alert), I don't think South is constrained, since he has no UI.

If the opponents' auction is to be believed, it's very unlikely that North could be making a forward-going move. I think the bidding reveals the misbid.

[wank]

people who expect south to bid on ad infinitum on the assumption north has majors are not playing real bridge.

on the other hand, north has used the ui. 3sx -x.

i'd ask what north thought 2d was when he bid it. in the unlikely event he said something like 44 in diamonds and a major, he might not deserve a pp.

this is a final, albeit a county one - people should know about not using UI

[aguahombre]

wank, on 2014-April-29, 09:33, said:

north has used the ui. 3sx -x.

i'd ask what north thought 2d was when he bid it. in the unlikely event he said something like 44 in diamonds and a major, he might not deserve a pp.

This is true. But North using the UI was not West's contention when he called the TD back to the table; the focus was on South's pass of 4DX, so that is what I addressed.

[blackshoe]

It doesn't matter what West contends. He has called the director, and the director must now look at the whole situation, and rule on any irregularity he finds, even if West was focused on something else.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-29, 09:41, said:

It doesn't matter what West contends. He has called the director, and the director must now look at the whole situation, and rule on any irregularity he finds, even if West was focused on something else.

Of course. I said, "That is what I addressed." What I would have to address at the table includes more than what I responded to in this thread.

[Cyberyeti]

wank, on 2014-April-29, 09:33, said:

people who expect south to bid on ad infinitum on the assumption north has majors are not playing real bridge.

on the other hand, north has used the ui. 3sx -x.

i'd ask what north thought 2d was when he bid it. in the unlikely event he said something like 44 in diamonds and a major, he might not deserve a pp.

this is a final, albeit a county one - people should know about not using UI

I disagree with this, if this auction has no psyches in it and 2♦ is natural, S's 3♠ shows diamonds as well as he can only have a maximum of about an 8 count given the 1N/2N and the N hand (and whether it should be or not, stuff like this is often not alerted when it should be once a misbid has happened).

[chrism]

South has corrected an earlier explanation, which is the proper thing to do on realising that you may have given misinformation; she should have called the TD before doing so, but her heart was in the right place, and the call to the TD was in any case timely (it appears to have been right after South's pass, as I read the OP). East should have been offered the option of retracting his double after receiving a correct explanation of the NS agreement.

After West has made a penalty double of spades, can 4♦ really be "forward-going agreeing spades"? If North has what has to be the most marginal of slam tries in spades, he will surely be delighted to take his 530 + 100 an overtrick. If he just wants to bid game, he's already there. Indeed, the best forward-going move at this point would be a redouble.

So we can't make South jump over the edge of the cliff.
North, however, is a different kettle of lemmings. The 4♦ bid is a clear use of UI. I agree with wank - 3♠x (down 4, I think, but I would consult on the likely outcomes).

[MrAce]

Imo it is not about what South did but what N did.

He bids 2♦ showing 1 suiter with diamonds or plus another major. Pd bids 3♠. North knows from the alert that South bid 3♠ NOT because he has spades of his own but he thought 2♦ was majors. Without this info N would have passed 3♠ doubled, obviously. Why would he bid 4 ♦ when he already showed diamonds (in his mind) at 2 level and pd who did not come from pass bid 3♠ freely.

My decision would be

-3♠ doubled whatever the score is + PP, unless 4♦ doubled scored better for EW.

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2014-April-29, 11:22, said:

Imo it is not about what South did but what N did.

He bids 2♦ showing 1 suiter with diamonds or plus another major. Pd bids 3♠. North knows from the alert that South bid 3♠ NOT because he has spades of his own but he thought 2♦ was majors. Without this info N would have passed 3♠ doubled, obviously.

Why does he have to bid like a complete lemming, 3♠ with opps known to hold 23-25 points or so must be "I want to play 4♠ if you have them, 4/5♦ if you don't".

Quote

Why would he bid 4 ♦ when he already showed diamonds (in his mind) at 2 level and pd who did not come from pass bid 3♠ freely.

See above

[mycroft]

Yeah, players frequently look at the wrong side of these (probably because *they* would also do what North did, with North's hand and North's mistake). With East passing I would have to think about it. With the double, it's not fielding a misbid to say "Okay, North, I have no clue what you're doing, you tell me what's going on." North's bidding, on the other hand...

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-29, 12:14, said:

Why does he have to bid like a complete lemming, 3♠ with opps known to hold 23-25 points or so must be "I want to play 4♠ if you have them, 4/5♦ if you don't".

Without the UI he might reason like this. But with the UI, can we really allow it?

The question comes down to whether passing 3♠ doubled is among North's LAs when there's no UI.

[kenrexford]

If South had passed as dealer, nothing went wrong. With South unknown, North acted improperly pulling to 4♦.

[barmar]

But if we impose a pass by North, does that necessarily mean that South would pass? East has shown a balanced hand with some values, West has suggested length in spades, and South is looking at 5 of them. Could North really have 4-5 spades? The EW auction seems to have exposed North's misbid, and South could pull to 4♦.

I've always learned that when you think the opponents have gotten confused, you don't double, because it gives them a chance to try to right things.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-April-29, 12:14, said:

Why does he have to bid like a complete lemming, 3♠ with opps known to hold 23-25 points or so must be "I want to play 4♠ if you have them, 4/5♦ if you don't".

I don't see this at all. Surely oppo being known to hold the majority of the points makes it less likely 3♠ was looking for game, and more likely it meant "I know oppo have 23-25 points and you have some diamonds, but I have eight spades and want to play in 3♠".

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2014-April-29, 12:50, said:

I don't see this at all. Surely oppo being known to hold the majority of the points makes it less likely 3♠ was looking for game, and more likely it meant "I know oppo have 23-25 points and you have some diamonds, but I have eight spades and want to play in 3♠".

This hand pretty much doesn't exist, either it's weak enough it's not going to stop opps, or strong enough it bids 4♠.

And I didn't say it was looking to bid 4♠/5♦ to make, I was more thinking over 3N/4♥.

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2014-April-29, 12:49, said:

But if we impose a pass by North, does that necessarily mean that South would pass? East has shown a balanced hand with some values, West has suggested length in spades, and South is looking at 5 of them. Could North really have 4-5 spades? The EW auction seems to have exposed North's misbid, and South could pull to 4♦.

I've always learned that when you think the opponents have gotten confused, you don't double, because it gives them a chance to try to right things.

No, South would clearly pass and play in the known fit in 3♠x. South would reason that North had shown both majors. He might then wonder whether it is possible for LHO to have a full blown penalty double, but that is not South's problem, except when judging how the cards lie during the play.

Even if you don't always trust your partner's bidding more than your opponents', it must at least be a logical alternative to do so!