[Trecar]

---

Before the X North asks about the bidding and is told: 2♠is natural, 3♠shows support, 4♣is cue bid, 4♦ is cue bid, 5♣is cue bid, 5♦is natural to play. After these explanations West asks to see the TD away from the table, and returns to say " partners explanation is incorrect as 2♠ merely shows 5-8pts and does not show ♠". North X then ends the auction

After S leads ♥, E draws 2 rounds of trumps, 3 rounds of ♣ ruffing 3rd round with 10♦, re-enters dummy with j♦and runs club making 13 tricks.

North feels aggrieved as a) east does not have his 16+ pts, b) easts failure to alert 2♠ surely gives West UI, c)East must surely bid 4♠over 4♣ if he believes East has ♠as he has sub-minimum for his bid and 3 card support.

Should the result be adjusted and if so to what?

[pescetom]

I assume that the only mistake in the diagram is that the explanation of 16+ is associated with 2♥ rather than 1♣.

Did TD really send West back to the table to explain mid-auction that East's explanation was incorrect?

I don't agree that East should bid 4♠ over 4♣, his hand looks better with a spades fit and he has control of the remaining suits - if anything one might argue that W should bid 4♠ rather than 5♣ over 4♦ and not pass 5♦ in any case.
East's explanation that 5♦ is 'natural to play' is suspicious too - sounds like he too woke up at some point and is now either trying to hide the misunderstanding or to confess that he used UI to try to back out of spades.


What is their real agreement about 2♠?

[Trecar]

Sorry - a few details ommitted.
E/W are playing Precision club.
We are in EBU land and event is County pairs for *masters and above.
Easts 1♣bid was alerted as 16+

[barmar]

The complaint that East doesn't have 16+ points is specious -- AKQT9x is worth at least an extra point or 2.

East doesn't have UI, so his bids are not constrained.

Why did West explain 3♠ as support when he didn't believe he'd shown spades in the first place? Did he realize that he'd misbid when he heard partner explain 2♠?

I don't agree that West should correct 5♦ to 5♠ -- if he takes East as showing 5-5 then he has a clear diamond preference. It's true that the UI makes this even more likely to be correct, since it tells him that spades isn't necessarily a real suit, but I'm not sure that 5♠ is an LA.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-19, 10:04, said:

The complaint that East doesn't have 16+ points is specious -- AKQT9x is worth at least an extra point or 2.

Agreed. And if there is a spades fit and clubs control then it's quite a hand.

barmar, on 2019-November-19, 10:04, said:

Why did West explain 3♠ as support when he didn't believe he'd shown spades in the first place? Did he realize that he'd misbid when he heard partner explain 2♠?

As I interpret OP it was East who explained 3♠ as support, which is consistent with his (mis)explanation of 2♠ as natural.

barmar, on 2019-November-19, 10:04, said:

East doesn't have UI, so his bids are not constrained.

I suspect he did have UI, even though OP does not mention a cause (maybe a grimace from West?). Otherwise why does he explain 5♦ as "natural to play" after raising spades and exchanging cue bids? He doesn't seem to act on UI however, this explanation aside.

[Cyberyeti]

Hang on, if 2♠ is properly alerted, 3♠ shows at least 5♠ and possibly 6, shouldn't W be correcting 4♦ to 4♠ ? (Just realised Pescetom said this also)

There is also the case that EW might not make 5♦x with the correct info, 3 rounds of spades would seem to scupper it, and this might be easier to find with correct explanations.

[KingCovert]

North is just being petulant. East believes 2♠ to be natural, and it's not stated here, but quite possibly unlimited, and that 4♣ is a cue-bid.

a) Irrelevant

b) If west even has any UI, it wasn't abused? Absolutely every call from West there was mandatory given their actual agreements. Both 3♠ and 4♦ are surely forcing. 5♦ by East states no significant preference, I can't imagine how West could ever justify a 5♠ bid. Only in the wishful thinking of North is that even a candidate.

c) Why would East not cue-bid that diamond suit? If East's hand is opposite the AK♣ (surprise, surprise), and a 4♣ cue-bid is a good start here, It's a great hand. If West can be unlimited here, why would East choose to sign off on this hand? Is North really so asinine as to suggest that if East had the J♠ that they now have better justification for cue-bidding diamonds?

Obviously it's a horrible result for NS, but, honestly, leading a heart here is pretty sinful. Can't say they didn't deserve this result.

[Cyberyeti]

KingCovert, on 2019-November-19, 17:22, said:

North is just being petulant. East believes 2♠ to be natural, and it's not stated here, but quite possibly unlimited, and that 4♣ is a cue-bid.

a) Irrelevant

b) If west even has any UI, it wasn't abused? Absolutely every call from West there was mandatory given their actual agreements. Both 3♠ and 4♦ are surely forcing. 5♦ by East states no significant preference, I can't imagine how West could ever justify a 5♠ bid. Only in the wishful thinking of North is that even a candidate.

c) Why would East not cue-bid that diamond suit? If East's hand is opposite the AK♣ (surprise, surprise), and a 4♣ cue-bid is a good start here, It's a great hand. If West can be unlimited here, why would East choose to sign off on this hand? Is North really so asinine as to suggest that if East had the J♠ that they now have better justification for cue-bidding diamonds?

Obviously it's a horrible result for NS, but, honestly, leading a heart here is pretty sinful. Can't say they didn't deserve this result.

5♣ is not a mandatory cue here, hearts could be wide open, 5♣ is what you bid with a stiff heart and the ♣K (which partner may not care about with 2 heart losers). Give partner AKxxxx, Qx, AKQx, Q for example.

[helene_t]

Without IU, W might have bid 4♠ after East's 4♦ as he must assume that E has shown 5+ spades. 4♠ now is an LA that is not favoured by the UI.

So adjust to 4♠-3 or something like that.

The complaints by North have no merit, though. E is allowed to open this hand 1♣, and E probably has no UI. Even if he has UI, I don't see any problems with 5♦ and certainly not with 4♦.

[FelicityR]

North was absolutely foolish to double - I think we can all agree on that - and if somewhere in the post mortem that asked for a ♠ lead is anyone's guess? But the main bone of contention here is the explanation that '5♦ is natural and to play'. Somewhere in this mess of an auction, both East and West have finally realised that their explanations for the bidding after South's 2♥ are wildly inaccurate. 5♦ could never be to play having agreed a ♠ fit.

At least West tried to do the decent thing by summoning the TD before the bidding finished, and before a card was led. The three gripes of North (a), (b), and © just amount to sour grapes, though I think the TD should adjust the board to 5♦-1 (not doubled) as that is the most East/West can make on the hand after a ♠ lead and continuation.

Any other adjustment just seems nonsense as anyone who uses any artificial system will tell you, explanations to bids do go wrong without any malicious intention.

[pran]

FelicityR, on 2019-November-20, 07:00, said:

.............
At least West tried to do the decent thing by summoning the TD before the bidding finished, and before a card was led. The three gripes of North (a), (b), and © just amount to sour grapes, though I think the TD should adjust the board to 5♦-1 (not doubled) as that is the most East/West can make on the hand after a ♠ lead and continuation.
.............

Well, he didn't.

He violated

Law 20F5 said:

(a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

(and the Director assisted him with this violation)

[pescetom]

pran, on 2019-November-20, 07:31, said:

(and the Director assisted him with this violation)

Precisely. The Director's behaviour is by far the most inexplicable element here.

[FelicityR]

pran, on 2019-November-20, 07:31, said:

Naïve Felicity, not knowing the intricacies of TD rulings said: At least West tried to do the decent thing by summoning the TD before the bidding finished, and before a card was led

And pran, quite rightly, corrected me. Thank you.

Yes, trying to the 'decent' thing - a bit of a British trait amongst us older folk - doesn't necessarily mean it is the right or correct thing to do

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-November-19, 11:14, said:

As I interpret OP it was East who explained 3♠ as support, which is consistent with his (mis)explanation of 2♠ as natural.

Which raises another question: Why was East explaining their own bid while the auction was in progress?

When a review+explanations is requested after the auction is over, sometimes just one of the players will do the entire thing, rather than having a tedious back-and-forth. But this is totally inappropriate during the auction period (unless screens are in use, of course).

[barmar]

Although if East explained West's 2♠ as natural, it's probably obvious that 3♠ is simply support, so there's not much damage from that explanation. The UI damage was already done when they explained 2♠.

[nige1]

West leaving the table to talk to the director provided UI to East
The director made things worse by insisting that EW clarify their misunderstandings to each other, during a live auction.

Arguably, EW took advantage by avoiding playing in spades.


A frustrated North seems to have doubled for a spade lead, foolhardy perhaps, but not a serious error.

A poll might show that spade contracts were LAs for EW, but both sides should probably be awarded average, given the difficulty of restoring anything resembling equity.

The TD probably deserves a PP

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2019-November-20, 10:34, said:

Although if East explained West's 2♠ as natural, it's probably obvious that 3♠ is simply support, so there's not much damage from that explanation. The UI damage was already done when they explained 2♠.

And also did the MI prevent N from doubling an artificial 2♠, was that an option ?

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2019-November-20, 13:01, said:

West leaving the table to talk to the director provided UI to East
The director made things worse by insisting that EW clarify their misunderstandings to each other, during a live auction.

Arguably, EW took advantage by avoiding playing in spades.


A frustrated North seems to have doubled for a spade lead, foolhardy perhaps, but not a serious error.

A poll might show that spade contracts were LAs for EW, but both sides should probably be awarded average, given the difficulty of restoring anything resembling equity.

The TD probably deserves a PP

The TD deserves worse.

I have sympathy with an artificial score, but no way would I concede EW average after forgetting a basic agreement, violating MI law and using UI.