[VixTD]

This is the last one from the Swiss Pairs:

---

1♦ was Precision
2♦ was alerted and explained as a constructive raise with at least four diamonds, asking for major suit stops.

Result: 3♥(W)-1, NS+100

I was called at the end of play. NS have an agreement to play a raise to 2♦ as explained over a pass or overcall, but had no agreement over a double. Both players agreed this was the case (odd though it may sound).

West claimed that had he known South could have been this weak he would not have jump bid, but would have been more likely to bid just 2♥.

Is any adjustment due?

[ahydra]

There's MI, yes - but I don't believe West. His hand isn't bad for defending diamonds. Why would he be more likely to jump if South was stronger, and less likely if South was weaker?

Besides, wouldn't North bid 3D over 2H? Tell West he can have -110 if he likes

ahydra

[sfi]

VixTD, on 2013-September-06, 07:18, said:

West claimed that had he known South could have been this weak he would not have jump bid, but would have been more likely to bid just 2♥.

Is any adjustment due?

IMO, sort of. The meaning of the 3H bid differs in the two auctions. It shows an invitational hand if 2D is a simple raise, but is primarily obstructive over an inverted 2D.

Why "sort of"? If E-W had the correct information I would expect the bidding to proceed 2H - 3D - P - P; 3H - All pass. So, same spot but for different reasons. There may be an argument for 9 tricks if declarer's line was affected by the explanation, but that would need to be further investigated.

[gnasher]

ahydra, on 2013-September-06, 07:25, said:

Besides, wouldn't North bid 3D over 2H?

I expect he'd bid 2♠, given that he's been asked for major-suit stops. It's unclear what would happened after that. South, who has UI, might feel obliged to bid more than 3♦. Or if South does bid 3♦, North might think he has a good hand opposite a constructive raise that has no heart stop, so North might have another go.

[vigfus]

ahydra, on 2013-September-06, 07:25, said:

There's MI, yes - but I don't believe West. His hand isn't bad for defending diamonds. Why would he be more likely to jump if South was stronger, and less likely if South was weaker?

Besides, wouldn't North bid 3D over 2H? Tell West he can have -110 if he likes

ahydra

I completly agree here. MI = Yes. Damage? = NO. So, no adjustment.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-06, 07:18, said:

This is the last one from the Swiss Pairs: 1♦ was Precision. 2♦ was alerted and explained as a constructive raise with at least four diamonds, asking for major suit stops. Result: 3♥(W)-1, NS+100. I was called at the end of play. NS have an agreement to play a raise to 2♦ as explained over a pass or overcall, but had no agreement over a double. Both players agreed this was the case (odd though it may sound). West claimed that had he known South could have been this weak he would not have jump bid, but would have been more likely to bid just 2♥. Is any adjustment due?

---

IMO EW might well agree to bid differently over weak-raises and game-tries. Playing Precision, North's inaction is also suspicious. If he believes his own explanation of South's bid, then how can North pass with 13-16 HCP and a ♠ stop? Trinidad's comments may be illuminating

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-September-06, 14:05, said:

IMO EW might well agree to bid differently over weak-raises and game-tries. Playing Precision, North's inaction is also suspicious. If he believes his own explanation of South's bid, then how can North pass with 13-16 HCP and a ♠ stop?

Possibly because he thinks pass is forcing, but I agree that the question should be asked.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2013-September-06, 07:18, said:

2♦ was alerted and explained as a constructive raise with at least four diamonds, asking for major suit stops.

I was called at the end of play. NS have an agreement to play a raise to 2♦ as explained over a pass or overcall, but had no agreement over a double. Both players agreed this was the case (odd though it may sound).

If both players agreed this, I ask North why he did not give this explanation in the first place. I also inspect the N/S convention card for evidence of their agreement.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2013-September-06, 17:06, said:

If both players agreed this, I ask North why he did not give this explanation in the first place. I also inspect the N/S convention card for evidence of their agreement.

I expect that North assumed at the time that it applied over a double, then realised later that they hadn't actually agreed this. It does seem odd to discuss the meaning of calls over pass and an overcall, but not consider the meanings over a double. The NS convention cards supported what they said.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2013-September-09, 07:57, said:

I expect that North assumed at the time that it applied over a double, then realised later that they hadn't actually agreed this. It does seem odd to discuss the meaning of calls over pass and an overcall, but not consider the meanings over a double. The NS convention cards supported what they said.

If "later" is "when the director was called, or after that", that's fine, but if "later" was any time after the explanation was given and before the director was called, North has committed an additional infraction, because he "must" (says the law) call the director as soon as he realizes his error, and correct the explanation in the director's presence. "Must" implies that he should almost always receive a PP for the infraction, in addition to any rectification that may apply.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2013-September-06, 14:05, said:

IMO EW might well agree to bid differently over weak-raises and game-tries. Playing Precision, North's inaction is also suspicious. If he believes his own explanation of South's bid, then how can North pass with 13-16 HCP and a ♠ stop? Trinidad's comments may be illuminating

So, here are the $0.02 that you asked for:

North's inaction is perhaps suspicious. However, though North would want to force to game, I can understand it if North doesn't know very well how to proceed. The auction is already at 3♥. (I would bid 3♠, but I wasn't North.) He wants South to bid 3NT, if South has a heart stop, but how can he get South to do that? And 5♦ may still go down. "Perhaps", North reasons, "pass is best. South knows that I am 11-16. If South has a clear 3NT bid, he will bid it and make it. If he has the values to try 5♦, he will make that too. Perhaps we will miss a game because of my pass, but if partner is minimal, that is not so likely and maybe we go plus defeating a heart contract."

Rik

[ggwhiz]

VixTD, on 2013-September-06, 07:18, said:

West claimed that had he known South could have been this weak he would not have jump bid, but would have been more likely to bid just 2♥.

Is any adjustment due?

Not for this reason but I think so.

Norths pass of 3♥ is bizarre. How is a pass by a non-descript 11 count forcing? Passing on these cards caters to the actual south hand just in case the explanation was incorrect. Imperceptible body language from pard can tip you off without you even knowing it so I'm not suggesting an ethical issue.

I would stick north with a 3♠ bid and a final 4♦ contract and am sorely tempted to make it doubled as it may well be after a corrected explanation before the opening lead. I would consider any of the other explanations for the pass over 3♥ to be self serving since they admit to no specific agreement and north went out of his way to cater to that after offering the wrong guess.

That said, west unfortunately claimed damage on the wrong basis. Is that his job to get it right or the Directors to play Inspector Clousseau?

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-09, 09:35, said:

That said, west unfortunately claimed damage on the wrong basis. Is that his job to get it right or the Directors to play Inspector Clousseau?

It is the job of the director to determine the facts as best he can, and then as necessary to make judgments, and finally to make a ruling. It is the job of players to provide the facts so far as they know them. I would not, as a player, "claim damage", I would ask the TD to do his job and determine if there was damage.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-09, 15:05, said:

It is the job of the director to determine the facts as best he can, and then as necessary to make judgments, and finally to make a ruling. It is the job of players to provide the facts so far as they know them. I would not, as a player, "claim damage", I would ask the TD to do his job and determine if there was damage.

Fair enough but a job made more difficult than it need be by wests position on bidding 2 vs 3♥ as it focused on the wrong issue imo and could easily deflect the reasoning for a ruling to the wrong track. Lesson to myself: The facts mam, just the facts. (Sgt. Joe Friday, Dragnet)

[gnasher]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-09, 09:35, said:

Norths pass of 3♥ is bizarre. How is a pass by a non-descript 11 count forcing? Passing on these cards caters to the actual south hand just in case the explanation was incorrect.

If "constructive raise with at least four diamonds, asking for major suit stops" means a normal inverted raise showing at least invitational values, you might reasonably play pass a forcing here.

Quote

Imperceptible body language from pard can tip you off without you even knowing it so I'm not suggesting an ethical issue.

It's more likely that North wasn't as sure of their agreement as his explanation suggested. The auction's a bit suspicious too. If North has a 16-count, East has a takeout double and South has invitational values, that leaves West with very little in high cards.

Anyway, the first thing to do is to ask North why he passed.

[VixTD]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-09, 09:35, said:

Norths pass of 3♥ is bizarre. How is a pass by a non-descript 11 count forcing? Passing on these cards caters to the actual south hand just in case the explanation was incorrect. Imperceptible body language from pard can tip you off without you even knowing it so I'm not suggesting an ethical issue.

I would stick north with a 3♠ bid and a final 4♦ contract and am sorely tempted to make it doubled as it may well be after a corrected explanation before the opening lead.

We did look with some suspicion on North's pass over 3♥, but I don't think anyone considered it "bizarre". Maybe North thought it was forcing, as Gnasher says. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to ask, but even if you regard it as a fielded misbid, in England you don't get to stick North with anything other than average minus.

I did believe that West was more likely to bid only 2♥ over the correct explanation (i.e. "not discussed over a double, but this is what we do over pass or an overcall..."), but that North would then bid 2♠ and either NS finish in 3♦ or EW in 3♥. The weighting was:

• 60% of 3♥(W)-1, NS +100 (either by the actual auction or via 2♥ and further competition)
  
• 20% of 3♦(N)=, NS +110
  
• 20% of 3♦(N)-1, NS -100

This was pretty close to no damage, but it did gain the non-offenders 0.8 MPs (on a top of 94).

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2013-September-10, 11:56, said:

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to ask, but even if you regard it as a fielded misbid, in England you don't get to stick North with anything other than average minus.

Is this what you meant to write? It would be more accurate to say: "even if you regard it as a fielded misbid, in England you don't get to stick North with anything better than average minus"

If you judge that a misbid has been "red" fielded, then the fielding partnership gets to keep its table score (or the score assigned after considering damage for UI/MI) if that is worse than average minus.

[ggwhiz]

VixTD, on 2013-September-10, 11:56, said:

This was pretty close to no damage, but it did gain the non-offenders 0.8 MPs (on a top of 94).

Awfully convenient that North gave a wrong explanation having no agreement and then bid as if catering to the actual hand without correcting it. Not on purpose? Sure but I'm seeing more damage than this.

Is north not obliged to bid on the basis of the mis-explanation (or correct it) rather than divining no damage IF the correct explanation had been given?

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-11, 12:30, said:

Awfully convenient that North gave a wrong explanation having no agreement and then bid as if catering to the actual hand without correcting it. Not on purpose? Sure but I'm seeing more damage than this.

Agree. I don't think there would have been damage, however, if either my partner or I had been West. As soon as we heard "constructive" and "stoppers" used in the same sentence, we would suspect they didn't really have an agreement anything like that being explained. After asking his definition of constructive, if North said it invited game, then we might be damaged. More likely, his follow-up answer would reveal he was trying to use words he didn't understand and/or mistakenly combining two different agreements.

[Sjoerds]

ahydra, on 2013-September-06, 07:25, said:

There's MI, yes - but I don't believe West. His hand isn't bad for defending diamonds. Why would he be more likely to jump if South was stronger, and less likely if South was weaker?

Besides, wouldn't North bid 3D over 2H? Tell West he can have -110 if he likes

ahydra

I totally agree with ahydra