[jillybean]

---

(Live bridge tournament - New Zealand)
Playing against good, experienced opponents.
East tanked after the 2♦ bid and then passed.
South quizzed East on the strength of the 2♦ and our agreements. East could not recall the agreement.
South bid 2♥, I can't remember if I bid 4♣ or 5♣ but we ended up in 5♦.
South called the director and stated that West could not bid again after East's Break In Tempo.

Our agreement is that 2♦ is showing 18+

What is your ruling?

[LBengtsson]

Rules? Let director rule. but why are you opening 1♣ not 1♦ here? and why east not understand reverse? only reason I can think is that you and partner are using Walsh transfer. after partner passed on first round, I would think maybe 2NT opening as west even with stiff ♥A. might miss minor suit slam but bidding 1♣ followed by 2♦ will probably finish in 3NT 90% of the time.

[lamford]

Looks like there was MI, if 2D was systemically forcing and 18+ or similar. "Can't remember" is MI. East can be asked to leave the table or West can explain by PM if online. After 2H, West can bid anything he wants consistent with his partner having responded 1S.

[mycroft]

"can't bid after break in tempo" - that's the usual pile of "heard it from a friend who..." it always is.

Partner passed a forcing bid. Okay, that tells you something - you're allowed to use that. Partner thought about it, and then passed a forcing bid - tells you something else - not allowed to use that.

So, we poll to see, without the unauthorized information, your peers to see what would happen. My guess, but it's only a guess, is that almost everyone would bid something.

However, the UI isn't just the tank. You know from the answers to questions in this unusual auction that partner doesn't know you've shown a huge hand. So, of course, you have to make it clear. How do you make it clear? "I don't know if I bid 4♣ or 5♣, but..." Yep, that'll make it clear. My guess is also that most of the polled players won't bid anything like that aggressively into a hand that "knew" you were strong already and decided to pass. I could be wrong, though.

So we might not allow you your rebid, but not require a pass. Then we see where that would end up, probably by some more polling (though how I'm going to get players who pass 2♦ I don't know. Morecharac and his partner, I guess, to start).

Of course, if it turns out that people do pass 2♥ - not unreasonable, actually, partner's got a bid - that doesn't mean south gets to play it (p.s. wow, that's a dumb call, and I never let the opponents play 2 of a fit). Partner does, in fact, have another call, and I'm guessing 3♣ is pretty automatic, even for someone who passes reverses; she does have "fit" for both suits. And you might raise, and you might get to game that way. More polling yet, I guess.

Now, south might have a case that opposite someone who doesn't have a clue if reverses show extras, they might be playing someone for whom it doesn't, and they have to compete because it's their hand. When they find out, after their balance pushed you into a making game, that it did in fact show serious extras, they're invariably going to blame their bidding on the misinformation, and they likely have a point. So, more polling yet, and N/S -150 or -170 in 2♦ could be part or all of the picture too.

I see a weighted score in this table's future, after a long time investigating. What that score might be depends a whole lot on how strong all the players are.

[blackshoe]

In general, I agree with Mycroft. A couple of things: as director, I would tell South that his assertion that West "cannot bid again" is a) wrong in law, and b) not his determination to make. As Jack Webb used to say "the facts, ma'am, just the facts". Also, when asking for a ruling here, and stating your agreements, please treat this as you would in responding to a request to "please explain your auction". IOW, make sure your explanation is accurate and complete. In this case, does 2!D show anything else besides 18+ HCP? Shape? LTC? For me, the auction up to 2♦ would for West show 5 or more clubs, 4 or more diamonds, longer clubs than diamonds, about 17+ HCP, and 4 or 5 losers.

[shyams]

I found Lamford's post as most relevant. That South was misinformed most likely caused the reopening bid of 2♥.

Everything after that is entirely West's own volition. West forced with a 4♣ bid to which East made a simple correction back to 4♦ and West decided that that's not enough and proceeded to 5♦. If all those actions by West are attributable to a BIT by East before their second pass, well then I'm lost for words.

[jillybean]

Yes, 2♦ 18+ is my lazy reply.
2♦ shows 18+, longer clubs than diamonds, typically 65, 54 type
In our auction 1♦ 1M 2♣ , clubs could be longer.


The director took note of the auction and told us to play on. At the end of the event I approached the director and was told the result stood, I (West) had a clear bid regardless of my partner's BIT or inability to explain the auction.

There was no mention of MI for South.

[mycroft]

I really think the "South quizzed East on the strength of the 2♦ and our agreements. East could not recall the agreement." is critical to this hand.

As I said, there's a lot of decisions to make, and the director decided that passing was not an LA. Reasonable, if I was asked, I would say so too. If the TD didn't have a problem with the 4♣ call either, that's the judgement of the room. Or maybe he decided all roads lead to 5m making, so it doesn't matter what you do (even pass!)

If I felt damaged by the ruling, I would ask for a full explanation. I was just pointing out that apart from the comment (and yes, Ed's comment was more what I should have said about that, but the inference, hopefully, was there) this is not trivial.

[mycroft]

Lamford's comment is appropriate as well - if NZ is a jurisdiction where "if their explanation is 'I don't know', calling the TD will help get the agreement, if one exists". I don't know how that works there, but I'm sure there's something.

[jillybean]

South did not call the Director to get our agreements explained and clarified, nor did they look at our CC which was on the table.
South "knows" that West can't take another bid after the BIT - does that make 2♥ a free bid?

[nige1]

jillybean '(Live bridge tournament - New Zealand) Playing against good, experienced opponents. East tanked after the 2♦ bid and then passed. South quizzed East on the strength of the 2♦ and our agreements. East could not recall the agreement. South bid 2♥, I can't remember if I bid 4♣ or 5♣ but we ended up in 5♦. South called the director and stated that West could not bid again after East's Break In Tempo. Our agreement is that 2♦ is showing 18+What is your ruling?'
+++++++++++++++++++++
Agree with Lamford. East hesitated before passing 2♦ and admitted that he could not remember his agreements. Both are UI to West and might suggest some useful values. Hence, assuming that a poll confirms that pass, 3♣ or 3♦ by West would be logical alternatives, then the director should consider adjusting the contract to 2♥ or 3♣ or 3♦. West's 1♣ (rather than 1♦ opener is strange but not illegal. However, 2♦ then showed 18+, so West is only a little stronger than promised. In that context, jumps to 4♣ and 5♣ both seem exaggerations. The director would be especially concerned if West jumped to 4♣ and then raised 4♦ to 5♦ because (again) Pass might be considered to be a logical alternative.

---

[sanst]

South certainly shouldn’t have told the director what (s)he should decide. But that doesn’t make him or her the culprit in this case. An important question to be answered is what S would have done with the right explanation - that S didn’t look at the CC isn’t important. Would S have bid 2♥ without MI at this vulnerability? I wouldn’t, -2 vul is far worse than 2♦ +3. But we don’t know that the TD did ask S about this. Too little information makes it impossible to give an opinion about this case. Given the TD’s decision I think EW were quite lucky.

[Cyberyeti]

 nige1, on 2021-February-17, 20:38, said:

jillybean '(Live bridge tournament - New Zealand) Playing against good, experienced opponents. East tanked after the 2♦ bid and then passed. South quizzed East on the strength of the 2♦ and our agreements. East could not recall the agreement. South bid 2♥, I can't remember if I bid 4♣ or 5♣ but we ended up in 5♦. South called the director and stated that West could not bid again after East's Break In Tempo. Our agreement is that 2♦ is showing 18+What is your ruling?'
+++++++++++++++++++++
Agree with Lamford. East hesitated before passing 2♦ and admitted that he could not remember his agreements. Both are UI to West and might suggest that some useful values. Hence, assuming that a poll confirms that pass, 3♣ or 3♦ by West would be logical alternatives, then the director should consider adjusting the contract to 2♥ or 3♣ or 3♦. West's 1♣ (rather than 1♦ opener is strange but not illegal. However, if 2♦ then showed 18+, West is only a little stronger than promised. In that context, jumps to 4♣ and 5♣ both seem exaggerations. The director would be especially concerned if if West jumped to 4♣ and then raised 4♦ to 5♦ because (again) Pass might be considered to be logical alternative.

---

If W bids again E is also bidding again so 3m is never going to be the contract.

I'm curious whether W has misbid with the opener, but with the 5-5 shape and a 20 count with 4 aces I'm always bidding again regardless of the hesitation, I don't see pass as a LA. 4♣ does however look like use of UI, 3m is plenty.

I really don't see that whether W's reverse (as it seems this is likely to be in most systems) is 16+ or 18+ should make any difference to S's actions, looks like an attempt to have your cake and eat it.

Score stands, if I'm feeling like it PP for EW for the 4♣ bid which IMO blatantly uses the UI, but 3m will get you to 5.

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-18, 06:01, said:

If W bids again E is also bidding again so 3m is never going to be the contract.

I'm curious whether W has misbid with the opener, but with the 5-5 shape and a 20 count with 4 aces I'm always bidding again regardless of the hesitation, I don't see pass as a LA. 4♣ does however look like use of UI, 3m is plenty.

I really don't see that whether W's reverse (as it seems this is likely to be in most systems) is 16+ or 18+ should make any difference to S's actions, looks like an attempt to have your cake and eat it.

Score stands, if I'm feeling like it PP for EW for the 4♣ bid which IMO blatantly uses the UI, but 3m will get you to 5.

Maybe I am dumb, but I don't understand why S did not just pass and let opponents play their 2♦ contract?

Did he attempt a double shot on a claim of MI?

[sanst]

 pran, on 2021-February-18, 06:55, said:

Maybe I am dumb, but I don't understand why S did not just pass and let opponents play their 2♦ contract?

Did he attempt a double shot on a claim of MI?

Het tried to find out EW’s agreement, didn’t get an useful answer and decided to bid 2♥. Not a smart move, I give you that. What he should have done, is call the director. That he didn’t, is a mistake, but not as bad as East’s inability to remember the agreement and, by the looks of it, not telling S that he beter look at the CC.
It might surprise you, but quite some pairs don’t have an agreement about reverse bidding, especially the not so good and downright lousy players. If S belongs to this class, W should have made sure that S got the right information afterwards. He didn’t do that and just let the TD decide about the legality of the bidding after a undisputed BIT and MI. So, don’t blame S without knowing the facts. S is not the offender here.

[Cyberyeti]

 sanst, on 2021-February-18, 09:09, said:

Het tried to find out EW’s agreement, didn’t get an useful answer and decided to bid 2♥. Not a smart move, I give you that. What he should have done, is call the director. That he didn’t, is a mistake, but not as bad as East’s inability to remember the agreement and, by the looks of it, not telling S that he beter look at the CC.
It might surprise you, but quite some pairs don’t have an agreement about reverse bidding, especially the not so good and downright lousy players. If S belongs to this class, W should have made sure that S got the right information afterwards. He didn’t do that and just let the TD decide about the legality of the bidding after a undisputed BIT and MI. So, don’t blame S without knowing the facts. S is not the offender here.

The OP said NS were "good and experienced" they should know the procedures and protect themselves.

[sanst]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-February-18, 09:25, said:

The OP said NS were "good and experienced" they should know the procedures and protect themselves.

South actions don’t look like those of of a “good and experienced” player to me.

[mycroft]

Ah, oops, missed that. Assuming the director hadn't been called during the auction (unclear in OP), yes, of course before the opening lead, West explains that her 2♦ call shows 18+. If she didn't, then there is yet another thing to investigate. But I'm sure that either happened or wasn't necessary.

It seems clear that South believed the hogswaddle he peddled to the director, and thought 2♥ was risk free (never mind that East still had a call). Good, time to learn.

I have sympathy for South - I have been in her situation many times (as I'm sure we all have), where I can't get an answer to an agreement because the opponents are too inexperienced to understand the question, or just have forgotten. Sometimes I too have guessed that the "I don't get what you're asking" answer means "they don't have that agreement, and I can guess their strength from that fact"; I have been wrong before as well as right. Sometimes I have asked the TD what to do when I can't get their agreement (either "don't know" or "don't remember"). Sometimes I get it, sometimes the partner doesn't understand the question either, sometimes the director doesn't understand the question. I do have sympathy. But they guessed wrong this time.

It also seems clear that West blatantly used the UI from partner's not understanding she had shown serious extra values in her choice of call over 2♥. If the director at the table didn't mention it, we will, and again, time to learn.

I am willing to believe that all roads (after 2♥) lead to 5m, and accept a ruling of score stands.

[nige1]

 pran, on 2021-February-18, 06:55, said:

Maybe I am dumb, but I don't understand why S did not just pass and let opponents play their 2♦ contract? Did he attempt a double shot on a claim of MI?

Given that East didn't know his agreements, It was poor judgement for South to overcall 2♥ but I confess that I rarely find "double-shot" arguments convincing.

In any case, if the director suspects EW of two separate uses of UI, then the director should still rule against them.

Systemically, West had already shown 18+ with at least 9 cards in the minors, Nevertheless,

• West still jumped to 4♣ (rather than rebid a simple 3♣/3♦ say).
• Over East's 4♦, West carried on to 5♦, regardless.

[pran]

 nige1, on 2021-February-18, 11:12, said:

Given that East didn't know his agreements, It was poor judgement for South to overcall 2♥ but I confess that I rarely find "double-shot" arguments convincing.

In any case, if the director suspects EW of two separate uses of UI, then the director should still rule against them.

Systemically, West had already shown 18+ with at least 9 cards in the minors, Nevertheless,

• West still jumped to 4♣ (rather than rebid a simple 3♣ say).
• Over East's 4♦, West carried on to 5♦, regardless.

What puzzles me is South's bid of 2♥: North was apparently unable to open the auction and only able to PASS over Wests's opening bid of 1♣.

I just don't understand what South tries to achieve with his fairly weak hand by bidding 2♥ rather than just letting opponents play in 2♦?