[Chris3875]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding 2S* - X - All Pass

2S alerted and subsequently explained as showing 5+ of spades and another suit.

After passing, West asked about the strength of the bid and was told it was weak - 6-10 pts. Director was called and West said she would have bid if she had known it was a weak hand !!!!

2SX made for a good score - I'm not sure it should have made. I did speak to N/S about FULL disclosure - making sure EVERYTHING they know about partner's bid is explained to opponents.

Was there misinformation - I think so, yes.
Was there damage to E/W - probably, yes.
Did they contribute to their own damage - yes!

I let the table score stand.

[blackshoe]

Chris3875, on Feb 24 2010, 05:23 PM, said:

I let the table score stand.

I would have done the same.

[jdonn]

Brilliant strategy. After every auction I'll ask about some aspect of a bid the opponents made and when told claim I would have done something different if I had known. (Apparently it doesn't matter how implausible this claim is for the strategy to work). Then I can argue to keep the better of the table result or the action I claim I would have taken.

I'm glad you let the table result stand, but do you really believe EW were damaged? I have a different take, that W is not very honest...

[Chris3875]

I suppose by "damage" I was thinking that if East knew the bid was weak, she might have been more prepared to bid her clubs (which made). Her double in this case was "negative" showing points and 4 hearts. I cannot understand why West did not bid, whether she thought the 2S was weak or strong - IMO she expected to take the 2S down.

[bluejak]

While I tend to preach that people are honest and you can believe what they say, there are exceptions, not necessarily deliberate lies, but the self-serving approach where they come up with an idea which helps themselves and convince themselves, so when they tell others they are not lying.

What strength did West think North was? Do people in Australia play strong two-suited twos? Even medium two-suited twos? I doubt it.

Was the there MI? Not really. At best there was a casual answer to a question, since pretty obviously North's bid was weak, and if in doubt West could have asked. After all, South did not say it was strong? Or intermediate? No, I thought not.

So there was no MI.

Damage? Of course there was no damage. West would not have bid 3♣ if he knew 2♠ was weak, even if now he believes he would.

So, no MI, no damage, no case.

[Chris3875]

I thought EAST might have bid the clubs - not West.

The multi-2 two suiter bids are not common in our club - most people would open 2S weak with 6 of suit and not showing any other suit - so I do think it is important that pairs who play this system give a FULL disclosure. As an opponent you may know it is weak, blackshoe may know it is weak, I would know it is weak, but that doesn't mean that all opponents would know it. The opponents knew something was weird when the bid was alerted.

[bluejak]

Yes, Chris, no doubt they should say it was weak, but that does not mean that if they do not say weak the opponents have any reason to suppose it was not weak. If it really made a difference to West's bidding - which I do not believe for a moment - why did he not ask?

Put it another way, West is told it shows spades and a minor. What would he assume about strength?

[Chris3875]

I do totally agree with you David - I just sometimes think a lot of these issues would be avoided if people just SAID everything. For example, at a Congress at the weekend I was called to a table where Declarer said "6" - the only 6 in dummy was the 6 of spades which dummy duly played - but then Declarer said, No, I meant the clubs (there was an 8 of clubs in dummy).

Now, on investigation, she DID mean the clubs I am sure, because she had carefully set up the club suit (it was a NT contract) to come back to her hand for 4 winners. By playing the 6 of spades she lost the next 4 tricks. I thought this was a case of declarer's intention being incontrovertible - but the whole fiasco would have been avoided if she said 6 of clubs. Reply would have been, but there is no 6 of clubs - oh sorry, I meant the 8.

[jeremy69]

I'm with most others on this. I agree that South should have said something about the strength but it is hard to believe that either East or West would have done anything different. Why would you overcall 3C if told a bid is weak? You would double because if you don't you might miss game. Why would you do anything different as West according to what strength the 2S is? I would quite like to ostentatiously scrub Lebensohl off my card on this board and bid 2NT natural but I bet I can't.
As a TD having rebuked N-S mildly I would say to E-W that they could have a. checked the convention card b. asked. I would do as you did and not adjust becuase although there was a infraction there was no damage resulting from it in my view.

[iviehoff]

Chris3875, on Feb 24 2010, 11:23 PM, said:

After passing, West asked about the strength of the bid and was told it was weak - 6-10 pts. Director was called and West said she would have bid if she had known it was a weak hand !!!!

Immediately after passing? Before partner called? If so, then leaving aside the fact that this would not be a proper time to ask, it appears to be soon enough that the Director could, indeed should, have given West the opportunity to change the call.

[nickf]

Chris3875, on Feb 25 2010, 08:23 AM, said:

After passing, West asked about the strength of the bid and was told it was weak - 6-10 pts. Director was called and West said she would have bid if she had known it was a weak hand !!!!.

This sounds a bit self serving - hardly anyone in Australia plays strong 2s in a duplicate event. I suspect West probably though 2S was just natural and weak but I have trouble believing they suspected it could be strong.

nickf
sydney

[barmar]

iviehoff, on Feb 25 2010, 05:11 AM, said:

Chris3875, on Feb 24 2010, 11:23 PM, said:

After passing, West asked about the strength of the bid and was told it was weak - 6-10 pts. Director was called and West said she would have bid if she had known it was a weak hand !!!!

Immediately after passing? Before partner called? If so, then leaving aside the fact that this would not be a proper time to ask, it appears to be soon enough that the Director could, indeed should, have given West the opportunity to change the call.

Partner doesn't have a call after West passes, the auction is over. Did you mean before partner made a face-down opening lead and asked "Any questions, partner?"?

While it's traditional to wait for the face-down lead before asking post-auction questions, I'm not sure it's required. If the answer reveals misinformation, he's allowed to change his final pass and the face-down card goes back into East's hand. It doesn't become too late until the opening lead is faced.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Feb 26 2010, 08:22 PM, said:

While it's traditional to wait for the face-down lead before asking post-auction questions, I'm not sure it's required.

Law 20F2; in part said:

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.

Law 41B; in part said:

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction or request an explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3)...The defenders (subject to Law 16) and the declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own  turn to play.

The emphasis in that last is mine. It is correct procedure to ask only at one's own turn to play or, in the case of questions after the opening lead, after that lead is chosen and made face down, but before it is faced. A question by third in hand defender before the opening lead is chosen may convey UI to partner.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't get the timing of this.

If West asked what it meant, then passed, then asked the strength, then called the TD, then why wasn't he allowed to change his pass as he wanted to?

Although it's all a bit strange, he hasn't learned anything that we wasn't entitled to know already, and if he really misunderstood what was going on then however strange we think it to bid after a weak two but not after a strong one, why should we deny that to him?

Obviously if he says he'd have changed his call after 2Sx has made, that's completely different.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Feb 26 2010, 10:35 PM, said:

A question by third in hand defender before the opening lead is chosen may convey UI to partner.

But he could ask the same exact question before making his final pass, and there's little difference in the UI (except for a suggestion that the answer may have influenced his decision whether to pass or balance).

[bluejak]

True. But it is to be avoided, because it is such a clear UI position that there are clear overtones of deliberately asking to pass information to partner.

Why not just act ethically and ask after partner has led face-down? I do not like unethically timed questions.