[Coelacanth]

ACBL Club Game, MPs

---

I was summoned to the table after South's final pass.

3♠ was alerted. I'm not sure if it's alertable; it was strong and natural with slam interest. No explanation of the bid was requested or offered.

West's 4♣ was intended as a control-bid with slam interest, but upon questioning by North at his turn was explained by East as keycard (for ♠, although the trump suit was not specified in the explanation and North was under some confusion about this). North doubled 4♣ as a lead-director. At the end of the auction North asked about the 5♣ call and was told by East that she didn't know what it meant. At this point West volunteered that he had mis-responded and was attempting to show two keycards plus the trump queen (his actual holding, as it turned out).

North called me to the table and was looking for protection due to (perceived) MI regarding the 4♣ call. He claimed that had he known 4♣ showed values in clubs he would not have doubled. Note that he asserted this before seeing dummy. I was unable to establish what EW's actual agreement regarding 4♣ was; this specific auction had not been discussed and each partner was applying a different meta-treatment ("4♣ is KC Gerber after we open NT" and "cuebid controls up the line in a slam auction").

As it turned out, the MI was irrelevant; EW will make 12 tricks on any lead. In particular, 12 tricks were made after South duly led a club. 12 tricks would also be made had South made her normal lead (a diamond) absent the double from North.

[Question 1]: I stood at the table and watched the play of the hand. North misdefended fairly egregiously; on his actual defense it's possible for West to make 13 tricks; this would not be possible had South led a diamond. Whether his defense was SEWOG bad I'm not clear; if we assume that it was not, and West did make all 13 tricks, would you adjust based on MI?

[Question 2]: West has UI that her partner has interpreted her control bid as a keycard ask. On the other hand, the 5♣ bid is evidence that West has not interpreted 4♣ as a control bid. Is West's final call constrained by UI? Are there any LAs? Is 6♠ demonstrably suggested?

Any thoughts?

This post has been edited by Coelacanth: 2011-September-26, 09:43

[blackshoe]

First thought is that you have East and West reversed in your third paragraph, since it was West who bid 4♣ and East who bid 5♣. Presumably then it was West who said he didn't know what 5♣ meant.

Q1: if the miss-defense was caused by the MI, and there was damage, you adjust. If the miss-defense was not caused by the UI (and it appears here that it was not), you don't adjust. See Law 75B.

Q2: To me, "at the end of the auction" means "after the final pass". However, this question is about West's 6♠ bid, which (it appears) was made before the final pass, and so before East's extraneous comment that he meant 5♣ as a response to RKC Gerber. So no, there was no UI that might have impacted the 6♠ bid. That being the case, the last two parts of this three part question are not relevant.

[Coelacanth]

Thanks for noticing that I had E and W backwards. I've corrected the OP.

East explained 4♣ as keycard before North's double. This is obviously well before the 6♠ bid and is UI to West. You're correct in that East's extraneous comment that he had mis-responded came after the final pass.

[blackshoe]

All right. AI notwithstanding, East's explanation of 4♣ as keycard is UI to West. Other than that, I cannot say without seeing the hands.

[Coelacanth]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-26, 09:26, said:

Q1: if the miss-defense was caused by the MI, and there was damage, you adjust. If the miss-defense was not caused by the UI (and it appears here that it was not), you don't adjust. See Law 75B.

Forgot to respond to this part. North's defense was not impacted by the MI. However, if North had received a correct explanation of 4♣ ("no agreement"), he would not have doubled and South would have led a diamond. Are you saying that North's defense after the club lead must be caused by MI to be considered SEWOG?

[blackshoe]

No. Forget SEWoG. Law 75B says that when MI results in damage, the NOS are due an adjustment. Damage, BTW, is defined in Law 12: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". It seems to me that the miss-defense was caused by incompetence, not by MI. But perhaps I've misunderstood your OP.

[ggwhiz]

I agree that without the MI a ♦ lead will happen and adjust to 12 tricks. North did say he would not double before seeing the dummy.

What I think might be the real issue is the 6♠ bid.

Is it reasonable opposite a 5♣ cue that denies red suit controls?

Could the double of 4♣ followed by the cue (and the UI) have shown it to be an off the rails bid?

[aguahombre]

As usual, I am confused. This time, I am confused by North's assertion.

North's double presumably wanted a club lead, and South dutifully obeyed. What kind of holding would want a club lead through the dummy, but all of a sudden wouldn't want one if dummy showed stuff in the suit? Irrelevant? I don't think so. He got the lead he said he wanted, then confused himself in the later play.

The fact that a diamond lead would have made the defense "North-proof", just means North should not be making random calls during the opponents' auction. His assertion, before or after seeing dummy, is less than believable; and if there is such a holding where he would not double in one case, but would double in the other ---then he is giving UI to partner by making the statement before play has been completed.

[Coelacanth]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-26, 10:58, said:

As usual, I am confused. This time, I am confused by North's assertion.

North's double presumably wanted a club lead, and South dutifully obeyed. What kind of holding would want a club lead through the dummy, but all of a sudden wouldn't want one if dummy showed stuff in the suit? Irrelevant? I don't think so. He got the lead he said he wanted, then confused himself in the later play.

The fact that a diamond lead would have made the defense "North-proof", just means North should not be making random calls during the opponents' auction. His assertion, before or after seeing dummy, is less than believable; and if there is such a holding where he would not double in one case, but would double in the other ---then he is giving UI to partner by making the statement before play has been completed.

These pretty much echo my own thoughts. North held Axx of diamonds and K9xxx of clubs, which is not a lead-directing double (of clubs) in my book no matter what 4♣ showed. When he called the director at the end of the auction, he was basically saying "now that I've heard EW explain what their bids were really intended to mean, I don't want a club lead any more". In fact, if South had now led a non-club when a club was a LA (and this had damaged EW), there might have been a UI adjustment.

[mrdct]

I wish people would post the full hands when seeking the forum's opinion on rulings. Even if you can't remember the full hand, make something up that fits your scenario and use the "hand editor" to insert the diagram, auction and play (if relevant).

I think there are plausible reasons to double 4♣ with North's hand irrepective of whether 4♣ is keycard for ♠ or a cue agreeing ♠. For the former explanation, it is not uncommon that partnerships don't have their agreements sorted-out for dealing with intervention over blackwoood, so if you can intervene safely with a low risk of going for a number, it often pays dividends to muck-up your opponents slam bidding auction (indeed in this case East did in fact get his keycard responses wrong after the intervention). For the latter explanation, double looks quite reasonable as we might beat slam in a flash on a ♣ lead with my K sitting after the A.

It seems to be a finding of fact that the partnership agreement for 4♣ is "no agreement" so I would proceed on the basis of a misexplanation of 4♣ and the associated UI to West. However, I'm not buying North's suggestion that he wouldn't have doubled 4♣ if it had been described differently so I'm probably not going to assess any damage arising from the misexplanation, but I would need to see South hand to be sure.

The OP states that North queried the 5♣ call and made his highly inappropriate comment about not doubling 4♣ before seeing dummy, so are we to assume that this occured after South made a face-down lead? If not, I think PP or at least a strong talking-to could be in order for North.

As for whether or not West has used UI, again, we need to see the hand and know more about East-West's methods. In particular, what does 5♣ mean after 4♣ showing ♣ control?

Some partnerships may play 5♣ as exclusion over the cue agreeing ♠ so if West's systemic response to 5♣ happens to be 5♠, there may be a case to adjust to 5♠+1.

I sure am looking forward to seeing this hand, as on the limited information provided thus far I'm having difficulty contructing a hand where on a ♣ lead declarer managed to get into a position where he could make 13 tricks unless 4♣ was a psyche.

[aguahombre]

Agree with all the above, except the part about a double, which takes up no room screwing up the opponents' auction. These ill-conceived doubles merely add tools for competent opponents, and otherwise don't hurt them.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-26, 20:50, said:

Agree with all the above, except the part about a double, which takes up no room screwing up the opponents' auction. These ill-conceived doubles merely add tools for competent opponents, and otherwise don't hurt them.

It's a big assumption to assume that your opponents are competent and in this case East did in fact screw-up his keycard responses. Knowing your customer is important and a quick glace at their convention card will shed some light on whether or not they have any agreements about what to do after intervention. In a club duplicate you might find a handful of players who may have heard about DOPI, ROPI, PODI, PORI, PIDS, PIRS, DEPO and REPO and may even know what the acronyms stand for; but to find a pair that has actually made an agreement and remembers it would be rare amongst the ignoranti. Against club players doubles can be particularly confusing as many simply won't know what to do with the extra two steps. Even in higher-level competition, keycard intervention stuff-ups can and do occur with surprising regularity. I'm quite sure I've seen such stuff-ups on BBO vugraph on several occassions.

[Coelacanth]

mrdct, on 2011-September-26, 21:58, said:

It's a big assumption to assume that your opponents are competent and in this case East did in fact screw-up his keycard responses.

This is true, albeit somewhat ironic in that this particular East was easily the most experienced/competent player in this game.

The hand was (spots approximate)

---

South led the ♣J, covered by the Q and King and ruffed by East. Declarer played a trump to the dummy and ruffed the ♣2, North following with the 4. Another trump to dummy was followed by the ♣A, on which North played the ♣9 as declarer discarded a diamond. East can now make all 13 tricks by discarding his remaining diamonds on the ♣10-8 and taking a (now risk-free) heart finesse.

I think North was concealing his lowest club spot in the hope that declarer would play South for that card and suffer an overruff. Obviously, on the actual lie of the cards that makes no sense.

[mrdct]

Thanks for the posting the hand - it always makes things easier.

I'm still a little bit concerned about West's 6♠ bid in possession of the UI that partner thinks he is responding to keycard blackwood. The TD needs to ask West what he thinks 5♣ would mean opposite a 4♣ cue agreeing ♠. I can't really think of anything sensible other than exclusion, so West really should've bid 5♥ (one keycard excluding the ♣A) after which there is a strong chance that East-West will miss slam as West is looking at a minimum with lots of wastage in ♣

[ggwhiz]

ggwhiz, on 2011-September-26, 10:19, said:

What I think might be the real issue is the 6♠ bid.

Is it reasonable opposite a 5♣ cue that denies red suit controls?

As I suspected the real issue for me is the 6♠ bid.

After the 4♣ cue fetches 5♣ West has no business bidding slam with those red suits.

Blatant use of UI given the explanation of the 4♣ bid IMO.

Note: The above reply is a sensible way out for E/W but I'm not buying a pair that had this auction negotiating exclusion blackwood.

[iviehoff]

Coelacanth, on 2011-September-27, 08:08, said:

East can now make all 13 tricks by discarding his remaining diamonds on the ♣10-8 and taking a (now risk-free) heart finesse.

Only if he has X-ray eyes. From declarer's position, he knows that North has the last trump, and it looks like he has, whatever went on in the bidding, 3 clubs. Declarer now has clear 12 tricks on top, and is not going to risk immediately leading another club now to let North ruff it and reduce the clear winners to 11.

But let us pretend that this results in 13 tricks being made. The correct way to analyse this is via 12C1b. We ask if the discard of the C9 is a SEWOG unrelated to the infraction? I think it is a serious error. It obviously sets up declarer's C8, and only makes sense as subterfuge if S has remaining trumps, but he has already shown out.

Without MI, EW would make 12 tricks, so they should be adjusted to 12 tricks, because on a diamond lead there is no prospect other than 12 tricks. In general the application of 12c1b no longer means NOS keep table score, but in the present case I think it works out that way.

[Zelandakh]

Hmmmmm, now I am wondering whether the 5C bid really was a misbid (by the most experienced/competent player at the table). He is covering himself, no? This call is surely much less likely to cause a mess than 4NT. The 6S bid looks a clear misuse though so perhaps we can cover both the UI issue and the misdefence by assigning 5S+2 . Seriously though, what did West think 5C meant? I assume the TD asked.

[Coelacanth]

Zelandakh, on 2011-September-27, 09:01, said:

Hmmmmm, now I am wondering whether the 5C bid really was a misbid (by the most experienced/competent player at the table). He is covering himself, no? This call is surely much less likely to cause a mess than 4NT. The 6S bid looks a clear misuse though so perhaps we can cover both the UI issue and the misdefence by assigning 5S+2 . Seriously though, what did West think 5C meant? I assume the TD asked.

Well this gets back to my original question. Yes I did ask, and she didn't know what 5C meant. I'm fairly confident that they don't play Exclusion on this auction.

I probably gave the UI question insufficient thought at the table. NS were only interested in protection from MI; the fact that West may have used UI did not occur to them. Or to West herself, for that matter.

I think (and those of you who are better bidders than me can refute this) that if West thinks she has made a control bid in clubs, then 5♣ (to this West) would be second-round club control and, by implication, first-round control of both red suits. This is not far from East's actual hand (there's no reason he couldn't have the ♦A instead of the king) but it doesn't make sense in the context of North doubling 4♣ for the lead.

It's clear to me that pass is not an LA for West over 5♣. She has a known spade fit and, in this partnership, is not going to play in any strain other than spades. Is 6♠ demonstrably suggested over 5♠? I don't know. If we impose 5♠ on West, will East now bid 6♠? My initial thought was that he probably has more than a minimum for his 3♠ call. He also knows he's probably getting a club lead into his void. In the ACBL you could probably make a case that West passing 5♠ was "at all probable" but not "likely" and award NS -1430 (the table result) and EW +680.

[mrdct]

Generally, if responder makes a slam try and then 1NT opener asks for keycards and then signs off in 5♠ that will be where the auction ends. West is a minimum with poorly placed and wastage in ♣ so I think that absent the UI, 5♠ would certainly be in her considerations. The TD should ask, "did you give any consideration to bidding 5♠ over 5♣ (you'd be surprised how often you get an honest response to this question if phrased the right way). The UI that partner is making a keycard response and has gone through so many steps demonstrably suggests 6♠ over 5♠ so I think an adjustment to 5♠ making 12 tricks is in order.

Taking exclusion off the table, and not taking advantage of the UI that East thinks 4♣ is keycard, in the absence any agreement the only other other options are a big two-suiter in the blacks or control in ♣ but denying control in either red suit. The double of 4♣ discounts the likelihood of the black two-suiter, so West might need to work on the assumption that East has ♣ shortage but no ♥A and no ♦AK. With the ♣K thought to be in North, this doesn't really leave much room for East to have made a slam try with, at best, ♠KQ10xxxxx, ♥Qx, ♦QJ and ♣x. Accordingly, West may argue that once the 5♣ bid hit the table she has AI that the bidding is off the rails as 5♣ just doesn't fit any agreement or potential holding partner can have. In these circumstance, we might allow West to bash out 6♠ given that partner must have something extra over there to by-pass 4♠.

[ggwhiz]

mrdct is very thorough here with the possible exception that North was clearly not going to double without the MI. For whatever reasons good or bad, he did say it before the dummy hit.

Same parameters as above but without the double of 4♣. Is that the scenario to rule on?

Some play 1st round cues here, not 1st or 2nd which could leave East with everything except the red Aces.