[Cyberyeti]

---

3♠x made 9 tricks when N led a trump.

3♦ was alerted,

W: "not sure but think it might not be natural"
S: "so it's not just a second suit"
W: "not sure"
E: "just say no agreement"

S is now stuffed as if 3♦ is natural, X is T/O, if 3♦ is conventional, X shows ♦

N is now stuffed for the same reason, he doesn't know what S's X is, would bid 3♥ if he was sure it was T/O leading to a 4♣ contract which can make but chooses to pass.

E clearly thought 3♦ was natural, so shouldn't he be passing 3♦X after partner gives preference ?

If W was announcing 3♦ as possibly conventional, should he be passing which partner might interpret as willingness to play there ?

[ArtK78]

I don't understand East's 3♠ call. Assuming that 3♦ was natural, he should pass 3♦x. But it is not clear that West's "explanation" of 3♦ influenced East's pull.

Of course, NS should beat 3♠x. Whether the spade lead amounts to a serious error is debatable.

I leave it to others to sort the rest of this out.

[nige1]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-10, 19:38, said:

3♠x made 9 tricks when N led a trump. 3♦ was alerted,
W: "not sure but think it might not be natural"
S: "so it's not just a second suit"
W: "not sure"
E: "just say no agreement"
S is now stuffed as if 3♦ is natural, X is T/O, if 3♦ is conventional, X shows ♦. N is now stuffed for the same reason, he doesn't know what S's X is, would bid 3♥ if he was sure it was T/O leading to a 4♣ contract which can make but chooses to pass. E clearly thought 3♦ was natural, so shouldn't he be passing 3♦X after partner gives preference ? If W was announcing 3♦ as possibly conventional, should he be passing which partner might interpret as willingness to play there ?

---

Whatever ArtK78 chooses to lead, I'd be interested in how he defeats 3♠X. But I feel that the score should be adjusted to what the director judges would be the result in 3♦X.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-10, 19:38, said:

W: "not sure but think it might not be natural"
S: "so it's not just a second suit"
W: "not sure"
E: "just say no agreement"

S is now stuffed as if 3♦ is natural, X is T/O, if 3♦ is conventional, X shows ♦

N is now stuffed for the same reason, he doesn't know what S's X is, would bid 3♥ if he was sure it was T/O leading to a 4♣ contract which can make but chooses to pass.

This situation reminds me of the original (~20 years ago) DeWael School. What it stipulated was that (unless you are absolutely certain that there is no agreement and never was) you should give an explanation without uncertainty or disclaimers. This way the opponents have something to base their own calls on, and they will still be protected if you have given MI and/or UI. I have a lot of sympathy for this approach; in fact I think it is best, and I wish it were the Law.

Now, in the OP, was there truly no agreement? I think that East's bid, in the absence if some specific (and likely highly complicated) agreement, is obviously natural and West should say so.

[blackshoe]

Why is East sure they have no agreement? Why is West unsure? TD needs to investigate.

Why does Stephanie think the bid is "obviously natural"?

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-11, 02:40, said:

Why does Stephanie think the bid is "obviously natural"?

I expect she tried to think of another reasonable meaning for it, and failed.

[gnasher]

 ArtK78, on 2014-January-10, 20:29, said:

Of course, NS should beat 3♠x. Whether the spade lead amounts to a serious error is debatable.

A skilfull West might well make 3♠, given the auction. For example, if the defence cash a club and then play two rounds of hearts you can take the force, play two rounds of diamonds, ruff the next heart high, cash the diamond, and crossruff.

Given that the contract is making on a crossruff, it seems hard to criticise the trump lead. But even if we thought that the choice of opening lead was poor, it's a long way from being a "serious error". Poor judgement should never be classified as a serious error.

[Cyberyeti]

 gnasher, on 2014-January-11, 03:22, said:

A skilfull West might well make 3♠, given the auction. For example, if the defence cash a club and then play two rounds of hearts you can take the force, play two rounds of diamonds, ruff the next heart high, cash the diamond, and crossruff.

Given that the contract is making on a crossruff, it seems hard to criticise the trump lead. But even if we thought that the choice of opening lead was poor, it's a long way from being a "serious error". Poor judgement should never be classified as a serious error.

The double dummy calculator says 3♠ makes, although several people went off in it.

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-11, 03:25, said:

The double dummy calculator says 3♠ makes, although several people went off in it.

Seems like bad declarer play -- they probably let South get two trumps, either by letting him ruff a heart, or they ruffed high and then played trumps from the top instead of leading towards the 9.

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-10, 23:40, said:

This situation reminds me of the original (~20 years ago) DeWael School. What it stipulated was that (unless you are absolutely certain that there is no agreement and never was) you should give an explanation without uncertainty or disclaimers. This way the opponents have something to base their own calls on, and they will still be protected if you have given MI and/or UI. I have a lot of sympathy for this approach; in fact I think it is best, and I wish it were the Law.

A long time ago, on BLML, when I advocated that the law be changed to "If you're not sure, you must guess", somebody protested that such a law "would force players to lie". I vaguely remember that the protester was you, Stefanie Am I again mistaken?

[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2014-January-11, 02:40, said:

Why is East sure they have no agreement?

I don't think East is necessarily asserting that there is no agreement. Rather he may be trying to "fix" West's wording in relation to what West is trying to say. For example, he may think West is trying to say what he thinks the bid means, rather than explaining what agreement exists, and he is reminding West to say "no agreement" when he is not aware of an agreement, rather than trying to guess what the bid means and tell the opponents that. Of course East shouldn't do that, and his advice is wrong, but that may well be what East is doing.

[Cyberyeti]

 iviehoff, on 2014-January-13, 05:10, said:

I don't think East is necessarily asserting that there is no agreement. Rather he may be trying to "fix" West's wording in relation to what West is trying to say. For example, he may think West is trying to say what he thinks the bid means, rather than explaining what agreement exists, and he is reminding West to say "no agreement" when he is not aware of an agreement, rather than trying to guess what the bid means and tell the opponents that. Of course East shouldn't do that, and his advice is wrong, but that may well be what East is doing.

That's about right, E is a TD, west is his son and they're both friends and sometime team mates of ours so we're unlikely to take too much offence at it.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2014-January-11, 14:30, said:

A long time ago, on BLML, when I advocated that the law be changed to "If you're not sure, you must guess", somebody protested that such a law "would force players to lie". I vaguely remember that the protester was you, Stefanie Am I again mistaken?

I have no recollection of saying this, but if I did, it just goes to show that age and and maturity do (sometimes!) confer an increase in wisdom.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-13, 06:56, said:

That's about right, E is a TD, west is his son and they're both friends and sometime team mates of ours so we're unlikely to take too much offence at it.

It's not so much offence but damage that you need to worry about when you are given several alternatives as to what a bid means.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 08:47, said:

It's not so much offence but damage that you need to worry about when you are given several alternatives as to what a bid means.

I meant specifically to the "just say no agreement" comment.

[jeffford76]

South should call the director when West starts hedging about whether there is an agreement. Likely the director will send West away and ask East to give any relevant partnership agreements.

East/West are not required to have an agreement on this sequence, so North/South really should have an agreement about what to do over "no agreement" although they also are not required to do so.

I don't see how pulling 3D is suggested by the UI, so I would not adjust the score based on UI.

I don't have any strong opinion on whether the MI should lead to an adjustment.

[mycroft]

I would suggest that West knows East's hand (well, absent the UI that he doesn't), and that if he thinks we should play in diamonds rather than spades, who am I to judge otherwise? Yes, I'm 6-5, but that's sort of what partner would expect, no? And if not, more likely 6-4 than 5-5? I will say that's an incredibly strong Multi 2♦ - what do they play opening 2♠ as? - but that's not relevant.

If west has a 1543 or strong-ish 1444, which is fairly likely from the 2♠ call (tell me the auction would have been different to 3♦X with West, rather than South, having the ♥K), this will be a really bad pull, even though the spades are self-sufficient. But the chance of this - "I have a significant diamond preference" is lower than the "you pick a suit, pard" after "I don't know what that bid means".

So, yeah, borderline, but definitely demonstrably suggested.

I have little sympathy for N/S stuffage, as if the correct, legal, explanation of "we've never seen or discussed this auction" is given, there would be no reduction in N/S stuffage. Looks like it's meta-agreement time.

[aguahombre]

 jeffford76, on 2014-January-13, 10:40, said:

I don't see how pulling 3D is suggested by the UI, so I would not adjust the score based on UI.

I don't see how pulling 3D could possibly be suggested by anything else. East knows his 3D was natural, and West has supposedly chosen Diamonds. Why would East override that choice unless, because of the UI, it is possible West's pass was what it was ---a throwing up of his hands in bewilderment?

[jeffford76]

Here is why I don't think pulling is necessarily suggested:

If my partner thinks I have diamonds and passes the double, this could be a mild preference to diamonds over spades. If my partner doesn't know if I have diamonds, and passes, I think partner is showing diamonds themselves, or they wouldn't risk it passing out. (I also think that partner's pass with the hand they actually held is incredibly dumb.)

If I know my partner is likely to pass without diamonds, this is a different story of course.

[lamford]

 jeffford76, on 2014-January-13, 14:12, said:

Here is why I don't think pulling is necessarily suggested:

If my partner thinks I have diamonds and passes the double, this could be a mild preference to diamonds over spades. If my partner doesn't know if I have diamonds, and passes, I think partner is showing diamonds themselves, or they wouldn't risk it passing out. (I also think that partner's pass with the hand they actually held is incredibly dumb.)

If I know my partner is likely to pass without diamonds, this is a different story of course.

I agree that bidding 3S is contra-indicated, and also agree with gnasher that 3Sx is cold, unless played at sub-novice level. No adjustment for me. And why did West pass 3D; surely he did not think his partner had a dog licence (7/6) for his multi?