[schulken]

---

ACBL. Unit game. Established partnership B pair NS. Second-time partners, not as good, EW. I am sitting W.

After S bid 3♠ and I waited through the silence, I looked at N (we all know each other) and I asked him if he had figured out his partner's bid. He said he had not. When the auction came back around to me, I did look at N's card and there are no 3-level responses to 1NT openings marked. I called the director at the end of the auction. It seemed to me that S was the only person at the table who knew what was going on and they had somehow landed in a contract that no one else was likely to find through a fair auction using their partnership agreement. So P and I are in the dark until the board comes down, but it was too late by then. Making seven for a cold bottom, but 6NT making was still a cold bottom as most of the room was in 6♥ making. According to DD, we should set 6NT by one, but that depends on finding the lead of a low ♣ and holding the right cards while dummy runs out his ♥ suit.

I got no sympathy from the director who said that N had no UI and had bid his hand as best he could given that he didn't understand his partner's bid. I hope we may have defended better (or at least differently) had we known what was going on before seeing dummy or if they were in their indicated ♥ contract.

Should we get an adjusted score? Should NS get a PP? They've only been playing together for 20 years.

[blackshoe]

It's late so I'm not going to try to fully analyze this tonight, but my first thought is that how long they've been playing together doesn't, in itself, matter. The question is whether this situation, about which they have no formal agreement, has come up in the past frequently and recently enough to establish an implicit partnership understanding. I don't know the answer to that.

For myself, I would expect that if they have no agreements about 3 level major suit responses, they should be strong and natural. In that event, responder's 3♠ bid was either a mispull or a psych. If he mispulled, but didn't notice until his partner bid 4♠, well, if he knows the laws, he knows he can't change his call now, so he's got to make the best of it. If he psyched, well, that's legal too.

And now I'm going to bed. I may look at this again tomorrow.

[billw55]

Quote

Should we get an adjusted score? Should NS get a PP? They've only been playing together for 20 years.

In order for there to be an adjusted score or PP, there first must be an infraction. You have not stated what you think the infraction is. Your comment about playing together 20 years seems to suggest that you believe there is a concealed partnership understanding. If so, why not just say that? Could it be that you are not confident enough to say it outright? Do you have any recollection of a similar auction by this NS - in 20 years?

While I agree with punishing those who willfully fail to disclose, there does need to be some evidence. Landing on their feet once is not enough.

[mycroft]

I may, and have in the past, apply a penalty (not to accrue to the other side) for failing to have a relevant part of the CC marked, especially if it's clear it was written 8+years ago and they're a regular partnership. If they have no agreement, mark it such. Otherwise, I am going to assume they have an agreement, attempt to find out what it is, and then see if the opponents have been correctly informed.

I do agree with Ed on what he said - if 3♠ was intended to be 3♥, and they muddled through, fine. If 3♠ was "partner may not know what this is, but he won't pass; I'm going to bid 6NT next and let's see if I can discourage a spade lead"; well, it worked. Nice psych, South (although he'll probably declaim 'it's not a psych, it was a tactical bid' :-). If 3♠ is "forcing, 13 cards" - well, after a 1NT opening, that's legal in the ACBL!

This *is* a fair auction; they are entitled to misbid; they are entitled to psych; you are entitled to their agreement, such as it is; if they figured out how to get to a "top" contract by skill or by ruse or by tripping it's all the same "fair auction". My only concern is that South almost certainly knew what he thought their agreement was, and should have disclosed it on the opening lead; even if it was "game forcing with spades".

[barmar]

I find it incredulous that a long-established partnership could have "no agreement" about 3-level responses to 1NT. When you sit down with a new partner, and you have enough time to go through the entire ACBL CC, don't you always make SOME agreement about those bids, even if only to confirm that you're playing them as natural and strong? Isn't there some ACBL regulation or ruling that said that long-established partnerships can't get away with claiming no agreement for routine auctions? If I'm remembering this correctly, it seems like there's room for a PP for this.

As for whether an adjustment is possible on this hand, I think we need to find out why South bid 3♠ when they don't have an agreement about these bids. If he intended it, it seems like he meant it as a splinter, but who splinters before transfering to their 7-card suit? But if he thought they had this agreement, he has UI from his partner's failure to alert. But did he take advantage of it? 4♠ by the 1NT opener can't be an offer to play opposite known shortness -- players sometimes open 1NT with 6-card minors, but never with a strong 6-card major. If this actually was their agreement, there was MI to EW, but did it damage them? What would they have done differently if they knew South had a singleton spade? Would East have found the killing club lead?

It seems more likely that South mispulled, intending to bid 3♥ strong and natural (the default meaning if you don't have a conventional agreement, no alert required). Since natual 3♠ doesn't require an alert, he has no UI. And there's no MI if the bid was simply a misbid. If this is what happened, NS got messed up and stumbled into the best contract -- rub of the green, no adjustment.

[schulken]

The director held an away-from-the-table conversation with each of the NS players but nothing discussed was mentioned to us. I think that if S mis-pulled, as some of the posters have ventured, he might have said something when I questioned his partner before my second pass, when he could have corrected it without penalty. Certainly, with N now bidding S's short suit, S needs to get the ♥ bid on the table. However, he chose to explore slam first. N's response shows two key cards - the A♣ and (I guess) the K♠, as the agreed suit. We were all wide-eyed with amazement when S bid 6♥. After looking at the hand, it appears that S was splintering without letting his partner know what his suit was.

Sadly, I understand you can get a bottom for doing the best you can, and that serendipity sometimes poops on you. Maybe next time I'll get a good result when my opponents get lost.

[barmar]

schulken, on 2014-September-05, 10:45, said:

Maybe next time I'll get a good result when my opponents get lost.

People tend to remember the unusual cases where they get fixed like this. But more often, screwups hurt the screwer-uppers, they just don't bother you as much so you don't remember them.

Like in all the threads we have about forgetful players somehow coming victorious. We only hear about those cases because they're notable, not all the times they forget and get a bottom.

[Cyberyeti]

S should be asked what he thought 3♠ meant and how sure he was that it was the partnership agreement at the time, and how sure he is now.

If you knew dummy had a stiff spade, it might make the spade lead less attractive and that might be basis for an adjustment if you should have been told this.

I actually don't see how you make this on a red suit lead, I thought there was a triple squeeze, but the entry situation doesn't seem to quite work.

What I visualised was: (say diamond lead, you cash 2 diamonds and 7 hearts)

---

You've technically executed the squeeze meaning you have a spade trick plus a diamond and a club, but cashing the A♦ means E has 2 tricks to cash, and leaving it on table and leading a spade means you're short of tricks when a club comes back.

[weejonnie]

There is a possibility that South has a massive 2-suited hand in the majors and that 6♥ is offering two places to play. If so has North fielded the mis-bid and as such is in breach of 40C?

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-05, 13:04, said:

There is a possibility that South has a massive 2-suited hand in the majors

Not in the case in this thread, since we were given the hand in the OP, and it ain't that.

weejonnie, on 2014-September-05, 13:04, said:

and that 6♥ is offering two places to play. If so has North fielded the mis-bid and as such is in breach of 40C?

I doubt it, but I'll defer to TDs with more experience with fielded mis-bids.

[blackshoe]

schulken, on 2014-September-05, 10:45, said:

I think that if S mis-pulled, as some of the posters have ventured, he might have said something when I questioned his partner before my second pass, when he could have corrected it without penalty.

Corrected what? He can't correct the mis-pull, and he's not obligated to tell you he mis-pulled any more that he would be obligated to tell you he mis-bid — i.e., not at all.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-05, 13:58, said:

Not in the case in this thread, since we were given the hand in the OP, and it ain't that.


I doubt it, but I'll defer to TDs with more experience with fielded mis-bids.

Yes - but North doesn't know that during the auction does he?

[blackshoe]

How can someone field a misbid if he doesn't know and doesn't have any reason to suspect there's been a misbid?

[sanst]

schulken, on 2014-September-05, 10:45, said:

I think that if S mis-pulled, as some of the posters have ventured, he might have said something when I questioned his partner before my second pass, when he could have corrected it without penalty.

Maybe he could, but certainly should not have corrected it before your second pass. The auction was still in full swing, so nothing should be volunteered but obligatory announcements and questions answered about the partership agreements. The only moment a declarer (or dummy) has an obligation to correct, is after the bidding has finished when there was a misexplanation. There's certainly no law that forces you to tell the opponents that you made a mistake.

schulken, on 2014-September-05, 10:45, said:

Certainly, with N now bidding S's short suit, S needs to get the ♥ bid on the table. However, he chose to explore slam first. N's response shows two key cards - the A♣ and (I guess) the K♠, as the agreed suit. We were all wide-eyed with amazement when S bid 6♥. After looking at the hand, it appears that S was splintering without letting his partner know what his suit was.

So you want S to bid 5♥, but that is not exploring slam? And you think S was splintering without a know trump suit? I just don't believe that without any proof. The misbid is by far the best explanation of the 3♠ bid. And if you wanted to know what N showed, you could, or rather should have asked.

schulken, on 2014-September-05, 10:45, said:

Sadly, I understand you can get a bottom for doing the best you can, and that serendipity sometimes poops on you. Maybe next time I'll get a good result when my opponents get lost.

Yes, ***** happens.

It's totaly unclear, at least to me, what infractions NS have made. I think the title of your post actually implies that there was some kind of foul play, even though the director decided there was nothing wrong with NS's auction.

BTW: I've been playing over fifteen years with my partner - and we've been living together even longer - and our agreement for a jump answer over a 1NT opening is "strong, long suit, slam going". Sadly, it almost never happens. Either your suit is not good enough or your RHO doesn't pass.

[Cyberyeti]

S has UI, N does not unless S displayed obvious agitation. If N had UI, there is an argument that 6♥ over 5♥ shows all the keycards and asks him to bid 7S with K♥, so he should be forced to do that, but I don't think that is the case here.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-06, 00:31, said:

How can someone field a misbid if he doesn't know and doesn't have any reason to suspect there's been a misbid?

As I said - why has North given preference to Hearts holding 4 spades to the King? Surely he suspects that South has made a bid that is not partnership agreement i.e. a mis-bid and his Heart preference allows for that.

[RMB1]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-06, 14:29, said:

As I said - why has North given preference to Hearts holding 4 spades to the King? Surely he suspects that South has made a bid that is not partnership agreement i.e. a mis-bid and his Heart preference allows for that.

I don't think North has shown Heart preference: I think 5♥ showed 2 KC for spades, and bidding 6NT was preference away from hearts.

Allowing for partner not to have bid according to partnership agreement is not illegal: it may provide evidence of a concealed partnership understanding but here the evidence is that there is no partnership understanding.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2014-September-06, 07:55, said:

BTW: I've been playing over fifteen years with my partner - and we've been living together even longer - and our agreement for a jump answer over a 1NT opening is "strong, long suit, slam going". Sadly, it almost never happens. Either your suit is not good enough or your RHO doesn't pass.

I have this Murphy's Law type of theory about 3-level responses to 1NT. Whatever you agree to play them as won't come up, but instead you'll get hands where one of the alternatives you decided against will. So if you decide to use them for 2-suiters instead of splinters, you'll immediately get a 4-by-1, and vice versa.

[mycroft]

My agreement with a pickup is "you tell me, they never come up anyway." The key is to ensure that you have an agreement so it won't come up, of course - because partner *will* bid it because "everybody plays it this way" if you don't discuss it (viz. what version of blackwood you're playing, or 2NT in response to a weak 2).

[nige1]

It's likely that a pair in a regular partnership for twenty years are better equipped to disentangle this auction than their opponents. They might not know what this exact sequence means but there are likely to be inferences by analogy with other auctions; also negative inferences -- explanations that might occur to their opponents but would not gel with their own "style".

The director tried to find out such partnership understandings but if South really did misbid or he deliberately experimented with something completely new, then there isn't much the TD can do.

It might be fairer were the rule that South should explain to opponents why he called the way he did, at the end of the play, or even better, at the end of the auction.