Misbid
S W N E
2NT P 3C P
P X P 3NT
P P X all pass
S opened 2NT, described accurately in their system as 5-5 or better in the minors. S actually had misbid, having 5-5 in diamonds and spades.
W passed with 5-4, clubs and hearts and 15 pts.
N bid 3C followed by 2 passes. W doubled and E bid 3 NT and N doubled
S led a diamond.
E presumed S had 3 major suit cards and made a plan to finesse the major suits through the N hand. A disaster! Contract went off by 1 trick, giving the opponents a top in the room
3NT made at most tables.
Am I alone in thinking this seems very unfair that their is no redress as N gave the correct explanation of the 2NT opening.
Comments
This sort of thing is always happening in our club, mostly with ghestem overcalls. Don't think one can do anything except sympathise if the explanation is correct and confirmed by both players' convention cards. If I were a lawmaker I would institute flogging for agreeing to play these bids and getting them wrong!
Alan
No idea why S passed.
Assuming North explained the 2NT bid, South is in receipt of unauthorised information. We need to ask South what meaning 3C would have in response to a D/S 2-suited opener.
North explained the bid as 2 long minors and consequently bid 3C.
so what are you saying? UI for south? What are the implications? South passed the 3C bid despite not having clubs. What should S have done next?
If South thought they were playing this convention as showing the pointed suits rather than the minor suits, (perhaps he played this with another partner) then he might have thought that a 3 Club response actually showed something specific and was forcing - in which case he has to reply. If he thought the call was natural (absent the UI) then he passes (unless there is no LA to bidding on e.g. 6-1-6-0.). Bidding on, of course, is often accompanied by grimaces or other expressions, warning partner that he has misbid.
It sounds to me that south has done a sterling job of passing...?
As south thought he had shown diamonds and spades and his partner bid clubs, then has a problem as he now knows that partner prefers clubs to diamonds and that his partner expects him to have 5 clubs.
So, if he were to bid diamonds or spades now, we would be saying that he is using that UI.
We cannot ascertain if 3C is forcing or not as they don't play the convention that south thought they were playing, so 3C does not fit into their agreements. If south would normally see this as forcing, then surely he would take the opportunity to bid again and not pass?
for me, for south to pass knowing that he may be in a 2-1/2-2 fit in clubs or whatever, seems to be the honourable thing to do?
In games and sports, a mistake can sometimes lead to a better result. In rugby I have seen a few times where a penalty or drop goal (worth 3 points) hits the post and comes back into field and the attackers collect and score a try (5 points) with a chance of a conversion (another 2 points). Now the original kickers would have initially berated themselves for not scoring the 3 points, until it came good in the end.
Why should such errors in Bridge not occasionally score well?
I recall a time where I mixed a diamond with a heart and managed to avoid playing in a heart contract and instead found myself in 3NT. The defence failed to take their 4 heart tricks as they thought that they were my 4 heart tricks, so the contract made. My error, but worked out good for us - this is the way of games (and life in general) - what seems bad initially can (sometimes) come good in the end.
I agree. Presumably the opener plays the !s / !d version with somebody else (otherwise his mistake is bizarre).
We routinely castigate players for "unauthorised panic" when they make a bid which they think shows "A & B", but partner describes it as "A & C" when they try to wake partner up by bidding C next. Sure S has UI, but it does not suggest passing. I agree with Martin that S has done the ethical thing.
That's probably so, but we really do need to have all the information.
We do need more information; it is not very likely that 2NT would be intended to show D+S, perhaps more likely is some combination of suits: C+H-or-D+S; or minor+major. 3D might be the normal rebid after 3C, and would further confuse responder.
After the hand was played South apologised for the misbid, having mistaken the long spade suit for clubs. Also South does not play an artificial opening bid that shows diamonds and spades. S meant the 2NT opening bid to show 2 long minors. A senior moment!
OK. I would believe South. It appears that South had no useful unauthorised information, because he knew he had shown the minors. It is likely that North/South have not offended, so there is no reason to adjust the score. When we classified misbids this would have been green.
South has UI, but the pass is not suggested by it (whether demonstrably or otherwise). The UI that south has is "North thinks South has clubs". So choosing to play in a club contract is counter-suggested by the UI and thus is a legal course of action.
In terms of the impact on East/West, it's exactly the same as if South had chosen to psych, which is something that legally could have happened. So it's not particularly unfair that South's mistake ended up working out for them this time. (A possible exception: if South does this often enough that North is aware that it's a possibility/probability, in which case failing to mention South's tendency to forget is misinformation.)
Given the additional information, I, too would agree that passing by South is correct
Me too!
Good bid! :astonished: