Mistaken explanation
Hello,
This is another event that happened in a club tournament yesterday . ( unfortunately this is a pain in the neck)
The auction is as follows;
W N E S
1D 2D (1)
dbl 2H P 3CL
P 5CL x P
P P
5cL X -2 ( at the end of the contract TD is called)
( No screen)
1) 2D alerted by N as Majors ( mistaken expl. They play Sp+ Cl)
requests ;
a) Does S have the right to bid 3Cl after hearing the mistaken explanation (law 16 UI / law 75 ) for 2D ? ( or is he supposed to pass to 2H ?, passing seems to me not logical ) Does law 20F5a cover the correction to the bid of 3Cl ( action) or only the correction of partner 's mistaken explanation verbally ?
b) Does S call the director before the opening lead ( law 20 5b)
c) What action should N take ? Summon the TD ( law 20F4a , to correct his misexpl.),, ? pass to 3Cl( not to use UI) ? raise 3CL to 5Cl freely? ( realising his mistake)
d) What do you think of E' dbl ? and ,of E's calling the TD at the end of the contract ? ( Does it make any difference for E to call the TD as soon as S makes 3Cl bid ?
e) What is your decision regarding the final score ?
f) If the final contract came to rest only at 3Cl (played by S ) and made ( In this case ,in my opinion , N wouldn't have used the UI from the correction of 2H to 3CL ) would there still be a score adjustment because of the mistaken explanation resulting in E-W not to play 3 or 4H (Assume they complain about it , in my opinion " yes " )
finally
In order to be able to overcome similar problems , while coming to the right conclusion , reconcidering the situation based on the inferences received in the light of as if what possible actions would take place if there were a screen" should be the main strategy . Do you agree ?
I will be very pleased if you make your comments.
Regards.
The lay -out of the deal is in the attached file.
Comments
My first question is why South bid 3C? A poll would determine whether passing 2H is a logical alternative. What would 2H mean to South in this auction, without partner's explanation of "both majors"?
If we accept that he's not passing 2H then he has a choice between bidding 2S and 3C. Having heard his partner's explanation, he might be bidding 3C as an attempt to jog his partner's memory, rather than bidding 2S, which partner might interpret as saying, "I'm interested in more and my spades are better than my hearts". If we feel that 3C was an attempt to jog partner's memory then I'd view it as an illegal bid and worthy of a penalty. Did North wake up due to partner's 3C bid?
What would West have done with the correct information? What did his double over 2D show?
One of NS should have corrected the misexplanation prior to the opening lead, ideally calling the director, so that the auction might be reopened. Would East have changed his final pass if offered the option by the TD? It doesn't seem that play was affected by any lingering effects of the misexplanation.
We need to know more about the methods this NS use and any agreement they have for the sort of bid that 2H represents. For me and those I play with it would show little or no tolerance for the suits I've shown and expect me to pass.
I could understand and probably allow S bidding 2S; N then bids 3H which S must PASS. If this results in a better score for EW it should form part of the ruling. I am unsure if EW reach their optimum (4H) contract if given the correct (C + S) explanation of the2D bid - but could be convinced otherwise. This too could be part of a weighted score.
South does seem to have made egregious use of UI and deserves a PP, perhaps more than a minimum one.
It would not occur to me to do anything other than pass if N were my partner and bid 2 !h after explaining my 2 !d
bid as showing the black suits. N (who is not a passed hand - I can accept that things might be different if he were a passed hand and a weak 2 in hearts had been available to him) may be merely suggesting hearts as a possible strain with a view to reverting to a black suit if doubled, or he may have hearts like rice and want to play in that suit come what may, in which case stiff Q is decent support. I think both 2 !s and 3 !c are suggested over Pass by the UI that N thinks he is giving preference rather than showing an independent suit, and that Pass is a LA. 3 !c , as archetypical UP, is perhaps more likely to earn a PP (it's not unheard of for players to condemn themselves by responding something along the lines of "well I knew he didn't know I had clubs" to a question as to why he bid 3 !c).
If N has genuinely realised his own mistake, he is perfectly entitled to bid 5 !c and to defer calling the director. Besides, on what basis are you calling N's bridge actions into question? There is no indication that he has any UI (of course S's 3 !c may have been slow - in fact it is arguable that an in tempo 3 !c must be a breach of Law 73C - but we are not told that it was slow). If he has decided that S must be showing an extra values 5-5-0-3, then to bid 5 !c is hardly outrageous.