BBO Discussion Forums: Schapiro Spring 4s - BBO Discussion Forums

I am currently directing the final. I had an interesting case in an earlier round but have lost my copy of the hands. I shall put up an approximation of the hands and I am sure someone will correct it.


5♠ doubled went two down.

1♥ was described as "asking for heart stop for NT, 6-7". It was intended as natural, 6-7. N/S had system notes: they showed 1♦ dbl 1 ♥ as natural, but without reference to the meaning of double. North poiinted out that in analogous situatins where an opponent shows two known suits, bidding one of them asks for a stop.

West said, fairly reasonably, that he "knew" he had heart tricks from the 1♥ bid, and would not have bid 4♠ if 1 ♥ was described as natural. East said if he had known the hearts were offside he can squeeze North in the rounded suits for one down.

The actual hands were

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 09:57, said:

Did you mean South pointed this out? North made the bid intending it as natural.

barmar, on 2012-May-08, 11:08, said:

Nevertheless it is in North's interest that his bid be deemed a misbid rather than the alternative conclusion that his opponents had been misinformed.

So as I understand it the facts are:

south said north has around 6-7 pts which she does have
per south, north is asking if south has a heart stop
south denies a heart stop which he does not have but shows a strong hand with long diamonds which is what he has.

furthermore their system notes do not say what 1h is if x shows the majors.

campboy, on 2012-May-08, 10:09, said:

I was close! [Ok, ok, not very: it was a long time ago: many mornings {shriek} have passed]

barmar, on 2012-May-08, 11:08, said:

Sure, South.

mike777, on 2012-May-08, 12:48, said:

Sounds right.

When defending against a strong artificial 1m opening, X = both majors is far from unusual. If N/S have documented countermeasures against 1D-X, then I would therefore expect these countermeasures rather than other meta-agreements to cover the case where X=majors. So I think this is a misexplanation rather than a misbid.

Regarding damage, West's assertion that he would not have bid 4S with the correct explanation seems questionable: after all 4S may make even with a heart loser and also the location of the king is unlikely to affect the total tricks on the deal. East's 5S seems like an extreme position as well, irrespective of the explanation. How did the play go? It seems likely that declarer would find out that North had 9 rounded suit cards early in the play and be able to get out for 1 off anyway.

So yes to MI, not sure about damage.

c_corgi, on 2012-May-08, 17:03, said:

Conclusion does not follow from premise. If they have agreements to cover it, yes, MI. But the TD needs to find out, not assume.

c_corgi, on 2012-May-08, 17:03, said:

Perhaps. It depends on the class of player, no? Again, the TD must investigate.

One of the difficulties with forums like this is that we weren't there. We have to rely on the reports of those who were.

blackshoe, on 2012-May-08, 17:47, said:

I think it does follow. The TD has found out that the pair do have agreements to cover it, but differed in their view of which agreement applied here. I do not think South's interpretation that 1H over 1D-X=majors would be different to 1H over 1D-X=[unspecified generic meaning] is reasonable without specific discussion.


Yes, the damage issue depends on lots of things, but for the moment we only have the OP and a few clarifications to go on. Most of the teams involved in this tournament are easily good enough that the points I raised would not be above their competence level. My judgement maybe awry and/or there may be relevant considerations that OP didn't mention, in which case I expect someone will point it out.

c_corgi, on 2012-May-08, 18:35, said:

You seem to be changing the facts or at least the facts are in dispute.

To me it seems that they did not have an agreement on what 1h means.

In this case who is the Jury, the one who decides what the facts are, and in this case what were the facts concerning the 1h bid?

mike777, on 2012-May-08, 19:00, said:

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 09:57, said:

I thought what I said followed from this, what facts am I changing or being disputed?

c_corgi, on 2012-May-08, 19:10, said:

If you quote me in full you would see...

mike777, on 2012-May-08, 19:14, said:

I did quote in full, the initial 'I' was all that appeared of your 3rd sentence.

mike777, on 2012-May-08, 19:00, said:

Now that the 3rd sentence is there, I still don't see because I don't understand it.

I agree with Colin. A double of a strong 1♦ will show the majors much more often than not, so if you have notes on "after 1♦ gets doubled" then they will naturally cover this case.

(for those saying damage depends on who EW were, they are a top-class pair)

campboy, on 2012-May-09, 03:49, said:

But I didn't even post!

I'm not convinced 5S is sensible r/w after you already showed your hand. I'll agree there was MI, but the damage looks self-inflicted to some extent. However, if we believe West, we can call 5S WoG but can't punish East for it because it's related to the infraction. So it gets ruled back to... what? 5D undoubled -2?

Also the play is relevant as c_corgi (presumably the other Colin) pointed out. If declarer misplayed and we can rule it a SEWoG (taking into account the fact we're dealing with experts) then EW lose 300 worth of imps from the adjusted result.

ahydra

ahydra, on 2012-May-09, 07:12, said:

Different Colin.

Okay, I was just going to let it "get corrected", but it hasn't, and now I'm a bit confused. In the OP, "5♠ doubled went 2 down", right, not 5♦? Or is 5♦X-2 an assigned score?

Edit to add: as a strong club player, anybody who plays a strong diamond system and claims to not have clear agreements after 1♦-X for majors is going to be viewed with suspicion. If there is a regulation in the CoC that "you are expected to have agreements about common auctions", this would certainly be a time that I'm pulling it out.

At the club, fine. In the Spring Fours? Who brings a "new" strong diamond system into the Spring Fours?

In the absence of such a regulation, the cynical me says "rule what would have happened with a 'no agreement, but logically one of these two', strong benefit of the doubt to the NOS, hopefully the assigned score will convince them to have an agreement for next time". Yeah, I know how not legal a lot of that is...

mycroft, on 2012-May-09, 11:01, said:

Yes, the table score was NS +500.

mycroft, on 2012-May-09, 11:01, said:

Note that this wasn't the main event but the first consolation event for teams eliminated earliest. NS are very keen players (who post here quite a lot) but I doubt they'll be offended if I say they wouldn't be counted as a 'top class pair'.
(I don't know who EW were)

bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 09:57, said:

Based purely on the evidence in this thread, I would tend to rule MI, although I would investigate what they mean by 'analogous' situations. Here are some examples (based on my systemic agreements):
-if an opponent shows a suit at a low level (e.g. opening 2D to show both majors, overcalling 1NT with 2C for the majors, making a Michaels cue-bid) then we play a bid of one of their suits as natural if they have only promised 4 cards and artificial if they have promised 5+ cards.
- after a negative double we play a 1-level suit bid as natural (1C 1H dbl 1S), but after a transfer response we play a 'cue' as artificial
- if an opponent makes any form of 2- or 3-suited take-out double, we play bids as natural

The third point is relevant. After a nebulous 1C opening, double described as, say, 'take-out but with emphasis on the majors', how would they play a bid of 1M? (or a transfer, if that's what they play)?

The point I'm trying to make, is that if I'd had this problem I could come up with 'analogous' sequences where a bid of their suit is artificial, but some different 'analogous' sequences where it's natural. After all, if the pair in the OP had the agreement that _all_ bids of opponents' suits were always artificial, they wouldn't have had the problem that led to the ruling....