[32519]

An overcall on a 4072 distribution alerted as “any 2-suited hand willing to compete to level 3” was challenged as being “dubious.” The 4-card suit was the suit shown by overcaller’s RHO. In the explanatory notes on overcaller’s convention card it clearly stipulated that “one of the 2-suits could be the opponents suit.”

So my question is straightforward and simple:
Would the 4072 overcall pass an Appeals Committee Ruling based on the circumstances described? Or would an adjusted score be awarded?

This didn't actually happen at the table. It took place in one of the forum threads.

[hrothgar]

Just to be clear, I meant dubious in terms of "stupid" rather than dubious in terms of unethical...

Here is the written description of your agreements regarding the 2♦ call
Over an artificial 1H opening that shows 4+ spades (might have a longer minor) you recommend

Quote

2♦ = any 2-suited hand that can compete to the 3-level, the lower the HCP count then the more extreme the distribution, a 5+ card ♠ suit possible as 1 of the 2 suits, 0-31 HCP

Personally, I'd be very surprised to find that the overcaller held

♠ AQT2
♥ VOID
♦ KQT9862
♣ 52

As I said originally, I think its a mistake to treat a 7-4 pattern as a two suiter (SWANs typically play best in the long suit and your bidding should focus on the long suit).

With this said and done, you are going out of your way to state that you could hold opener's suit as one of your two suits and then specifically state that a five plus card spade suit is possible.
You don't deny that a 4 card suit is possible, however, all told, I'd be shocked to find out that you hold the hand in question.

Not sure if I'd bother calling the director.

I suspect that I could get a ruling to go my way based on the following

1. You go out of your way to state that you could hold a 5+ card spade suit and you are bidding with a 4 bagger
2. You are playing a conventional defense which can not be psyched
3. You might be able to claim that this is a deviation, however, I suspect that directors would be skeptical that this hand warrants a deviation...

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-September-02, 13:34
Reason for edit: excessive rude comment removed

[TimG]

 32519, on 2012-September-01, 18:51, said:

An overcall on a 4072 distribution alerted as “any 2-suited hand willing to compete to level 3” was challenged as being “dubious.” The 4-card suit was the suit shown by overcaller’s RHO. In the explanatory notes on overcaller’s convention card it clearly stipulated that “one of the 2-suits could be the opponents suit.”

So my question is straightforward and simple:
Would the 4072 overcall pass an Appeals Committee Ruling based on the circumstances described? Or would an adjusted score be awarded?

This didn't actually happen at the table. It took place in one of the forum threads.

Upon what is the committee supposed to be ruling?

[hrothgar]

 TimG, on 2012-September-01, 19:18, said:

Upon what is the committee supposed to be ruling?

Presumably, Misinformation

[32519]

Oops! Sorry, misinformation after Hrothgar’s post. So now the CC is updated and says “any 2-suited hand willing to compete to level 3” without specifying the expected length in each suit.

So I repeat the question: Would a 4072 distribution survive an Appeals Committee Ruling as a 2-suited hand?

What about a 5422 distribution? Or would this be declared as semi-balanced? If a 5422 distribution qualifies as 2-suited it opens up huge possibilities in the defensive agreements that were being discussed.

[32519]

 TimG, on 2012-September-01, 19:18, said:

Upon what is the committee supposed to be ruling?

Does a 4072 distribution qualify as 2-suited?

What about a 64xx distribution? Does that also qualify as 2-suited?

And finally, while you are at it - what about a 5422 distribution as a 2-suited hand?

Which of these distributions survives an Appeals Committee challenge has a huge impact upon a defensive agreement being developed to counter MOSCITO's destructive ability to jam the auction in 2M. Personally I believe that the first two shouldn't be any problem. But I need to know for sure.

The last one could prove to be decisive in really turning the pressure back upon the MOSCITO players. If a 5422 distribution survives an Appeals Committee challenge, it opens up a whole range of new possibilities in the defensive agreement being developed.

Thanking you in advance for an informed answer.

[manudude03]

Depending on the jurisdiction, you could potentially get away with calling 4432 a "two suited hand". You would need to check your regulations to see if it's even a legal agreement:

From ACBL GCC.

Quote

OVERCALLS
a) JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5–4 distribution
in two known suits and responses thereto.
b) SIMPLE OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate a minimum of 10
HCP, at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto

In this case, you're ok as long as it shows 5-4 and the suits are known. Any 2-suited hand as you describe isn't legal.

[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2012-September-02, 00:17, said:

Which of these distributions survives an Appeals Committee challenge has a huge impact upon a defensive agreement being developed to counter MOSCITO's destructive ability to jam the auction in 2M. Personally I believe that the first two shouldn't be any problem. But I need to know for sure.

The last one could prove to be decisive in really turning the pressure back upon the MOSCITO players. If a 5422 distribution survives an Appeals Committee challenge, it opens up a whole range of new possibilities in the defensive agreement being developed.

Thanking you in advance for an informed answer.

Actually, none of this matters jack *****...

You are welcome to play whatever you damn well please, so long as you provide appropriate disclosure.

Develop whatever method your febrile little brain comes to believe is good, then determine how to describe the method.

[FrancesHinden]

I have no idea why you are asking this question in this form.
By slightly careful reading, I think you are asking if you are allowed to describe an overcall of a MOSCITO opening as '2-suited' if you might be 6-4 or 7-4 or 4-4.

Well, obviously, that depends on where you are playing.
You have to playing somewhere that allows MOSCITO opening bids in the first place, so you can probably forget about the ACBL.

In the EBU (England) you can play MOSCITO at level 5, and any defence is permitted.
In WBF & EBL events (and the various other places that use their regulations), you can play any defence against artificial 1-level opening bids.

Secondly, there's also the question about 'misinformation'. That just depends on how well you describe the bid, although it would be important to emphasize that the second suit might be opener's anchor suit. Most opponents will have difficulty believing that you actually play this method for reasons that have been eloquently explained in the other thread.

[FrancesHinden]

 manudude03, on 2012-September-02, 03:12, said:

Depending on the jurisdiction, you could potentially get away with calling 4432 a "two suited hand". You would need to check your regulations to see if it's even a legal agreement:

From ACBL GCC.


In this case, you're ok as long as it shows 5-4 and the suits are known. Any 2-suited hand as you describe isn't legal.

You may be unaware he is talking about an overcall structure of a MOSCITO 1-level transfer opening; as these aren't allowed under the GCC anyway this quote is irrelevant.

[aguahombre]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-September-02, 04:06, said:

You may be unaware he is talking about an overcall structure of a MOSCITO 1-level transfer opening; as these aren't allowed under the GCC anyway this quote is irrelevant.

That makes Hrothgar's post make more sense. How were we supposed to know that?

[FrancesHinden]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-02, 04:47, said:

That makes Hrothgar's post make more sense. How were we supposed to know that?

You are supposed to follow all of 32519's postings avidly so you always know exactly what he is talking about without needing any boring explanatory text.

[32519]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-September-02, 04:05, said:

You have to playing somewhere that allows MOSCITO opening bids in the first place, so you can probably forget about the ACBL.

In the EBU (England) you can play MOSCITO at level 5, and any defence is permitted.
In WBF & EBL events (and the various other places that use their regulations), you can play any defence against artificial 1-level opening bids.

Secondly, there's also the question about 'misinformation'. That just depends on how well you describe the bid, although it would be important to emphasize that the second suit might be opener's anchor suit. Most opponents will have difficulty believing that you actually play this method for reasons that have been eloquently explained in the other thread.

Thanks a ton for this Frances!

The second suit may indeed be the opener’s anchor suit. This will be adequately disclosed in the CC. The defence I am currently working on is aimed at really turning up the heat on the MOSCITO players. If I can sucker them into bidding on level 3 or higher when I have opener’s anchor suit well covered, I can extract a very favourable penalty double for my side.

The hand posted in the other thread is repeated here with a slight modification to the E/W hands, changing the West 4072 distribution into a 4252 distribution. The N/S hands are left unchanged.

---

Whenever North has an unsuitable hand to make any response to partner’s opening bid, would be an indication that the HCP favour our side. So now our side can start looking for our best spot. Conversely, when North does have a fit with opener (as here) and makes a fit showing jump in 3♥ which opener converts to 4♠ on a double fit, I have succeeded in my goal of suckering them into an unmakeable contract. I can now extract a favourable penalty double from the opponents.

These sorts of hands have opened a whole new scope for the defence. I will now dump my 2♥ and 2♠ bids from the original defence and move them into my 2♦ bid. Now I can keep North guessing as to what I really have!

[hrothgar]

 manudude03, on 2012-September-02, 03:12, said:

In this case, you're ok as long as it shows 5-4 and the suits are known. Any 2-suited hand as you describe isn't legal.

In this case, the bid would be permissible because it is a conventional defense to a conventional method.

[32519]

Ben, I think you should move this thread out of Appeals Forum back to the Non-Natural System Forum.

Thank you.

[mrdct]

On the "would this constitute misinformation" question, I would consider the following:

1. Does the word "any" in the explanation "any two-suiter" contemplate one of the suits being opener's suit? My gut feeling is that it does, but it wouldn't hurt to explicitly say so and if we were in a jurisdiction where the meaning of "any" in that context may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players, I think the burden of disclosure would generally be greater.

2. Does a 4-4 or 7-4 fall within the meaning of a two-suiter? I think it does, but again it would not hurt to say something like "at least 4+/4+ in any two suits which may include ♠".

I can't see a lot of merit in this counter-measure to a canape transfer opening. Personally, I play 1♠ as natural, dbl as takeout of ♠, 2♠ as ♥ & minor, 2NT as minors and the rest natural. When the opps have already introduced their major and a limited range, I think it's more frequently to your advantage to to describe your hand not muddy the waters. If an auction goes (1♥):2♦:(4♠) how is partner meant to work-out whether or he's got a 10-card fit with one of your suits for a potential save?

[mrdct]

 32519, on 2012-September-03, 01:47, said:

If it will in any way assist you in coming to grips with the DOOM defence, here’s the deal –
1. Any 5/4 hand pattern overcalled with 2♦ will most likely be,
...a. A GOOD holding in both majors (4-cards in the opponents suit), or
...b. A GOOD 4-card holding in opener’s primary suit and a good 5-card minor (2 of the top 3 honours, or 3 of the top 5)
...c. With both hand types I am trying to lure the MOSCITO players into a trap but still have a playable minor suit. Finessing the opponents suits is a no-brainer.
2. Hand patterns similar to the 4072 already discussed with a GOOD holding in the opponents primary suit. Again I am trying to lure the MOSCITO players into a trap.
3. 5/5 hand patterns will nearly always be Michaels orientated, 5-cards in the other major and an undisclosed minor. Overcaller’s partner is under no obligation to enter the auction over 2M with an unsuitable hand.
4. Any hand with extreme distribution low in HCP. My objective is to keep the MOSCITO players guessing as to what I really have. With extreme distribution and favourable vulnerability I can still make a sacrifice bid if necessary.
5. 5/5 minor suit hand patterns with values will be overcalled 2NT.

Well in that case I think the explanation of “any 2-suited hand willing to compete to level 3” is probably a misexplanation given the omission of all of that additional information which is probably of some interest to the opps.

I don't care what defence you play against artificial openings, provided you disclose what you are doing properly. When you talk about luring your opponents into a trap, that smells like trying to play a game of not giving your opponents full disclosure which is not bridge.

[helene_t]

of course you can chose to describe a 7-4 as two-suited. whether it is a good idea to play that way is another matter.

If you specifically said 5-5, or if you failed to mention that one of the suits might be opener's suit, it might be another matter. A deviation is allowed, misinformation is not.

By the way, even if it is misinformation, opps still need to convince the TD thay they were damaged. Most misinformation cases do not lead to adjusted scores, nor to procedural penalties.

[awm]

I think there is a disclosure problem here.

It seems that 2♦ has been disclosed as "any two suited hand willing to compete to the three level; one of the suits may be opener's suit."

However, from the previous post it seems that hands with both minors, or hands with the other major and a minor, have alternative bids available to them. The 2♦ bid seems to virtually require a good holding in opener's suit. There is a problem if you disclose a call as "any two suiter" whereas the actual definition is "spades and another suit."

If it's really any two suiter, you will see a lot of auctions like:

1♥ (spades) - 2♦ (whatever) - 4♠ and fourth hand will be sitting there with a bunch of hearts and diamonds. You could easily be making five of a red suit (or have a good sacrifice or whatever) assuming that the 2♦ bidder has a red suit. But if the 2♦ bidder has clubs and spades, 4♠ may be going for a number and you may not be able to make anything. What is fourth hand to do? Of course, if the person in fourth position knows his partner has spades, he will know not to compete. And if fourth hand gets to take advantage of this information, it must also be disclosed to opponents.

[TimG]

Quote

any two suited hand willing to compete to the three level; one of the suits may be opener's suit.

In my opinion, this alone is insufficient disclosure. The description should at least include minimum suit lengths.

Something like:

5+/5+; or
5+/4+; or
5+/5+ or 5+/4+ plus a singleton or void; or
4+/4+; etc.

It is not enough to say "two-suited".

I would be only mildly surprised if any convention regulations used "two-suited" without further description of suit lengths. If they do, shame on those who wrote the regulation and on those who approved the regulation.