[Antrax]

---

ACBL. 3♦ was alerted by E as showing 4+♥. The person supplying the problem didn't bother stating whether this was east/west's agreement, let's assume the agreement was 3♦ was natural. No screens were used.
S sacrificed expecting heart shortness in N and went for 1400. How do you rule?
(All players are experts if it matters)

[billw55]

Seems clear to roll back the contract to 4♠ by east. Assigning a result for that is more difficult. A systemic club lead seems inevitable, so I lean toward making - letting south lead the K would be too much.

[PhilKing]

South's argument holds no water.

North holding heart shortage does not increase the potential number of tricks - in fact it almost guarantees a telephone number. The only chance of not going for a mountain is to find North with a holding that helps us set up the suit.

[ArtK78]

I am not protecting South from the insanity of his action.

You state that all the players involved in this hand were experts. Therefore, South is under an obligation to protect himself. If I were South, I would ask about the one-level response. It was stated that the 1♥ response showed spades. What did it say about hearts? And if it is possible that West could have hearts, what kind of hand would he have where he would show hearts later?

Still, no matter what the answers to these questions are, South's 5♣ bid is insane. His 3♣ bid at least has some lead directing aspects if West becomes declarer (however unlikely that may be).

I don't like North's 4♣ bid, either.

If this was brought before a committee, I would be embarrassed if I were either North or South.

[mamos]

Expert what? plumbers?

If NS want to give 1400 away I see no good reason to interfere.

Mike

[barmar]

West showed at least 4 hearts, East showed at least 2. There's no good reason for South to assume that either has more than the minimum they showed. And even if partner is short, you're also assuming that he has enough trumps that you can ruff some heart losers, and still be able to draw trumps.


The only thing keeping South's from being committed to the asylum is that he was at favorable vulnerability -- sometimes even reasonable players think that this makes them INvulnerable.

[nige1]

billw55, on 2014-June-19, 07:00, said:

Seems clear to roll back the contract to 4♠ by east. Assigning a result for that is more difficult. A systemic club lead seems inevitable, so I lean toward making - letting south lead the K would be too much.

PhilKing, on 2014-June-19, 07:15, said:

South's argument holds no water. [SNIP]

ArtK78, on 2014-June-19, 09:15, said:

I am not protecting South from the insanity of his action.

mamos, on 2014-June-19, 10:12, said:

Expert what? plumbers? If NS want to give 1400 away I see no good reason to interfere.

barmar, on 2014-June-19, 10:28, said:

[SNIP] The only thing keeping South's from being committed to the asylum is that he was at favorable vulnerability -- sometimes even reasonable players think that this makes them INvulnerable.

I agree with Billw55 that East's explanation implies a better EW major-fit than they have, making South's 5♣ more reasonable.

[ggwhiz]

Antrax, on 2014-June-19, 06:51, said:

---

(All players are experts if it matters)

All the non-passes by North and South disqualify them and point to a serious substance abuse problem.

[Antrax]

Thanks, my personal sentiments were along similar lines. The director awarded a split score, so EW got 620 and NS kept their 1400.
BTW, south the plumber was XXXXX XXXXXX.

Thanks everyone.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2014-June-20, 09:09
Reason for edit: Removed player's name

[Antrax]

double somehow

[Antrax]

Why? He doesn't play on BBO (okay, he does, but I didn't give his username), the hand is a matter of public record and no negative comments were made regarding him.

[nige1]

Antrax, on 2014-June-20, 11:00, said:

Why? He doesn't play on BBO (okay, he does, but I didn't give his username), the hand is a matter of public record and no negative comments were made regarding him.

He might defer to IBLF experts and fail to take offence if he really is an unreasonable, insane, masochistic, drug-addicted, plumber

[PhilKing]

He's been called worse.

[lamford]

Antrax, on 2014-June-19, 21:54, said:

Thanks, my personal sentiments were along similar lines. The director awarded a split score, so EW got 620 and NS kept their 1400.
BTW, south the plumber was XXXXX XXXXXX.

Thanks everyone.

Reasonable decision by the TD, but I cannot find a line of play to save the overtrick in Four Spades, so it should have been +650. South's 5C was wild or gambling, so even it was related to the infraction, he does not get redress, so -1400 is correct.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-June-21, 04:32, said:

Reasonable decision by the TD, but I cannot find a line of play to save the overtrick in Four Spades, so it should have been +650. South's 5C was wild or gambling, so even it was related to the infraction, he does not get redress, so -1400 is correct.

Agree with Lamford about 650 rather than 620. IMO, however: South's 5♣ bid isn't close to a SEWOG (within the law). The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

[PhilKing]

nige1, on 2014-June-21, 10:26, said:

South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

But how does that increase the chances of taking more tricks in 5♣? Magic?

[lamford]

nige1, on 2014-June-21, 10:26, said:

Agree with Lamford about 650 rather than 620. IMO, however: South's 5♣ bid isn't close to a SEWOG (within the law). The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

The Law only allows you exemption for a serious error related to the infraction, not for a wild or gambling action.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-June-21, 10:26, said:

Agree with Lamford about 650 rather than 620. IMO, however: South's 5♣ bid isn't close to a SEWOG (within the law). The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

lamford, on 2014-June-21, 16:56, said:

The Law only allows you exemption for a serious error related to the infraction, not for a wild or gambling action.

I think what Nige is saying is that it isn't a serious error within the law. I don't see that he commented either way on whether its wild, or gambling. Yeah, he should have spelled out "serious error" instead of saying "SEWOG". Folks do take short cuts. I could be wrong of course - my telepathy range doesn't cross the Atlantic.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-June-21, 10:26, said:

The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

PhilKing, on 2014-June-21, 10:33, said:

But how does that increase the chances of taking more tricks in 5♣? Magic?

South was led to believe that RHO had a balanced hand and LHO had both majors. Each extra major card held by an opponent implies an extra minor card in partner's hand, making 5♣ a safer bid, according to Joe Amsbury and Dick Payne "TNT and competitive bidding" (1981).

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-21, 17:10, said:

I think what Nige is saying is that it isn't a serious error within the law. I don't see that he commented either way on whether its wild, or gambling. Yeah, he should have spelled out "serious error" instead of saying "SEWOG". Folks do take short cuts. I could be wrong of course - my telepathy range doesn't cross the Atlantic.

Bluejak in Forum abbreviations said:

SEWoG: serious error, wild or gambling action