[piratepete]

EBU, teams-of-eight match in a local league.

---

1♦ is 11-15, 1+♦. Possible shapes are:
- Real suit
- 4414
- topless 6+♣
- 11-13 flat
1♦ was alerted, asked, and explained.

Upon 2♦ , W announced without prompting `I'm taking that as Michaels'
First double alerted, asked, and explained.
Second double asked and explained.

EW's system card contain the entries `Cue of natural one of a suit: Michaels' and `Defence to Short 1♣/♦: Natural', though these are the defaults for this EBU card.

Adjustment? If so, to what? I know what I'd be inclined to rule, but I'll leave that for now (I was S).

Thanks, all.

[Cyberyeti]

This auction does not make sense, I have a 12 count, opps are likely to be both 11+ and partner has made a presumably free nat F 2♥ bid. I do think I should be bidding either pass (playing opps for 11/10 and partner having dredged 2♥ up on 7) or 3♥ rather than 3♦.

Is it 100% clear that at this vul, with correct info S doubles 2♥ ? It's also very unclear how many tricks are made in hearts, it's not difficult to horribly misdefend this.

[Foxx]

If it's not out of place for me to ask this question: Adjustment FROM what?

Did East pick up your jack of hearts?

East needs three entries to dummy to take all the finesses he needs to make 3♦X, and I see two there at the most...

[piratepete]

Table result was 3♦X-1, NS +100. I think we scored ♠KQ ♥A ♦A ♣Q.

[BunnyGo]

In addition to cyberyeti's questions, I'm curious about what happens if the auction continues:

1♦-2♦-X-2♥
P-P-X-P
P-3♦-X-P
P-P

If East "ethically" passes 2♥ and south doubles, then can East run to 3♦ and now reveal the misbid to his partner? Are we allowed to consider this when deciding if a correction needs to be made. It should be noted that I know virtually nothing of ACBL laws, and actually nothing of EBU laws...I'm just curious.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me 3♥X is a possible adjustment.

The only real difference between ACBL and EBU laws here is that in the EBU, you weight the possible outcomes, while in the ACBL you don't.

[aguahombre]

Interesting that n/s have agreements about the 2nd double, of an illegal bid. Alerted, explained, and then not followed ---since North passed without diamonds.

My guess is they won the board anyway, but deserve whatever 3H doubled reaps

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-March-30, 22:25

[Cyberyeti]

BunnyGo, on 2011-March-30, 20:55, said:

In addition to cyberyeti's questions, I'm curious about what happens if the auction continues:

1♦-2♦-X-2♥
P-P-X-P
P-3♦-X-P
P-P

If East "ethically" passes 2♥ and south doubles, then can East run to 3♦ and now reveal the misbid to his partner? Are we allowed to consider this when deciding if a correction needs to be made. It should be noted that I know virtually nothing of ACBL laws, and actually nothing of EBU laws...I'm just curious.

I don't think east can run (I made my mind up about this before I framed my questions), as far as he's concerned without the UI, partner has at least 5 hearts, and possibly no diamonds, so hearts should play at least as well.

I am curious as to why N passed the double as the way it was explained, he shouldn't, but also, was there any indication from E that a wheel had come off when his partner made his announcement ? I would have thought that 3♦ is suggestive of a good hand (possibly 5530) and a game try in hearts. If there was no extraneous info, W was free to do as he liked, but if there was, he should put his partner back into 3♥.

[gordontd]

The original post tells us that the first double was alerted and explained, but doesn't tell us for what reason.
[edit: I now see it's in the diagram, not the text].

BunnyGo, on 2011-March-30, 20:55, said:

If East "ethically" passes 2♥

I don't think the ethical thing to do is to pass 2♥ - a raise of hearts seems more appropriate.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2011-March-31, 02:59

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-March-30, 23:02, said:

I am curious as to why N passed the double as the way it was explained, he shouldn't

Actually when I said this was "interesting", I didn't mean it was wrong. If North and South did in fact catch that East had bid naturally, and then bid illegally ---which they apparently have an agreement to handle---then North properly applied the LOTT, in this case 17, and did the right thing. Clearly North played Bridge after the infraction to achieve par. They have earned the full benefit of an adjustment to 3HX, which would probably be down only 3.

[gnasher]

Duplicate post - sorry.

[gnasher]

I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative.

Edit: on reflection, getting all of those tricks requires quite good defence, so we should give declarer six tricks some of the time.

[gnasher]

I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative.

Edit: but we should probably give declarer 6 tricks some of the time.

[helene_t]

I think 3♥x-4 is enough. OK he might bid 4 some of the time but then again he might make six tricks. I am too lazy to compute a weighted score.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-31, 03:02, said:

Duplicate post - sorry.

Triplicate originally, surely?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-March-31, 04:46, said:

Triplicate originally, surely?

This is a bit weird. Each time I thought I was editing my post, it created a new post. Maybe they're using Bridgemates to manage the site?

Edit: anyway, it's stopped doing it now. Unless this produces a duplicate post.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-31, 03:06, said:

I'm torn between 3♥x-4 and 4♥x-5. The rules require East to raise hearts, but I'm not sure whether 4♥ is a logical alternative.

Edit: on reflection, getting all of those tricks requires quite good defence, so we should give declarer six tricks some of the time.

I am quite happy to allow E/W to play in 3♥x and I think you should have written "on reflection, we should give declarer only four tricks most of the time, as the defence to beat it five is pretty trivial". Perhaps the triplicate entry was caused by repeated reflection?

North will surely lead a trump, as he knows East does not have a Michaels Cue Bid (the director assumes MI rather than misbid, as the CC is essentially silent on a defence to a precision diamond). Now declarer can force South to defend well by putting in the king (when South must duck) but he will normally play low and South should win and play a second heart to cut down on ruffs. West does best to lead a diamond up, and North should win to play a spade through. South can win and push a medium club through, and then the defence exits with a trump and declarer is five off.

Given that the event is multiple teams - possibly scored with two comparisons - the weighted score if there is one could be quite important, and I think that 80% of 3HX - 5 and 20% of 3Hx - 4 is about right. We are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders and your "six tricks" forces them to defend misère.

[helene_t]

The ACBL rule that no cuebid is alertable would come in handy here

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2011-March-31, 06:41, said:

The ACBL rule that no cuebid is alertable would come in handy here

Not really; West's comment "I'm taking that as Michaels" might have been construed as UI by a perceptive TD.

[blackshoe]

Aside from that, the rule is that most cuebids do not require an alert, not all. And then we get into the "highly unusual" maze.