[Mbodell]

Scoring: MP

P-P-1♣*-1♦
P**-1nt-P-P
X-P-P-P

* precision, shows any hand with 16+ HCP
** long hesitation, alerted and explained as 0-3 but forcing, as 1♣ creates a force up to 1nt

---

Opening lead ♥J and N/S run 6♥ and 3♣ for -3 and 800 points.

N/S play that a trap pass is possible over opponents 1M bidding, but have the agreement and always played that normal 1♣ "systems on" apply over a 1♦ overcall except pass shows the terrible 1♦ call (0-3) while X shows the 4-7 hcp 1♦ call. N/S do have the general agreement that after a 1♣ opening they are in a forcing auction through 1nt.

S claims that he couldn't be sure that game was on and bidding 2♣ over 1♦ to show a game force single suiter with diamonds seemed odd and likely to lead to 3nt-1 when defending 1♦X red seemed a more sure plus.

W claims that if he knew that the pass could be a trap pass that he might have run to 2♦ instead of 1nt when S doubles.

Any adjustment?

[blackshoe]

No..

[Vampyr]

West is entitled only to the opponents' agreements, but it seems that here there may well be a hole in the opponents' system. If a player in South's position would "always" be constrained to do as he did on this hand, then there is the possibility of misinformation.

That is what makes this case seem difficult to me -- the chance that South's pass may be in a sense forced on him, and therefore, in effect, part of the system.

Leaving that issue aside, it is clear to me that West's 1NT is strange, even at matchpoints. NS have stated that they were in a forcing auction to 1NT; if they have game on they will have no trouble getting there, and will double 1NT when it is right. The bid gives the opponents two bites at the cherry.

If South really is 0-3, it seems unlikely from West's point of view that North will be able to run enough tricks before letting West in with his ace and presumed 6 diamond tricks. But can he be sure that the diamonds are running? Give North all of South's high cards and there are still only 4 diamond tricks.

So in general I would say no adjustment, but I would investigate the issue in the beginning of this post.

[bluejak]

E/W's bidding is from the planet Zarg, so let us start by saying they get no adjustment. If they want to get -800 over a strong 1♣ that is their affair. So do we adjust for N/S?

There is no evidence of MI. A hole in the system is not disclosable per se [do you have an agreement how to bid a 31 count, and if not, do you always tell opponents?] but there is little sign of it here. South seems to have decided to treat his hand as unbiddable since game values did not mean game values. If it had been a natural sequence no-one would have even called the TD. For example, if opponents bid 1NT - 2NT - pass, 1NT is 15-17, dummy has 10 points, do you call the TD? If you ask him why he bid 2NT he will tell you he did not like the hand. So no adjustment at all.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 6 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

South seems to have decided to treat his hand as unbiddable since game values did not mean game values.

If South had bid a natural 2♦, it would not have been game forcing, according to the notes on the bidding in the OP.

Anyway, this hand is not a 31-count. It is a medium hand where, after partner's strong club, the opponents have overcalled in one's longest suit. A normalish hand in a normalish auction. If this hand is "unbiddable" then there was definitely a problem with disclosure.

[bluejak]

It is not a normal hand: it is a hand with game values that the player has decided is not good enough for game. How many agreements do you have with Paul covering such hands?

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 6 2010, 11:05 PM, said:

It is not a normal hand: it is a hand with game values that the player has decided is not good enough for game.  How many agreements do you have with Paul covering such hands?

Why do you think that 8 pts opposite 16 is game values? There is a good chance of it, but it is not guaranteed. And anyway responder could show values without forcing to game.

Paul and I would decline an invitation (or not issue one) with hands that had supposed game values but did not seem to be worth game. We wouldn't totally distort our hand on the first round of bidding.

The point, I think, is that responder was not trying to avoid forcing to game; he was trying to defend 1♦X (instead of going down in game or playing in a partscore), which he might have done if LHO had passed and partner was strong and balanced-ish (with short diamonds, obviously). However, his pass had a specific meaning. In natural systems it is standard to pass here with values and diamonds, but this player's pass showed 0-3. And if pass shows 0-3 or diamonds with moderate-to-good values, then the opponents have not disclosed their system.

Presumably (one would hope, anyway) this hadn't happened before, and South was making it up as he went along. But if NS do not come up with a better way to bid this sort of hand in this sort of situation, it is their de facto system to do as South did.

In re: planet Zarg -- I had at first described 1NT as "bizarre in the extreme", then changed it to "strange" in order to be more gentle. I don't think that the NOS are denied redress under 12C 1(b ), because at the time that the "wild" bid was made they weren't aware that there had been an infraction. Is this correct?

[bluejak]

Now that is interesting. In Law, no, because wild or gambling action after the infraction is enough to make Law 12C1B kick in.

EBU White book 2010 draft 2 said:

12.8.2 Wild or gambling action
Wild or gambling action is considerably worse than bad bridge.  Note the following:
1. A wild or gambling action may be related to the infraction.
2. A wild or gambling action is usually a deliberate action or positive decision by the non-offending side. A serious error is, by its nature, generally an action that the player regrets immediately ie a ‘slip of the brain’.
3. The standard for denial of redress should be wild or gambling action by the non-offenders, without any reference to the possibility of a double shot being required.  However, if there is an element of a double shot in the non-offenders’ action, it is normal to conclude that the action is wild or gambling.
4. The standard is ‘wild or gambling’, ie only one of those is required.  It is often incorrectly quoted as ‘wild and gambling’.
5. An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently. 
6. A failure to take advantage of privileges provided by the Laws, such as not asking the meaning of a clearly alerted call or waiving a penalty, would often be considered ‘wild’.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this is "A wild or gambling action is usually a deliberate action or positive decision by the non-offending side."

Mind you, deciding to play Russian Roulette seems a "serious error" to me, and that certainly does not need to be deliberate.

[Pict]

I would have adjusted to two diamonds doubled -2 for both sides.

I don't see that the fact that EW attempt was unsucccessful equates to wild/gambling or anything similar.

[bluejak]

I agree. It is not wild or gambling because it was unsuccessful. It is wild or gambling because it is completely stupid and idiotic bidding.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Feb 7 2010, 12:51 AM, said:

Perhaps the most interesting part of this is "A wild or gambling action is usually a deliberate action or positive decision by the non-offending side."

Mind you, deciding to play Russian Roulette seems a "serious error" to me, and that certainly does not need to be deliberate.

In an earlier post I suggested what West's reasoning might have been. I really do not think that his bid was a "serious error" as defined in (2) above.

Yes, it was a truly awful bid. But the criterion above requires a great deal more than that. Remember that West decided to stick it out even after being doubled. This cannot be a "slip of the brain".

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Feb 6 2010, 05:44 PM, said:

I agree.  It is not wild or gambling because it was unsuccessful.  It is wild or gambling because it is completely stupid and idiotic bidding.

Again, the question: Should a TD should be substituting his own bidding judgement for that of the competitors? In this case, someone should

From N/S perspective, does it really matter that South had more, and North had less (HCP)? E/W gambled and lost. They get to live with it.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Feb 7 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

Again, the question: Should a TD should be substituting his own bidding judgement for that of the competitors?

Again? This question should have received a resounding "no" the first time it was asked.

Quote

From N/S perspective, does it really matter that South had more, and North had less (HCP)?  E/W gambled and lost. They get to live with it.

The N/S perspective is not really relevant here, is it? It is West who is asking for a ruling. And from his perspective South's having more may indicate misinformation.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on Feb 7 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

Again, the question: Should a TD should be substituting his own bidding judgement for that of the competitors?

I have no idea what this means. The TD is not playing.

[mycroft]

The only thing that I worry about is that the 0-3 hand doubled 1NT, presumably for penalty (is forcing through 1NT mean "can't defend at the one level undoubled" or "can't defend below 1NT undoubled"? If the former, then ignore me).

I'm not sure that the difference between "0-3 or trap" (I play 0-4 or trap, myself, but I do disclose it) and "0-3" is much on running from 1NTx to a known safer fit. After all, partner doesn't have to have AKJ9xx for his 1D overcall, and maybe you're turning -500 into -800 in the 7-card fit with a 5-1 offside break.

It's clear that N-S have a hole in their system; either they've come up with the obvious method to solve it, in which case they now have a more complete system, or it is part of their system that they didn't disclose (because it never actually happens). The long hesitation lends credence to the former, of course - and when the opps find a hole in their bidding system, usually you get a good result. Sometimes it's -800 instead of -500...

I don't see -800 E/W, -500 N/S as out of the picture - or -800 with a "this is a basic Precision auction, you need to know what to do with this hand" PP (provided the conditions of contest allow for that); but I lean towards "rub of the green".

[campboy]

Certainly agree that 1NT is wild and gambling.

The NS auction concerns me. When South doubled did North still believe the previous pass showed 0-3? If so, why did he choose to pass out 1NTx? If not, why did he not correct his explanation?

Even if we believe that there was no MI, do we consider that North's final pass was suggested by partner's explanation? Note that if we adjust on that basis, EW would get full redress since the call which might be illegal happened after the IWoG action.

[greenender]

I have rather more sympathy for E/W that some other posters. I suspect that they may have been relatively unsophiscticated players (I'd love to play regularly against a pair whose systemic bid on the E hand over a strong 1♣ is 1♦ rather than a natural 3♦ or some other form of space-consuming germ warfare).

It does seem odd that S's only apparent systemic bid was to show a GF hand with length in the suit bid naturally on his right. Strong clubbers get to know very early on that they need to sort out their methods to cope with intervention over the 1♣ opening. Perhaps the fact that they seem not to have thought through the implications of playing "system on" over 1♣ (1♦) stems from the rarity of a natural 1♦ overcall over a big club. Still it is surprising that there doesn't seem to have been a bid to show a balanced hand of whatever strength S thought he held, with or without a ♦ stop - about as surprising as the fact that they did have a bid to show a game force with ♦s.

But did this amount to an implicit agreement that Pass was not simply 0-3? I doubt it, but it will do for the future. This is the sort of rub of the green windfall that pairs like N/S are allowed to benefit from just once.

[Codo]

1. Now this is really funny:

Partner bid a long suit at the onelevel , rho pronounced 0-3 HCPS. I have a balanced hand with 8 HCPS, stopper in all suits and support for his length. They have no communication and not yet named a long suit.

1 NT is IWOG?

LOL.


2. My partner shows 0-3 HCPS and later doubled 1 NT. I have no diamond control myself and no running suit. My only hope to beat this is, when partner owns the king of heart and a late diamond stopper. But I still sit for the double and gamble that 1 NT X is better then 2 or even 4 Heart if partner has a fit and the king of heart.
Why?

To me this is much closer to IWOG then the 1 NT bid or the pass of the double.

[mycroft]

Hmm, Codo, you have a point.

*If* people overcall with these kinds of suits over Precision clubs, then I can see 1NT working - except, of course, that it didn't in real life, and partner did have that kind of suit. But, of course, it's a 15-count opposite 8 instead of (as expected) a 20-count opposite 3. Of course, if the 3 contains either DT8xxx or HK, it's still going down.

However, in my experience playing Precision club, even the ones who don't know to push, hard, don't have these kinds of suits - 1D is more likely KJxxx and an outside K (skip the outside K, or both, if they're experienced - as greenender says, this hand looks like 2D or 3D to me (3D goes for 800, on this hand, sure; but both 1D and 2D *should* go for 620, and maybe they won't double, and maybe they won't be able to work out how to double for penalty). How well does 1NTx play opposite that?

For the second half of your point, again I'm unsure if "forcing through 1NT" means that (1NT) P is forcing or whether 1NT is the first "safe" contract. If the latter - which is more likely given everything else that happened - then North with his minimum made a forcing pass (maybe X is penalty here, so he can't takeout of diamonds?), and South decided his "3" count is suited for defence. And what would pass-and-pull show? 25? I think North painted himself into a corner here. I think the first pass was odd given KQxx AJTxxx in the majors, but given that he did pass 1NT, I think he's got a problem over 1NTx. However...

I admit, I'm not happy with the N/S disclosure; in this auction, I would ask North why he passed. My guess, given only what we know here, is that he "figured it out" given the rest of his system (specifically 1C-(1M)-P being 0-4 or trap) ; if that is the case, that information is disclosable to the opponents, and that may have led to -500. It sounds from the OPs description that the system was known, but what was explained was "0-3" and maybe "0-3; we play systems on over 1D" so North made his decision using information not available to E/W. Note: lots of speculation in this paragraph!

[jdonn]

I think the main point has not been mentioned. No matter how bad you think west's bid was, his argument is even worse!

"If I knew my RHO could be long in partner's suit, I would increase the level to run to that suit when I got in trouble."

Really?

Anyway for whatever it's worth, I just consider west's bid very bad, not wild or gambling. I think it's the type of bid many inexperienced players would make.