[jeffford76]

---

2♥ was properly alerted, but explained upon request as an opening hand with hearts and a minor, not a preempt with hearts and a minor. 3♣ was not alerted, but was asked about and explained before the 3NT bid.

After the hand was over East said that he would have bid differently with correct information, doubling instead of bidding 3NT. I asked West what double would be in that position, and he said that it was undiscussed, but that generally would expect cards / takeout.

Do you adjust the score? Remember it's 2016, so you can weight now in the ACBL if you want to.

At least one of the players regularly reads here, so be nice.

This post has been edited by jeffford76: 2016-January-06, 16:51
Reason for edit: Fix East/West swap

[jallerton]

 jeffford76, on 2016-January-06, 16:37, said:

After the hand was over West said that he would have bid differently with correct information, doubling instead of bidding 3NT. I asked East what double would be in that position, and he said that it was undiscussed, but that

According to your bidding diagram, West didn't bid 3NT, he passed throughout.

[blackshoe]

There was MI. Did it cause damage? Sure. 3NT probably makes 5, for plus 460. 3♣X looks to be down 8 or so. They might run to 3♦. That will also get doubled, with probably the same result. I would adjust the score to +2000 for NS, -2000 for EW. I don't see a need for weighting, but I wouldn't object to some fairly equal distribution of down 7, down 8, and down 9. :-)

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-06, 17:27, said:

There was MI. Did it cause damage? Sure. 3NT probably makes 5, for plus 460. 3♣X looks to be down 8 or so. They might run to 3♦. That will also get doubled, with probably the same result. I would adjust the score to +2000 for NS, -2000 for EW. I don't see a need for weighting, but I wouldn't object to some fairly equal distribution of down 7, down 8, and down 9. :-)

3NT makes 7, and it's not hard to do so (4 spades, 4 hearts, 4 diamonds, 1 club). Why would east sit for a cards/takeout double of 3♣?

[blackshoe]

 jeffford76, on 2016-January-06, 17:32, said:

3NT makes 7, and it's not hard to do so (4 spades, 4 hearts, 4 diamonds, 1 club). Why would east sit for a cards/takeout double of 3♣?

The (edited, as I read it) OP says it was East who said he would double. Would West sit for it? Can EW find 7NT, or 6?

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-06, 17:43, said:

The (edited, as I read it) OP says it was East who said he would double. Would West sit for it? Can EW find 7NT, or 6?

Sheesh, I keep switching E/W, sorry. East said he would have doubled. West said that would have been cards/takeout. I meant why would West sit for East's double?

As to your last question, isn't deciding that the point?

[blackshoe]

 jeffford76, on 2016-January-06, 17:47, said:

Sheesh, I keep switching E/W, sorry. East said he would have doubled. West said that would have been cards/takeout. I meant why would West sit for East's double?

As to your last question, isn't deciding that the point?

Perhaps. Down 7 doubled is +1700. A non-vulnerable grand slam is +1520. I suppose West might not think they can take it down that many.

[wank]

east claims he would have doubled 3c for takeout. well lol at that.

of course east bids 3NT anyway. if anyone was damaged it's west, who would be more inclined to make a quantitative raise if he didn't think RHO had an opening bid. personally i wouldn't rate their chances of getting to slam too highly. i'd give them maybe 30% weighting but i suppose you can poll it.

[blackshoe]

You can't damage one player of a pair. You damage the contestant, i.e. the pair.

The putative double was described as "cards/takeout", which is not the same as "takeout". And besides that West said they'd not discussed what he would mean here, so the description is an assumption, not an understanding.

[wank]

by referring to west as being damaged i was trying to be subtle with regards to the gullibility you demonstrated when you took east's comment about doubling at face value. i suppose you glaze over though when it comes to genuine bridge problems, in much the same way as i glaze over when it comes to pedantry.

[1eyedjack]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-06, 17:27, said:

There was MI.

How do you come to that conclusion? We are not informed who gave the explanation for the 2H, but North's bidding is certainly consistent with the explanation provided.

In *tournaments* in the Acol Club, psychs are banned. So in that environment you could conclude that it was either MI or an illegal call. But in the general Acol Club (and I think in team games), there is no bar on psychs.

If it was MI, then I would say it is more serious than "mere" MI. It can only be a culpable intent to mislead. No-one plays an artificial 2-suited 2H opener otherwise than in a regular partnership where something so basic as the strength of opener is agreed.

[Trinidad]

Let's assume that there was MI (otherwise the case is closed). So, the agreement about 2♥ is: "weak, 5♥, 4+ minor", whereas the explanation was: "an opening, 5♥, 4+ minor"

I don't believe that East would have bid differently, but I think that West might do something after 3NT if he knows that 2♥ shows a weak hand.

So, the question remains: What are the EW methods after a 3NT overcall? The AS depends on what West would do differently. I would simply ask West. (He may well answer that he wouldn't do anything different. )

Rik

[ggwhiz]

A competent west owns either a quantitative raise, landing in 6nt or a pass of a double on these colors, surely beating their own game score and getting much more this time.

New to the weighted scores I'm in for 50-50 of 1020 and 1700.

[barmar]

 1eyedjack, on 2016-January-06, 23:50, said:

How do you come to that conclusion? We are not informed who gave the explanation for the 2H, but North's bidding is certainly consistent with the explanation provided.

We weren't told about any special conditions, so I think we can presume f2f with no screens, so explanations are given by the partner of the bidder, i.e. North. And his bidding is consistent with south being either weak or opening strength.

And from the subject line, I think we can take it as given that the director determined that it was indeed MI, not misbid/psych.

Quote

In *tournaments* in the Acol Club, psychs are banned. So in that environment you could conclude that it was either MI or an illegal call. But in the general Acol Club (and I think in team games), there is no bar on psychs.

Why couldn't it be a misbid? Maybe their agreement is opening strength, but South forgot. But I don't see how that environment is relevant, we're told that this is under ACBL jurisdiction.

Quote

If it was MI, then I would say it is more serious than "mere" MI. It can only be a culpable intent to mislead. No-one plays an artificial 2-suited 2H opener otherwise than in a regular partnership where something so basic as the strength of opener is agreed.

I assume you meant to say "is not agreed".

But if someone plays it strong with some partners, weak with others, they can easily forget which style they're playing with the current partner, and give the wrong explanation.

If we somehow determine that he gave the wrong explanation intentionally, that's C-word territory.

[jeffford76]

I suppose I should have stated this in the original post, but the actual agreement was a preempt. I wouldn't have posted otherwise, as there wouldn't be any misinformation, and there wouldn't be any need to make a ruling.

[weejonnie]

Don't forget that West might have bid if told that 2♥ was weak. EW can make 7NT of course. I don't think that 3♣ doubled is on - given that West thinks the double is possibly for takeout/ cards - East can't risk a substantial minor-suit fit on his hand and cross ruff. I think EW are probably getting to 6NT, but they may end up in 3NT, given that they have no discussion on what the double means. (I assume EW made all 13 when they played it).

So I'm giving it:

75% +1020
25% +520

[lamford]

South did have an opening hand with hearts and a minor in their methods - one that would open 2H. It was not explained as a hand that would open at the one level. There seems to be an assumption that "an opening hand" means "one that would open at the one-level".

However a better explanation would have been "5-9, hearts and a minor". With that explanation, East would still bid 3NT, and West should raise to 4NT. East has an easy 6NT, and I don't think they would reach grand, so I would adjust to 6NT+1.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-January-10, 14:29, said:

There seems to be an assumption that "an opening hand" means "one that would open at the one-level".

That's how the phrase is practically always used in my experience. Similarly, a weak hand that would open at the two level is usually called "a weak two".

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-January-10, 15:57, said:

That's how the phrase is practically always used in my experience.

That's how the phrase is practically always misused in my experience.

 barmar, on 2016-January-10, 15:57, said:

Similarly, a weak hand that would open at the two level is usually called "a weak two".

In England, a Lucas or Muiderberg two would be alerted and not described as a weak two, but described as a two-suiter with a stated point range.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2016-January-10, 14:29, said:

South did have an opening hand with hearts and a minor in their methods - one that would open 2H. It was not explained as a hand that would open at the one level. There seems to be an assumption that "an opening hand" means "one that would open at the one-level".

If someone explains an opening bid as showing an opening hand, they presumably don't merely and unhelpfully mean a hand which would open the bidding in their own methods. They must be saying something about how the hand would be treated in standard methods. And clearly that is not an opening hand (at any level) in standard methods. Nothing about the one level required here.