[Pig Trader]

Scoring: IMP

-- -- -- No
1♣ 2♣(A,1) 3♣ 3[H]
Dbl(2) 4♦ No No
Dbl(3) No No No

---

(1) explained as cro, 5/5 two suits of same colour
(2) no explanation asked or given
(3) again after west enquired south confirmed minimum 5/5 red suits

Hi, all! I have been asked for comments on a ruling at a One-Day-Green-Pointed Swiss Teams event in England at the weekend. I wasn't there, but the West player on the above deal wrote:

After lead of ♣3 north said "Sorry. I should explain that I pulled out the wrong bid."
At this point the director was called and we were told to play the board in 4♦X and then call her back.
4♦X was made.

The West player then described the ruling and asked

Would be interested in your views please.

I am wondering whether it is reasonable to consider that South should treat the 4♦ bid by North as constructive, possibly with extra diamond length, and therefore repeat his heart preference by bidding 4♥. The fly in the ointment is that North should perhaps not be bidding 4♦ over 3♥?

I don't have any other information available other than the actual ruling. Over to you!

Barrie

[awm]

Certainly seems like a fielded misbid.

But I'm not sure there is a link between the misinformation (it should be treated as misinformation given south's bidding regardless of the N/S stated agreement) and the result. It seems likely that if West were told that north has the pointed suits, he would still double. The double is more influenced by East's ridiculous raise on no values than by the MI. So it seems the table result should stand, with a possible procedural penalty assessed for South's actions (claiming his partner has the reds, but failing to correct to hearts holding 4-2 in the suits).

[Fluffy]

I don't think north has any rights to pull 3♥X.

[mycroft]

I do - but not to 4D. 3S is the call (3H should be "wanting to compete, in one suit or the other" - yes, with 5 clubs he "knows" I have the red suits, but still. Partner can't have a "don't care" 3H - he didn't open). Which is going to confuse partner no end...

I think if partner works it out after 3S, he's golden (amber misbid at worst). 4D is the definition of "unauthorized panic" (bid your longest suit at the cheapest level after partner "misexplains"), and deserves to be butchered.

[suprgrover]

Fluffy, on Sep 28 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

I don't think north has any rights to pull 3♥X.

But defeating 3♥x is not trivial--starting with two top trumps, say, allows South to make. West needs to switch to diamonds or spades at the right time so that South cannot pull trumps and use one or both pointed suit finesses. (The defense may be close enough to double-dummy as to be minimally probable.)

[campboy]

South's failure to bid 4♥ certainly looks like a fielded misbid. In the EBU, the normal procedure for dealing with a fielded misbid is an artificial adjusted score of 40/60 (unless NOS did better on the board). Of course, there is also the possibility of adjusting based on North having used UI.

However, that raises an interesting point. If the explanation given was correct, there was a fielded misbid. If not, there was no misbid (fielded or otherwise), but there was MI. How does the TD decide which, assuming the CC is no help? While the laws say he should presume MI in the absence of evidence to the contrary, does this really mean he cannot rule fielded misbid? I doubt it, but it would be nice to hear from someone with more experience of such rulings. On this hand I think it is academic anyway, because of the UI issue.

Mycroft -- I'm not sure I understand how you expect North to interpret 3♥ given that he (presumably) thinks he has shown spades and diamonds. But surely passing is an LA? After all, South will get the chance to bid again.

[Cyberyeti]

There is another issue here, if N thinks he bid something else showing spades and diamonds, he is not allowed to be alerted to the fact that he didn't by the explanation. The question is what a free bid of 3♥ shows if he's shown a ♠/♦ 2 suiter.

It could be hearts, or hearts and a fit for one of the others. Since it's a passed hand, I would suspect the latter, now 4♦ is an entirely reasonable bid.

[campboy]

It is not enough for 4♦ to be reasonable. Since the UI suggests 4♦ over pass, 4♦ is not allowed unless passing is unreasonable -- and I don't think it is. If South has "hearts and fit for one of the others" he can bid again himself.

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on Sep 28 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

It is not enough for 4♦ to be reasonable. Since the UI suggests 4♦ over pass, 4♦ is not allowed unless passing is unreasonable -- and I don't think it is. If South has "hearts and fit for one of the others" he can bid again himself.

OK, I'll rephrase that, pass is only in the frame for me if there's any possibility that partner has hearts only. I know there is no possibility whatsoever of this with my own normal agreements, the pair in question should be asked. Questions should include what their 2♥ opener is etc.

If partner has hearts and another suit, the chance of me wanting to play in hearts is minuscule. Too much danger of dummy being denuded of trumps and either clubs being cashed or a load of trumps being lost. I think bidding something is 100% and 4♦ is as good as any.

I actually think 3♥ should say I have values, support and want you to consider leading a heart if they save in clubs. (given the premise that N thinks he's shown ♠/♦).

The question in my mind is can south pass 4♦.

He has no UI unless body language gives it away, so can do what he likes.

He can also more or less diagnose what's going on. It seems very unlikely oppos have a 9 card spade fit, so partner has 3. Unless he's bid in very bent fashion on a 3460, he must be 3550 and no way would he bid 4♦ with that shape.

Therefore hearts and diamonds is looking very unlikely.

[bluejak]

Quote

I actually think 3♥ should say I have values, support and want you to consider leading a heart if they save in clubs. (given the premise that N thinks he's shown ♠/♦).

Very reasonable. Was it alerted? Assuming not, then they do not play it to mean this. I expect South to have six hearts and a hand unsuitable to open a weak two.

The trouble with not knowing what the double of 3♥ is is that it is critical. If it was takeout, perhaps a game try, then North is bidding 4♥ without the unauthorised panic. If it is penalties, I am not convinced that East would pass it.

As for "I bid the wrong thing", yeah, right. No doubt they knew it was wrong when partner described it. [Not a great selection of smileys here!]

[awm]

There's also some issue as to whether north thought he unambiguously showed spades and diamonds with his cuebid, or whether he thought the cuebid showed one of several possible two-suited hands including spades and diamonds as a possibility.

I rather assumed the latter here, since they apparently do play 2♣ as showing one of several possible two suiters (just that ♠+♦ isn't actually one of the options). In this case it is logical to treat 3♥ as a pass/correct bid which north would never pass since hearts is not one of his suits. In fact, it seems more ethical to bid 4♦ here than 3♠, since 3♠ would show ♠+♣ (two suits same color) which south can easily work out is impossible after the club raise (thus made more appealing by the explanation).

So I don't really think there's an issue with north's 4♦ call. South's pass of 4♦ is more suspicious, especially after reiterating his "red suits" explanation.

[FrancesHinden]

One minor point:

If the opening 1C was natural (as it appears to have been), then if the 2C bid was supposed to show "two suits same colour" they have to be hearts and diamonds.

It's not legal in EBU events to play 2C as either the reds or the blacks.

People who play CRO 2-suited overcalls frequently describe them as "colour, rank, odd" but over a natural opening it's always the case that the suits are completely specified, the suit opened is not included.

As for misexplanation or misbid, it would be nice to know what their card actually says. The EBU Orange Book says that if you play 2-suited overcalls you should write out what the bids mean, not just use a name such as 'CRO', although not many people bother. (For example, I know that CRO is colour, rank,odd but I don't know what order the bids 2C, 2NT and 3C come in)

[bluejak]

Unlike Ghestem, I think there are only two simple possibilities for "CRO". Cue, 2NT, 3♣ in that order show two suits of the same colour, rank, other [shape].

For the sensible majority, that means that over 1♣ the following is unambiguous:
2♣ = red, ♦+♥
2NT = major, ♥+♠
3♣ = other [pointed], ♦+♠

For the minority, who have taken up "CRO" without thinking about it at all, when it first comes up:
2♣ = red or black
2NT = major or minor
3♣ = pointed or rounded

Yes, I know that is both silly and illegal, but trust me: I have experienced it!

On the actual hand, I think there is no doubt that North bid 2♣ forgetting it showed ♦+♥, and 4♦ was unauthorised panic and illegal.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on Sep 28 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

Unlike Ghestem, I think there are only two simple possibilities for "CRO".  Cue, 2NT, 3♣ in that order show two suits of the same colour, rank, other [shape].

For the sensible majority, that means that over 1♣ the following is unambiguous:
2♣ = red, ♦+♥
2NT = major, ♥+♠
3♣ = other [pointed], ♦+♠

For the minority, who have taken up "CRO" without thinking about it at all, when it first comes up:
2♣ = red or black
2NT = major or minor
3♣ = pointed or rounded

Yes, I know that is both silly and illegal, but trust me: I have experienced it!

On the actual hand, I think there is no doubt that North bid 2♣ forgetting it showed ♦+♥, and 4♦ was unauthorised panic and illegal.

If he thought he'd pulled 3♣ out of the bidding box (particularly if he had pulled STOP 2♣), can he correct it when the explanation was given, if he only at that point realises he hasn't pulled what he thought he had, and it's before anybody else has bid, but he's had his attention brought to it by the question/answer ?

I agree with bluejak, he realised he'd misbid rather than a mechanical error with the very precise exception that if he pulled STOP 2♣ I think he can justifiably claim mechanical error.

[bluejak]

Yes, there is plenty of case Law to indicate that even information which would be unauthorised for other purposes may be used to realise you have pulled out the wrong bidding card.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on Sep 29 2009, 12:35 AM, said:

If he thought he'd pulled 3♣ out of the bidding box (particularly if he had pulled STOP 2♣), can he correct it when the explanation was given, if he only at that point realises he hasn't pulled what he thought he had, and it's before anybody else has bid, but he's had his attention brought to it by the question/answer ?

I agree with bluejak, he realised he'd misbid rather than a mechanical error with the very precise exception that if he pulled STOP 2♣ I think he can justifiably claim mechanical error.

There is precedent in the EBU that you can change your call under 25A even if the mechanism by which you become aware that you have made a mechanical error is partner's alert/non-alert. Presumably the same would apply to an explanation. Of course, as you say, it will probably be difficult to convince a TD that this was a mechanical error.

[mycroft]

Okay, I thought that CRO, the way it was described in the OP, was legal (what do I know from Orange Book?) In which case, if I show O, and partner bids one of the suits I don't have, I correct to the lowest of the suits I do have and partner P/C/raises/slamtries/whatever. Facing a 3+C, it seems like a reasonable defence, (and facing a 2+C, even more so).

If these bids have to be two known suits (or two-suited, at least one known), then I (think I)'ve shown D+S, partner bid hearts. I still posit that there's no hand partner could have that wouldn't play better in one of my suits (unless he missorted his hand on the first pass, 42322 or something like that, with both long suits being red and round), given that he passed as dealer. I think 3S gets the point across.

So I can't see pass as an LA. 4D is clearly using UI, however.

[bluejak]

Any defence is permitted to an artificial 1♣, but over a 3+ card 1♣ a two-suited defence must have one suit specified.

The description in the OP is the normal way of describing it even though it is understood to be unbid suits. However, as I explained, for people who take it up with no discussion .....

[Pig Trader]

My thanks for your comments.

The ruling was that 4♦ was bid as a result of UI and that passing was a LA, and a weighted adjustment was reached of 3♥ doubled making 50% of the time and one off 50% of the time. Deep Finesse says that 3♥ can be defeated, but it looks rather DD, and it'll make probably rather more often than not, I would think. So the ruling was along the lines of the consensus here.

It seems from the replies, that if we consider that North should have passed 3♥, then we don't need to look at whether South should have converted 4♦ to 4♥.

But is this always right? Let's assume a similar case where if we were to consider an adjustment for a first irregularity, we would find no damage to the NOS, but if we were to consider an adjustment instead for a second irregularity, we would find that the NOS had been damaged. Can we adjust for the second irregularity now?

Barrie

[Vampyr]

campboy, on Sep 28 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

In the EBU, the normal procedure for dealing with a fielded misbid is an artificial adjusted score of 40/60 (unless NOS did better on the board).

I thought it was 60/30