[bluejak]

Last week my team decided to ask for a ruling. Since the best two TDs in the league are in our team, and the league's Chief TD is married to me, it was decided to get the stuff together and send it to Robin Barker by email for a decision.

However, my team finally decided there was no damage, so the ruling was never sought. But the principle seemed interesting.

Because of the lack of damage there is no point me giving you the hands. So here is the situation.

---

The Multi showed a weak two in either major or a 4441 17-24 hand. 4♦ was not alerted, per EBU rules. It "asks for the major".

Before the opening lead, South asked "What's the range?". West replied "Six to ten".

During the play, South was on lead, and declarer had already shown eight points. Knowing therefore that his partner had the spade ace, he switched to the spade king from Kx.

Unfortunately this was into AQ. Opener had a 4=1=4=4 17 count.

The defence suggested that the response of "Six to ten" without mentioning th possibility of a 4441 17 count was MI. They pointed out that declarer, looking at 17 points, should definitely have corrected it.

Suppose the spade switch had let the contract through. Are there grounds for adjustment?

[gordontd]

I usually find multi players make a point of saying "if it's a weak two" whenever answering questions of this sort, even if the strong option is unlikely or impossible.

When were you told that 4♦ "asks for the major"? And why did East bid 4♠ when that is presumably not the systemic bid, if it shows a weak two in spades?

[aguahombre]

Sympathy for the "offending side". Responder is making a preemptive pass/correct bid with a lot of major suit cards, and doesn't care whether opener is weak 2M or 4X1 strong. This is Bridge logic available to the expert opponents as well.

But wait....no damage? Does that mean responder doesn't have a preempt and should have inquired with 2NT or whatever inquires ---and the other table was down in slam with no IMP difference? Or is it that, seeing four spades in dummy, leading the king from kx could only fetch partner's stiff ace if it were the wk2?

"What's the range?" could easily be interpreted to mean "if it is a weak two". Presumably the alerted 2D already established the range if it were 4X1.

[RMB1]

It is possible that there is no mis-information (except that 4♦ should have been explained as "asks for the major, if I've got a weak two", if anyone asked).

It is very possible that 4♠ shows a weak two in spades, so the explanation "6-10" was accurate. Opener may have realised that they had misbid and so no correction of the explanation "6-10" was appropriate.

Playing these methods, do you have to start showing your 4441 shapes at the five level?

[mycroft]

I have sympathy for the offending side - partner "never" has the 4x1, so we forget about it. I have that problem with 1C-1D-1H; "hearts, < strong 2, or various NT ranges" - I keep forgetting that partner could have "6-6 minors" as well. It never seems to come up, see.

But sympathy is one thing; ruling is another. 99% of the time, what they said was no problem. The 1% of the time that it is a problem, they've committed an infraction, and it caused damage.

Why "no damage" here? Well, in this case it sounds like one overtrick in a team game, which didn't affect the result of the match. So "no damage". If it had been making 3 vs 4 rather than 4 vs 5, however, there would have been meaningful damage, and we'd want to look at the ruling.

I'm assuming that 4D is "I want you to play your major, with no slam aspirations even if you have a Marmic 17" - unless, of course, they have forgotten about the strong bid anyway. I can see that legitimately, with a "break the chain if you have a 20+ four-by" (I play 1C(strong)-4C as a 4=4=1=4 big hand, so our slam investigation starts at a high level too (but, of course, we don't have much to explore).

[gnasher]

As others have said, whether there was misinformation depends on the systemic meaning of 4♠.

However, even if there was misinformation, it seems unlikely that there was damage. Given complete information, the defender would probably have played opener for a weak two anyway.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-February-04, 10:03, said:

Last week my team decided to ask for a ruling. Since the best two TDs in the league are in our team, and the league's Chief TD is married to me, it was decided to get the stuff together and send it to Robin Barker by email for a decision.

However, my team finally decided there was no damage, so the ruling was never sought. But the principle seemed interesting.

Because of the lack of damage there is no point me giving you the hands. So here is the situation.

---

The Multi showed a weak two in either major or a 4441 17-24 hand. 4♦ was not alerted, per EBU rules. It "asks for the major".

Before the opening lead, South asked "What's the range?". West replied "Six to ten".

During the play, South was on lead, and declarer had already shown eight points. Knowing therefore that his partner had the spade ace, he switched to the spade king from Kx.

Unfortunately this was into AQ. Opener had a 4=1=4=4 17 count.

The defence suggested that the response of "Six to ten" without mentioning th possibility of a 4441 17 count was MI. They pointed out that declarer, looking at 17 points, should definitely have corrected it.

Suppose the spade switch had let the contract through. Are there grounds for adjustment?

IMHO "Six to ten" is clearly an incomplete answer and therefore MI. This answer excludes (or accidentally conceals from opponents) the possibility of a strong variant.

So what remains is to judge if this MI caused damage. You have already stated that there was no damage, but had there been then of course (?) there are grounds for adjustment.

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on 2011-February-04, 14:41, said:

IMHO "Six to ten" is clearly an incomplete answer and therefore MI. This answer excludes (or accidentally conceals from opponents) the possibility of a strong variant.

So what remains is to judge if this MI caused damage. You have already stated that there was no damage, but had there been then of course (?) there are grounds for adjustment.

Not necessarily. As gnasher says, we don't yet know if there has been MI or not. To decide that we need to know what opener's systemic bid was over 4D with a 4414 17-count. Perhaps 4S showed a weak two in spades (and if so, that would explain why opener said nothing to correct partner's explanation).

[AlexJonson]

Seems absolutely clearly MI. If you have an 'interesting' auction in a multi , you need to explain it properly.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-February-04, 11:07, said:

"What's the range?" could easily be interpreted to mean "if it is a weak two". Presumably the alerted 2D already established the range if it were 4X1.

I don't see why this should be the case. It is quite possible that the defenders did not ask for an explanation of the opening bid. It may not have been established for the defenders that there were any strong options at all.

[pran]

pran, on 2011-February-04, 14:41, said:

IMHO "Six to ten" is clearly an incomplete answer and therefore MI. This answer excludes (or accidentally conceals from opponents) the possibility of a strong variant.

So what remains is to judge if this MI caused damage. You have already stated that there was no damage, but had there been then of course (?) there are grounds for adjustment.

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-04, 15:32, said:

Not necessarily. As gnasher says, we don't yet know if there has been MI or not. To decide that we need to know what opener's systemic bid was over 4D with a 4414 17-count. Perhaps 4S showed a weak two in spades (and if so, that would explain why opener said nothing to correct partner's explanation).

An explanation like: "Now it is six to ten" implying that the 4♠ bid eliminated the strong option (if that is so) could have been acceptable, but the OP explanation did not indicate any influence from the 4♠ bid.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-February-04, 10:03, said:

The Multi showed a weak two in either major or a 4441 17-24 hand. 4♦ was not alerted, per EBU rules. It "asks for the major".

Before the opening lead, South asked "What's the range?". West replied "Six to ten".

During the play, South was on lead, and declarer had already shown eight points. Knowing therefore that his partner had the spade ace, he switched to the spade king from Kx.

Unfortunately this was into AQ. Opener had a 4=1=4=4 17 count.

The defence suggested that the response of "Six to ten" without mentioning th possibility of a 4441 17 count was MI. They pointed out that declarer, looking at 17 points, should definitely have corrected it.

Suppose the spade switch had let the contract through. Are there grounds for adjustment?

Was a verbal explanaton of the 2♦ bid sought and given, prior to the explanation of the 4♦ bid? Or was the meaning of the 2♦ bid gleaned from the E/W convention card?

[knyblad]

In my opinion it is not clear that the answer is MI. One problem with discussing rulings is that too often, you do not get the whole story, and then people guesses about the rest of the facts.

It seems like N-S have asked questions about the meaning of 2♦. Was there anything in Souths question or the previous discussion that might lead Dummy to think that the question was just about the weak variant?

I would like Bluejak to give a full account of the discussion at the table.

[mrdct]

jallerton, on 2011-February-05, 03:22, said:

Was a verbal explanaton of the 2♦ bid sought and given, prior to the explanation of the 4♦ bid? Or was the meaning of the 2♦ bid gleaned from the E/W convention card?

Good question. If the meaning of 2♦ has already been provided, inclusive of the 17-24 range for the 4441 option, then a later question about the range can only pertain to the weak option so it looks like the correct explanation was given.

As others have noted, it is also important to establish what the systemic meaning of 4♠ is. It sounds to me like east has misbid and ought to have bid something other than 4M to show the strong 4441 and west has given a completely accurate explanation of the range for the weak option which 4♠ must surely have shown.

If east, as I suspect, has indeed misbid he is under no obligation to "correct" west's systemically accurate explanation of his range.

[bluejak]

There is no point asking me questions I do not know the answer to. Sorry.

However, I shall give you a general comment based on experience. In my view not one player in fifty considers what to do after a 4♦ response to 2♦. I myself play with a couple of partners who have agreed 4♦ asks for partner's major. None of us have considered the possibility or the effect of the strong variant. I think it quite likely that this has affected what happened at the table.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-February-06, 20:51, said:

However, I shall give you a general comment based on experience. In my view not one player in fifty considers what to do after a 4♦ response to 2♦. I myself play with a couple of partners who have agreed 4♦ asks for partner's major. None of us have considered the possibility or the effect of the strong variant. I think it quite likely that this has affected what happened at the table.

If that is the typical attitude then I think my ruling would have been different.

Initially, I was likely to rule that there was an agreement to not rebid 4M with the 4441 hands but opener had forgot / misunderstood. In that case 6-10 was the agreement about 4♠ and there was no misinformation.

If neither player knew what to do with a strong 4441 after a 4♦ response then there should have been disclosure or a correction before the opening lead: "the weak two option is 6-10 but we have not discussed what to rebid with strong 4441, and we have no explicit agreement that such hands do not also rebid 4M."

So I now think there was misinformation. Of course the defence may still switch to ♠K because the weak two option is more likely but there is a case for damage.

When I played a multi in non-casual (for example, local league teams) partnerships, I did now know how opener rebid the strong type(s) after all responses upto 4♠. Obviously I was in a vanishing minority.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2011-February-07, 09:02

[Poky]

There is no MI. No adjustment. I could hardly see this one as a real problem.
"What's the range?" question obviously refers to the 2♦>4♠ sequence which means "Weak-2 in spades".
If the range of the weak-2S is 6-10 then, this should be the only correct answer.
Opener bid 4♠ with 4144 as "least of evils" (supposing, probably not so wrongly if the range od three-suiter is 17-23, this would on long run be better than rebidding 4NT), not because this is a systemic treatment.
Opener should not correct the explanation of "6-10" because this is the right explanation.

What was the leader's and dummy's shape?

[bluejak]

If opener is always going to rebid 4♠ on this hand [he actually had a 4=1=4=4 17 count] then it is an agreement, implicit perhaps, and thus disclosable.

[Poky]

bluejak, on 2011-February-07, 07:11, said:

If opener is always going to rebid 4♠ on this hand [he actually had a 4=1=4=4 17 count] then it is an agreement, implicit perhaps, and thus disclosable.

Well, "always going to rebid" it's a heavy assumption. And probably a virtual one.
How do you know it? Did it happen before? I seriously doubt it.

If this sequence never happened before when opener held (4441) and if partners never discussed what should opener do with (4441), this isn't and shouldn't be treated as their agreement. As the word clearly suggests, an "agreement" is somtething about what two people "agree", and this could be done in one of two ways:
a. by talking about it (explicit agreement);
b. by previous experience (implicit agreement).

Sorry, but having an agreement "by future experience" is a little bit too (oxy)moronic for my taste.

By the way, if you are right, what's the agreement with 44(41) and 17 count? A slooooow 4♥ perhaps.

[Vampyr]

Poky, on 2011-February-07, 09:01, said:

If this sequence never happened before when opener held (4441) and if partners never discussed what should opener do with (4441), this isn't and shouldn't be treated as their agreement. As the word clearly suggests, an "agreement" is somtething about what two people "agree", and this could be done in one of two ways:
a. by talking about it (explicit agreement);
b. by previous experience (implicit agreement).

I disagree with this. I think that if a bid is forced on you by your system, it is an intrinsic part of your system and is "your agreement". It is not fair to the opponents if you can leave gaping holes in your system, and then when you make the bid that turns out to be forced you claim that it wasn't your agreement.