[jules101]

---

You are called to the table at the end of the auction, and again at the end of the hand.

The partnership play 2C non promissory Stayman. This is the method the partnership uses to make an invitational raise to 2N (even if they have no 4-card major) as 2N would be a transfer to diamonds.

The partnership agreement is that 1N - 2C - 2H - 3N will show game values AND 4-card S suit. With game values and NO 4-card major responder would just raise 1N to 3N.

North converted 3N to 4S as per agreement.

South now has a moment of panic, and bids 5C.

Everyone passes and you are called to the table, to review the auction, and again at the end of the hand.


South explains she'd forgotten the sequence to 3N showed 4-card S suit. She had decided to bid 2C en route to 3N "because I wanted to find out if my partner had got something in the majors".

4S does not look like a successful spot to South, and so she bid 5C over 4S.


3N makes, 5C is minus one, but 4S is worse spot!

NS got a bad score on the board.

Do you rule the result stands, or do you rule back to 4S minus more than one? Or something else?

[WellSpyder]

Why would I even consider adjusting the score? South can bid whatever they want to, for whatever reasons they feel like, unless they are in receipt of UI. It doesn't look like there is any UI - South just woke up to the implications of their bidding when seeing North bid 4♠ and North's bids are AI for South.

[gordontd]

I can't see any reason to disallow the 5♣ bid, but I would like to ask why North passed it. Was there any UI involved in the form of South agonising over the 4♠ bid? If I was presented with this auction, I'd expect South still to have spades, but to have a hand that wishes to make a slam-try once the apparent spade fit is discovered.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2011-February-17, 06:21, said:

I can't see any reason to disallow the 5♣ bid, but I would like to ask why North passed it. Was there any UI involved in the form of South agonising over the 4♠ bid? If I was presented with this auction, I'd expect South still to have spades, but to have a hand that wishes to make a slam-try once the apparent spade fit is discovered.

Good point, Gordon! We agree over allowing the 5♣ bid, but the subsequent pass is also of interest. Maybe there was no UI, or maybe NS are the class of player who never bid a new suit as a slam try, in which case passing 5♣ may be the only LA, but otherwise it certainly looks strange. Maybe Lamford will suggest an adjustment to 7Sx minus lots?

[bluejak]

Of course better players take 5♣ as a cue, but poorer players do not think that way. Since there is no infraction, why should we adjust?

To be honest, I am somewhat surprised the opposition called the TD at all, and certainly calling at the end of the auction is very strange. My feeling of the whole affair is that both sides are composed of players who are not very good, or perhaps just not experienced.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2011-February-17, 06:30, said:

Good point, Gordon! We agree over allowing the 5♣ bid, but the subsequent pass is also of interest. Maybe there was no UI, or maybe NS are the class of player who never bid a new suit as a slam try, in which case passing 5♣ may be the only LA, but otherwise it certainly looks strange. Maybe Lamford will suggest an adjustment to 7Sx minus lots?

With no UI, I just agree with all the other contributors to this thread, South can do what she likes. If there had been UI, we would have been told so in the OP.

[Phil]

bluejak, on 2011-February-17, 07:54, said:

Of course better players take 5♣ as a cue, but poorer players do not think that way.

Naturally, because its quite possible that the knowledge of a spade fit 'improved' the South hand who wanted to have one more go at slam.

If there is a South that can keep a straight face and bid 5♣, I haven't met one yet.

[jules101]

So what is consensus on North's action over 5C?

N S
1N - 2C
2D - 3N
4S - 5C
??

May North pass on basis they "know" (from prior experience) or "suspect" wheels have come off. 3N is a limit bid after all!

Or are they obliged to bid on as if 5C is cue agreeing Spades, and slam interest.


I'm unclear if we are ruling that 5C may be the final contract?

[bluejak]

I would know at the table the quality and type of players, and their reaction to certain ideas. Without being at the table it is difficult to tell. For example, if they are players who never bid controls, then such players will pass 5♣ always without understanding what is going on.

[ahydra]

On the other hand if they are at least club-level-competent players, North has a 5S bid (don't see any other action given he has no aces). Hence, an adjustment to 5S (possibly doubled) making however many tricks?

ahydra

[bluejak]

Why?

It does not matter if you think he has a 5♠ bid: where is the infraction that allows you to adjust?

[iviehoff]

jules101, on 2011-February-18, 07:18, said:

May North pass on basis they "know" (from prior experience) or "suspect" wheels have come off.

Yes, it is completely legal to use prior experience, suspicions, today's horoscope, etc, as the basis for making calls.

The problem that may arise in such cases is providing full disclosure to the other side.

[ahydra]

bluejak, on 2011-February-21, 15:45, said:

Why?

It does not matter if you think he has a 5♠ bid: where is the infraction that allows you to adjust?

My understanding of these situations is that each must bid according to the system they "believe they were playing" at the time the misbid was made. South is bidding as if 3NT doesn't show spades - fine, that's a misbid. But North is bidding to the partnership agreement, i.e. 3NT shows spades, 4S agrees spades, 5C is a cue bid but spades are still trumps so we'd expect the final contract to be spades. "Fielded misbid" I believe is the term. But as I'm not a TD, I may well be wrong and any correction would be appreciated.

ahydra

[bluejak]

The problem is simple: in England and Wales - and probably the rest of the British Isles - the interpretation is that fielding is a breach of Law 40 whether it is psyche or misbid. They simplify matters for their TDs by covering what happens next by regulation.

The problem is that elsewhere in the world it is not generally understood this way. While no authority have ever written anything that I have seen or heard of to explain the difference, as a practical matter fielding of psyches is treated as illegal, fielding of misbids is not.

Now you could rule a fielded misbid illegal and quote Law 40 anywhere in the world but it seems to me that other TDs and authorities will not necessarily support your view.

[StevenG]

There seems to be the presumption (in the EBU) that fielding a misbid is somehow equivalent to having a concealed partnership understanding. And yet, I've had these sequences perpetrated against me regularly over the years. If my partner comes up with an impossible bid, the chances are I have a fair idea what is meant - but that is not from partnership experience, but from general bridge knowledge, i.e. having had analogous sequences played against me, and I cannot see any legal or ethical problem with "fielding" under those circumstances.

[bluejak]

If it is an impossible sequence, that may be so. But few sequences are really impossible. So when an unusual sequence is perpetrated, the fact that partner knows what to do is because of his experience of the player, not of general bridge knowledge.

A few "impossible" sequences that have occurred at my table:

1NT - 2♣[Stayman] -
6♥

1NT - 2♥[weak takeout] -
2♠

Pass 1♥ Pass 3♥
3♠

Pass 1♥ 3♣[Ghestem, minors] 3♥
3♠

Pass 1♥ 3♣[weak] 3♥
3♠

In all cases the player had a long suit and the bid was natural. The last two are the sort of sequences where we get players getting Ghestem wrong and arguing "I know he cannot have long spades because of the original pass".

[StevenG]

bluejak, on 2011-February-23, 08:41, said:

A few "impossible" sequences that have occurred at my table:

I assume that those sequences were played by your opponents, though. And you still remember them. Isn't that really my point? It's general bridge knowledge that Ghestem players often forget their own system (but I'm not arguing about Ghestem sequences, where there almost certainly is a history of forgets).

If you find yourself playing with a strange partner who opens 1NT, you Stayman, and he jumps to 6♥, I'm sure you have a good idea of what's going on, even though you've barely spoken to that partner before.

[bluejak]

You assume wrong. Some of them were by myself. I expect my partners to assume a strange call is natural, not impossible. Many posts here and elsewhere, many, many, many posts do not follow this simple approach.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-February-23, 11:21, said:

You assume wrong. Some of them were by myself. I expect my partners to assume a strange call is natural, not impossible. Many posts here and elsewhere, many, many, many posts do not follow this simple approach.

Indeed, I'll add unopposed 1N-2♥(♠)-3N when opener realised his two 4 card black suits were both clubs.