[FelicityR]

Last week I was at the mercy of a pick-up partner ("I'm still a novice" - his words) at the club as my regular partner had to cancel at last minute. We quickly agreed some conventions, and did reasonably well considering. However, this board showed that on some bidding sequences we were not quite on the same wavelength.

---

West led the ♦3 against the contract, ♦10 from dummy, ♦J from East and ♦A from me as South. And the opponents didn't ask any questions before leading.

As you can probably work out already, I had interpreted my partner's 2♣ bid as Stayman, and we had reached 3NT eventually, a contract that should have gone down with best defence. However, I had a feeling that the opponents would lead diamonds again even though I now had 9 tricks available. I played the ♥K at trick 2, ducked by East, overtook the ♥10 in dummy at trick three, taken by East, and luckily East then returned a ♦, so I ended up with 12 tricks. A complete swindle, I agree. But that's Matchpoints.

At another table 3NT was reached by the sequence 1♦- 1NT - Pass - 3NT. I found out later that the director had been called and the score of 3NT-1 had stood after West had led the ♠K. East had paused significantly (over 15 seconds) before contributing the ♠3, and West had continued with the ♠2 defeating the contract. North/South having called the director but then didn't want to make too much of a fuss, and not having the best of evenings congratulated their opponents on finding the best lead and let the result stand! (Very British. And yes, I had to laugh at that, too )

And, as always, thank you for your replies in advance. So...

1) Was it madness to try for overtricks here when the contract could go down?
2) Should I have given my explanation/interpretation for the bidding before the opponents led?
3) At the other table should the director have let the result stand given there was probably UI (Unauthorised Information), even though North/South called him and decided to then withdraw their grievance?

[pescetom]

No I don't think it is madness at MP to take that risk for overtricks. The rest is hard to say because a few things seem out of place. The 2 and 3 of ♠ are inverted in the diagram compared to your description. Not sure where you were playing (EBU?) but wasn't Stayman subject to Announcement or Alert? Are you saying that you did this but then decided for some reason that he did not mean Stayman? His 3♥ makes no sense to me either as a natural bid or as a Stayman reply, given his hand (I would bid 2NT).

[FelicityR]

pescetom, on 2019-July-28, 07:32, said:

No I don't think it is madness at MP to take that risk for overtricks. The rest is hard to say because a few things seem out of place. The 2 and 3 of ♠ are inverted in the diagram compared to your description. Not sure where you were playing (EBU?) but wasn't Stayman subject to Announcement or Alert? Are you saying that you did this but then decided for some reason that he did not mean Stayman? His 3♥ makes no sense to me either as a natural bid or as a Stayman reply, given his hand (I would bid 2NT).

Thank you for noting. Original post amended. Yes, my partner's 3♥ bid suggested he had 5♥s, but please remember he is a novice and thought his 2♣ bid was natural, too. I wasn't sure either - we hadn't discussed this - so I didn't alert. That's why I asked about the ethicality of the result of the hand. 3NT+3 was a top score. At my table the opponents (who I know well) accepted the result without any fuss.

[ahydra]

1) Certainly nothing wrong with swindling the opponents if you think they would defend the way they did Reading your opps is part of the game.

2) I can't recall whether Stayman requires an alert in this position under EBU regs, but if it does, you should have alerted and explained "We haven't discussed, but it could be Stayman". I don't see any alternative to bidding 3NT on the third round - if partner had 6 hearts, he would have bid 4H, so he has at most 5, and clearly no spade fit.

3) I believe the White Book says that a pause at trick 1 should not be considered to convey UI (and quite correctly so). East could equally have been thinking about the hand as a whole. So unless there was some other UI that really suggested a spade continuation, result stands.

ahydra

[Tramticket]

ahydra, on 2019-July-28, 23:18, said:

2) I can't recall whether Stayman requires an alert in this position under EBU regs, but if it does, you should have alerted and explained "We haven't discussed, but it could be Stayman".

An artificial 2♣ requires an alert under EBU regulations. The Blue Book is also clear (2 D 2):

Quote

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call.

So if you think that it might be Stayman - which would be a universal agreement where I play - you should alert.

The 3♥ bid is an unusual bid for a novice to make. I must admit that my experience is that it would be a slam try agreeing spades and if that is a possibility for you, you should possibly be cue-bidding! Had you agreed to play red-suit transfers? If so, I would not expect the 3♥ bid to be natural and showing a five-card suit.

[pescetom]

I don't see anything badly wrong with the pause at trick one, unless declarer had already made a significant pause before playing from dummy (as he should but rarely does) and the 3 discourages continuation in their agreements (does it?).

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2019-July-29, 02:09, said:

I don't see anything badly wrong with the pause at trick one, unless declarer had already made a significant pause before playing from dummy (as he should but rarely does) and the 3 discourages continuation in their agreements (does it?).

I think that this is the potential problem - I'm guessing that if their agreement was that the three encourages it would be played without pause. Nevertheless, there is a presumption that a pause at trick one does not convey UI. I guess that, if it could be shown that East never pauses on other hands ... or the pause was significantly longer than would be expected, it might be argued that there is UI.

West has embarked on a speculative lead, but when the king stands up I think that it is questionable whether switching is a logical alternative.

[msjennifer]

Madam/Miss.Kindly consider my replies to the thee questions posed by you.(1)Certainly it can not be considered as madness to try for over tricks at ones own risk.However,personally I would not do it unless I wanted to make up for earlier disasters(.Nothing wrong in taking the risk as spades may get blocked or they might not find the spade switch).(2) There is no need to tell "What you take it as".In fact if you have said it loudly enough it might be construed as UI.(3)At the other table ,if the opponents defence methods were "small encourages" then taking a pause ,in my opinion, does not make any difference.The result stands.As a matter of fact, one is expected to report TD as soon as an irregularity happens and not when the results are considered too be unfavourable.
'

[pescetom]

msjennifer, on 2019-July-29, 02:27, said:

(2) There is no need to tell "What you take it as".In fact if you have said it loudly enough it might be construed as UI.

Not only is there no need but you should avoid telling "What you take it as", if you have just alerted and explained that you are unsure what the agreement is. That is however not the problem here, but rather that Felicity took 2♣ as Stayman and failed to alert - and then compounded this error when she decided for some reason that partner had not intended Stayman, yet failed to inform the opponents before they faced the opening lead, or to call the TD (as was advisable, and necessary if she also realised that she had failed to alert).

msjennifer, on 2019-July-29, 02:27, said:

(3)At the other table ,if the opponents defence methods were "small encourages" then taking a pause ,in my opinion, does not make any difference.

Yes, but I respectfully suggest that you are again skirting the point. If the opponents defence methods were such that 3 discourages, what then?

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-July-29, 07:22, said:

Yes, but I respectfully suggest that you are again skirting the point. If the opponents defence methods were such that 3 discourages, what then?

Exactly, too many people before making a dodgy signal because they don't have the right card, hesitate. It's more common in the odd encouraging/even something else type signals but happens here too

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-July-29, 08:45, said:

Exactly, too many people before making a dodgy signal because they don't have the right card, hesitate. It's more common in the odd encouraging/even something else type signals but happens here too

I agree completely.

But the white book does have (8.73.2.2):

Quote

Pause by third hand
Whether or not declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. No disclaimer is necessary.

The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence, TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one.

In an ideal world the EBU might regulate to mandate a pause at trick 1. But, given the widescale abuse of the stop card procedure for skip bids, I doubt that it would be effective.

So, two questions:
(1) Would you have led the ♠K on this auction?
(2) If you chose to lead the King, would you continue if East plays an in tempo ♠3? [I wrote this morning that it was questionable whether you would switch - but I don't think that I was very awake!].

[GrahamJson]

Regarding point 2, your interpretation of the bidding, the EBU White book states “A player who is not sure whether or not a call made is alertable should alert it. If there is no partnership understanding about the meaning of the call, the player should say so rather than say how is going to treat it.” That seems clear enough.

[miamijd]

Lot of things going on here.

We know East has everything for the opponents except maybe one card. Thus:

1. At trick one, win the Qd, not the Ad (or the Kd). By playing A, you tell East that you also have the K (if you had AQ, you would have won the Q, and if you had only the A, West would have led an honor from the KQ). Kd is slightly better, as there might be room for East to think West has A9x. But Qd is best, because now there is room in West's hand for either A9x (from East's perspective) or (more likely) Kxx. You want to fool East into playing more D when he wins Ah.

2. Yes, go for overtricks at MPs in most fields. Everyone will be in 3NT. When in with the Ah, it will be tempting for East to play more d (provided you played the Qd). A good East will shift to spades (especially if the opponents play Reverse Smith), but even there, taking 4 tricks will be extremely difficult. East will have to shift to a small spade from AQJx or AKJx; not easy, and potentially very risky if you have the missing spade honor. More likely, spades split 3/3 or else West has the four spades, in which case they will block. You might even find East with AK tight.

3. In ACBL-land, you never give "your interpretation" of the bidding unless (A) there was a missed alert (there wouldn't have been in ACBL-land) or (B) the opponents ask questions (and even there, the information you should give is limited).

4. As to the other table, it depends what defensive signals E-W were using. If UDCA, then of course everything stands; East encouraged spades. If standard, then I think switching to a diamond is a distinct possibility, so I would consider possibly adjusting the score. This is where a mandatory pause by declarer at trick one could help a lot.

Cheers,
mike

[dsLawsd]

All good discussion. I think it depends on the skill levels of the opponents and the field. Good players will defeat the contract so I take Woolsey's advice to take a plus score. Against bad players do what your running score dictates.
The pause really should be mandatory at trick one- but we soon know who the bad actors are.
The Director can be called if there should have been an alert and damage has been caused. But without more I let the result stand.

Regards. (2 clubs would not be an alert in ACBL unless something special in the understanding)

[ahydra]

Tramticket, on 2019-July-29, 09:30, said:

(1) Would you have led the ♠K on this auction?

Agree - the lead of SK is a hundred times more suspicious than West's continuing the suit! Both a heart and a diamond look like much more obvious alternatives. I wonder how he/she found that.

ahydra

[miamijd]

Tramticket, on 2019-July-29, 09:30, said:

I agree completely.

But the white book does have (8.73.2.2):



In an ideal world the EBU might regulate to mandate a pause at trick 1. But, given the widescale abuse of the stop card procedure for skip bids, I doubt that it would be effective.

So, two questions:
(1) Would you have led the ♠K on this auction?
(2) If you chose to lead the King, would you continue if East plays an in tempo ♠3? [I wrote this morning that it was questionable whether you would switch - but I don't think that I was very awake!].

The auction where the Ks was led was (per the OP) 1d (1NT) p (3NT).

Holding the West hand, I think it's a coin flip what to lead. Just about anything could be right. I'd probably lead a pedestrian diamond, but I don't think the Ks is insane. You know partner has four of them.

Yes, if the Ks holds, I'm continuing spades, although that could be quite wrong if partner has Axxx and declarer QJx

[johnu]

ahydra, on 2019-July-29, 17:53, said:

Agree - the lead of SK is a hundred times more suspicious than West's continuing the suit! Both a heart and a diamond look like much more obvious alternatives. I wonder how he/she found that.

Going for the ruff

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2019-July-30, 00:38, said:

Going for the ruff

More seriously, perhaps a double of 3nt by East.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2019-July-29, 09:30, said:

I agree completely.

But the white book does have (8.73.2.2):



In an ideal world the EBU might regulate to mandate a pause at trick 1. But, given the widescale abuse of the stop card procedure for skip bids, I doubt that it would be effective.

I think they should do so all the same: the current rule makes life easy for TDs and defenders but seems unfair to ethical declarers who make the due pause.

Our RA now recommends a pause, which is not as good as an obligation but does at least give TD a foothold to act against blatant hesitation signals by defender.

[dsLawsd]

It sounds like North has invitational clubs and hearts- but we need to see their convention card.

If E-W are quite good defenders, then the spade K makes sense because it creates a tempo no matter who has the Ace. This is on the assumption that partner has around 11 points including 3 or 4 spades.

After the K holds I make the apparently natural switch to a highest heart. Perhaps we can tangle declarer's entries in case a squeeze is in the offing?