[Chris3875]

---

I'm not sure how the bidding went after this, but East ended up in 6♦
When West made the opening bid of 1♣it was described as "at least 3 clubs".
Before the opening lead was made, there was no explanation from West about this bid being incorrect - his later comment was that he had been thinking of opening 2 clubs (strong) but changed his mind and inadvertently bid 1♣
To compound the problem, at the conclusion of the auction North made an opening lead out of turn which was accepted by East. At no stage was the director called until after the hand when North was disgruntled about the opening bid by West.
6♦ made 12 tricks and was an absolute top for E/W.
This was played at a neighbouring club and I wasn't there on the day. E/W are a very experienced pair - both of them being directors.
Any thoughts on this one?

[Lanor Fow]

Obvoiusly I check the system, but if the system is that it is at least 3 clubs there is no misinformation. People are allowed to misbid.

[billw55]

Lanor Fow, on 2014-July-16, 04:58, said:

Obvoiusly I check the system, but if the system is that it is at least 3 clubs there is no misinformation. People are allowed to misbid.

Agree.

In addition, you don't say how 6♦ made, but I see no damage related to the infraction. Nobody forced north to lead out of turn, and you have not presented any argument from NS as to what would have been different if the west hand had been described as it actually is.

Result stands.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2014-July-16, 06:21, said:

Agree.

In addition, you don't say how 6♦ made

I agree that the result stands.

As to how 6♦ made: As long as North didn't lead hearts (and that looks like an unlikely lead to me) West can make 6♦. On a spade lead he cannot go wrong and on a club lead he needs to guess to play a spade to the 10 (which I think most will do on the theory that some Norths would hop up with the king if they had it) and 12 tricks are there.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Lanor Fow, on 2014-July-16, 04:58, said:

Obvoiusly I check the system, but if the system is that it is at least 3 clubs there is no misinformation. People are allowed to misbid.

This is correct, as far as it goes. But, it touches on something extremely odd. I want to explore a bit further that 1♦ response with QJXXX of Clubs -- perhaps there has been a different violation, or something that should be a violation.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-16, 08:13, said:

This is correct, as far as it goes. But, it touches on something extremely odd. I want to explore a bit further that 1♦ response with QJXXX of Clubs -- perhaps there has been a different violation, or something that should be a violation.

Sure, east may have had alternatives. But unless there is evidence of unauthorized information or CPU, this is irrelevant; east can bid as he chooses.

Admittedly though, the full auction would be interesting.

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2014-July-16, 06:40, said:

I agree that the result stands.

As to how 6♦ made: As long as North didn't lead hearts (and that looks like an unlikely lead to me) West can make 6♦. On a spade lead he cannot go wrong and on a club lead he needs to guess to play a spade to the 10 (which I think most will do on the theory that some Norths would hop up with the king if they had it) and 12 tricks are there.

Rik

Doesn't even need to do that, run the Q then run the 10, either honour in the S hand will do.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2014-July-16, 08:20, said:

Sure, east may have had alternatives. But unless there is evidence of unauthorized information or CPU, this is irrelevant; east can bid as he chooses.

Admittedly though, the full auction would be interesting.

My point was that the 1♦ response itself is an indicator of possible UI or CPU, from which we could look for the "evidence" in their CC, the rest of the auction, and their answers to some questioning.

None of this has anything to do with the principle issue...that West apparently misbid and that he had no obligation to disclose a misbid, and that North's lead out of turn prevented any chance of a heart lead by South to scuttle the contract.

Nevertheless, my nose is twitching --- if for nothing else but future reference. Of course, there is no law against coincidental/reciprocal misbids by each player on the same hand; but, they still raise a flag.

[blackshoe]

I think that it's really easy to sit at our computers and look at a case with little to no real information, and then smell a rat. At the table, it's a different story — the director (particularly in a club game) probably knows his players, everybody know everybody, and the director will have more information about what really happened, and some "table feel" about what was going through the minds of those involved, than we get here. So I think smelling a rat is probably an overbid.

OTOH, the other day I saw something I never expected to see. One of our very good local players, defending some contract or other, played the ♥K the ♥7 on a heart trick. It looked to me like the 7 stuck to the king. It was barely visible peeking out from under the king. He carefully squeezed both cards together so the 7 was not visible, and then when he quitted the trick he smoothly slid the 7 back into his hand. I was dummy, so I didn't say anything at the time. It was a club game, a penalty card wouldn't have made any difference in the play, and I didn't want to start a ruckus, which knowing this guy was almost certain to happen if I called the director (at the end of the hand, of course), so I didn't. I just said to him, at the end of the hand, "Nice play with the seven of hearts". His partner was confused, having not seen the seven drop under the king. I didn't elaborate — but this player knows what he did, and he knows that I know. I figure that's enough. He never said a word in response to my comment, btw.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 09:26, said:

I think that it's really easy to sit at our computers and look at a case with little to no real information, and then smell a rat. At the table, it's a different story — the director (particularly in a club game) probably knows his players, everybody know everybody, and the director will have more information about what really happened, and some "table feel" about what was going through the minds of those involved, than we get here. So I think smelling a rat is probably an overbid.

We are given a strange aroma in the OP; sitting at my computer, I get the drift. Whether it is a rat or two donkeys must be determined in person, but the subject came up while sitting at my computer so it is not an overbid to discuss it.

[mycroft]

I've seen systems where this hand has to bid 1♦ because there is no immediate club raise that shows this strength range. Likely half the systems at my club tonight don't have an immediate minor raise of one level or another (discounting 0-5 hands).

But yeah, I'd ask about it. And whether there's any history.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-16, 08:13, said:

This is correct, as far as it goes. But, it touches on something extremely odd. I want to explore a bit further that 1♦ response with QJXXX of Clubs -- perhaps there has been a different violation, or something that should be a violation.

It obviously depends on the context of the system, but to me the 1♦ response doesn't look suspicious at all. If I would have held that East hand and my partner would open 1♣, I would respond 1♦. The reason: 2♣ is inverted (~10+, no 4M), 3♣ is weak (0-6).

The alternatives with 7-9 hands, without a 4 card major are:
2♦: single suited with 6(5)+ clubs
1NT: pretty much balanced
1♦: Natural

I guess you agree that with these agreements, 1♦ is the obvious bid to make. This is not a revolutionary system. This, or variations on it, are commonly played all over the world. There are also plenty of pairs who play without the conventional 2♦ raise. This means that on those hands they will manufacture a bid of 1NT or 1♦ on a three card suit.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2014-July-16, 12:24, said:

It obviously depends on the context of the system, but to me the 1♦ response doesn't look suspicious at all. If I would have held that East hand and my partner would open 1♣, I would respond 1♦. The reason: 2♣ is inverted (~10+, no 4M), 3♣ is weak (0-6).

The alternatives with 7-9 hands, without a 4 card major are:
2♦: single suited with 6(5)+ clubs
1NT: pretty much balanced
1♦: Natural

I guess you agree that with these agreements, 1♦ is the obvious bid to make. This is not a revolutionary system. This, or variations on it, are commonly played all over the world. There are also plenty of pairs who play without the conventional 2♦ raise. This means that on those hands they will manufacture a bid of 1NT or 1♦ on a three card suit.

Rik

Maybe that is their agreement, which we could look and find out. Alternatively ask East if that was his plan...and see from the auction whether East ever tried to utter clubs. But, no, I don't agree with those agreements. It is an inverted 3C raise, weak but not broke, in our style. But if yours is the style the TD discovers, he would have satisfied the purpose of the inquiry.

The fact that Bidding 1D designed to miss our 5-5 club fit on a different hand where the opponents next bid and raise a Major is interesting as well. I might want to know on:

1C (P) 1D (1H)
P (2H) ?? what tools East has to show his 5-card club support without showing 5D/4C and an invitational hand.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-16, 10:21, said:

We are given a strange aroma in the OP; sitting at my computer, I get the drift. Whether it is a rat or two donkeys must be determined in person, but the subject came up while sitting at my computer so it is not an overbid to discuss it.

I didn't say discussing it was an overbid, I said smelling the rat in the first place is an overbid. You seem to be looking for reasons to smell one. Yeah, there might be something there. I'd say the odds are there's nothing, though.

I didn't say I wouldn't investigate at the table, either, if something looked suspicious.