[Coelacanth]

ACBL
IMP scoring
NS vul

---

1♣ was announced as "could be short". NS, a first-time partnership, have agreed that 2NT shows the two lower unbid suits.

At her 2nd turn, W asked about the 2NT bid and was told "minors". S had made the assumption that clubs counted as "unbid" for the purposes of Unusual 2NT when opener might not have real clubs.

(Let's not get on a tangent about the new ACBL definition of a possibly short 1♣ as "natural".)

West, being well-fortified in both minors, bid 3NT. During the course of play, I was called to the table. I believe this was after N showed out on the 2nd round of clubs, and it became apparent to all that his 2NT bid had been based on hearts and diamonds. The hand was played out and 3NT was defeated.

West was insistent that she would not have bid 3NT had she known that N had hearts. West had ace-doubleton of hearts and did not feel this was adequate as a stopper. You may or may not agree with this bidding judgment, but knowing this player I am confident that she would not have bid 3NT had she been told that 2NT showed the red suits.

I therefore ruled that W had received MI, and (being in the ACBL) I assigned a score based on likely and at-all-probably results. Absent West's 3NT call, North would bid 3♦ (or 3♥) and this would go one off, undoubled.

Lingering questions:
(1) Is North allowed to run from 3♣ if West passes? It is technically a cuebid, but it's also what South would bid with 7 clubs and out.
(2) In terms of the assessment of damage, does it matter that East did not really have his double? After all, the double occurred prior to the MI.
(3) Again thinking about damage, does West's play of 3NT come into consideration? She misplayed the hand badly, making only four tricks when six would be more normal and seven are available double-dummy. Should a score adjustment address "that part of the damage which was self-inflicted", and if so, how would this be reflected in the adjusted score.?

Thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

[barmar]

(1) Absent East's double, I think he can treat it as a forcing cue bid. But that meaning seems unlikely after the double, unless your agreement about passing the double is that he really wants to play 2NT. If you don't have a real agreement about this case (which seems likely with a new partnership), both interpretations are LAs, and the UI makes the cue-bid meaning more likely, so you can't run.

However, if EW then double 3♣, that could give him (or South) license to run.

(2) 12C1b says that you lose the right to relief if you make a SEWoG subsequent to the irregularity. East's bid may have been a serious error, but it was prior to the irregularity. West's bid was subsequent to the irregularity, but it was not an error, since he's permitted to assume his partner has his bid. So even though some of the damage may have been self-inflicted, it doesn't fit the criteria in the Laws for losing relief. I'm not sure if the lawgivers intended this, but it seems to be quite clearly specified.

(3) Declarer's play is subsequent to the irregularity, so you have to judge whether it was bad enough to be considered a "serious error", and whether the misplay was unrelated to the irregularity. But if she would have gotten a plus score from defending 3♣, I'm not sure the number of undertricks in 3NT really matters -- she never would have been declaring at all without the MI.

[hrothgar]

I'd like a better explanation of the East West agreements.

In particular what does West's double show?
(I would normally expect a hand that is willing to penalty double at least one of the opponent's suits)

In which case, why is East (with strong holdings in both minors) pulling to 3NT rather than hitting a vulnerable 3♣?

[Coelacanth]

hrothgar, on 2012-April-23, 09:23, said:

I'd like a better explanation of the East West agreements.

In particular what does WestEast's double show?
(I would normally expect a hand that is willing to penalty double at least one of the opponent's suits)

In which case, why is EastWest (with strong holdings in both minors) pulling to 3NT rather than hitting a vulnerable 3♣?

I believe that their agreement about the double is as suggest: willingness to penalize one of N/S's suits.

East's hand was approximately ♠Qxxx ♥9xxx ♦Jx ♣K98. As I said, he didn't really have his double.

Your point about West's failure to double 3♣ is a good one, of course. It's certainly the call I would make (were I in some alternate universe where I was forced to agree to open 1♣ with as few as two cards there), but I expect she was more focused on what she thought she could make as opposed to what penalty she could extract. 3NT was certainly not her best call, but for a player of her standard it was far from SEWoG.

[c_corgi]

I don't see how either N nor S could justify removing 3CX unless N has extreme shape. Or maybe if S had equivalent holdings in the minors and W manerisms suggested huge club stack AND S had recieved no UI.

How strong is the West hand? If it is too strong for pass to be plausible then double seems less likely than 3NT: weak players generally seem happier to declare 3NT than defend doubled partscores. I suspect E/W getting to 3NT requires more weighting.

Variations where W passes over 3C may need to take into account 'fielded misbid (East's double being the misbid)' if such a thing exists in ACBL.

[Coelacanth]

c_corgi, on 2012-April-23, 15:09, said:

I don't see how either N nor S could justify removing 3CX unless N has extreme shape. Or maybe if S had equivalent holdings in the minors and W manerisms suggested huge club stack AND S had recieved no UI.

How strong is the West hand? If it is too strong for pass to be plausible then double seems less likely than 3NT: weak players generally seem happier to declare 3NT than defend doubled partscores. I suspect E/W getting to 3NT requires more weighting.

Variations where W passes over 3C may need to take into account 'fielded misbid (East's double being the misbid)' if such a thing exists in ACBL.

Such a thing does not exist in the ACBL.

North was 2551 and South was 4225. North might have sat for 3♣ undoubled, but if 3♣X came back to him (assuming East doubled 3♣ in the passout seat; as you point out, West was not doubling a partscore at IMPs), he'd surely bid 3♦.

West's hand was something like ♠Axx ♥AT ♦A9xx ♣QTxx. Give East what he should have for his double (add the major suit kings to the hand I gave for him upthread) and 3NT is a favorite, with no guarantee of 500 vs 3♣X.

[c_corgi]

I can't imagine the E hand doubling - or indeed doing anything other than pass - in the pass out seat. If E did double, N has exactly the red suit holdings that 2NT supposedly showed and no real reason to overrule S decision to play 3C: pass would be an LA and 3D would be suggested by UI.

West has a weak NT so, if not doubling 3C, I suppose pass is plausible. The weighting appears to be between 3C undoubled and table result (unless declarer's misplay was due to the MI, in which the number of tricks may vary). I would still be inclined to include a substantial proportion of 3NT because declarer's contention that she would not have bid 3NT without MI does sound rather like "Whenever I receive MI I would have done the right thing without it, even though that seems inconsistent with what I actually did at the table".

[blackshoe]

Coelacanth, on 2012-April-23, 15:39, said:

Such a thing does not exist in the ACBL.

I disagree. Certainly we don't use that terminology, but the fact is that a "fielded misbid" is one where the partner of the misbidder has taken an action that would cater to his partner having misbid, that action being evidence that he may well have had prior experience, and some current expectation, that his partner has misbid. Such evidence would be the basis of a ruling that the partnership has failed to fully disclose their understandings, which is a violation of law 40C1. The reluctance of ACBL TDs to make such a ruling notwithstanding, it is a perfectly legal, and IMO the right, approach. Note: I'm not saying that it's sufficient evidence in itself, and if the pair can convince the TD this has not happened with sufficient frequency to establish a CPU, then he should not rule there was an infraction of 40C1.

What the ACBL does not have is a regulation addressing the issue similar to the EBU's. That's fine too. The EBU regulation works, in part, because they are small enough and geographically concentrated enough that tracking possible incidents of fielding is feasible. I'm not at all sure doing so is feasible in North America. I am certain that club owners will resist it.

[Coelacanth]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-23, 17:32, said:

I disagree. Certainly we don't use that terminology, but the fact is that a "fielded misbid" is one where the partner of the misbidder has taken an action that would cater to his partner having misbid, that action being evidence that he may well have had prior experience, and some current expectation, that his partner has misbid. Such evidence would be the basis of a ruling that the partnership has failed to fully disclose their understandings, which is a violation of law 40C1. The reluctance of ACBL TDs to make such a ruling notwithstanding, it is a perfectly legal, and IMO the right, approach. Note: I'm not saying that it's sufficient evidence in itself, and if the pair can convince the TD this has not happened with sufficient frequency to establish a CPU, then he should not rule there was an infraction of 40C1.

What the ACBL does not have is a regulation addressing the issue similar to the EBU's. That's fine too. The EBU regulation works, in part, because they are small enough and geographically concentrated enough that tracking possible incidents of fielding is feasible. I'm not at all sure doing so is feasible in North America. I am certain that club owners will resist it.

You're right, of course. I spoke imprecisely; when I said it does not exist I was referring to an EBU-style regulation.

On this particular case, there's no evidence that West's failure to double 3♣ was based on some CPU that her partner might not have his bid. Indeed, her 3NT bid was catering to his NOT having misbid.