2006 - 2015
For current news, results, etc please visit
http://www.bridgewebs.com/mountnessingbc/
Costly Misinformation
Hand played on: |
10/01/2012 |
|---|---|
Board number / section: |
1 |
Dealer: |
North |
Vulnerability: |
Love All |
The Hands and the Bidding
|
North ♠A K Q ♥ - ♦Q T 3 2 ♣K T 8 7 6 5 |
||||||||
|
West ♠T 9 7 3 2 ♥A Q 5 2 ♦A K J 4 ♣ - |
East ♠J 8 5 ♥T 7 6 4 ♦ 9 8 ♣A 9 4 2 |
The Bidding |
||||||
|
South ♠ 6 4 ♥K J 9 8 3 ♦7 6 5 ♣Q J 3 |
North 1♣ 2♣ xx x 1 x |
East No No 2♠ No End |
South 1♥ No 3♣ 4♣ |
West x x 3♠ 4♠ |
||||
Footnotes:
- North's double of 3♠ was alerted and described as 'asking partner to bid 3NT with a spade stop', though North intended it as a penalty double.
Description:
Clearly, South's explanation of North's double was far removed from reality!4♠x went three off after the lead of the ♣Q. West argued that if the double of 3♠ had been explained correctly as for penalties, he would not have bid 4♠ and East reasoned that she would then have doubled 4♣. East also argued that with a correct explanation of the double, she would have played the hand differently in 4♠x and would have made 9 tricks, courtesy of diamond ruffs in her hand. South thinks that this particular argument is open to debate: on the club lead, if Declarer ruffs in Dummy and plays two top diamonds and ruffs a diamond, it is then important as to how Declarer tries to return to Dummy for a second diamond ruff. In an attempt to make the contract, Declarer may try a heart to the queen (hoping for a 4-1 rather than 5-0 break), but if that play is followed, then North will ruff and draw Declarer's remaining two trumps, and the result could be even worse than three off.
The real issue here is whether or not West should be allowed to withdraw the 4♠ bid, whether or not East should be allowed to double 4♣, and what the likely fate of 4♣ would be. NS played the hand in club contracts at other tables in the room, sometimes making 9 tricks and sometimes 10, though the hand analysis sheet says that 9 tricks is the limit.Analysis:
The opinion of an independent Director:"I do think the opponents have been misinformed and the bid should go back to 4♣, which East would then be entitled to double. The hand analysis sheet says that 4♣ can be held to 9 tricks, which looks likely, although I remember that the first two results on this board were 4♣ making, so perhaps the defence isn't as easy at the table as it looks. I think it comes down to whether or not E gives W his diamond rough. I have looked at it on deep finesse and there are several lines for the defence to succeed, so I think the result is likely to be 4♣ -1 and so I think the score should be adjusted accordingly, although it would be possible to award a score of something like 75% 1 off, 25% making if 4♣ is making several times on the traveller.
Just a couple of points as regards the 4♠ contract itself. The only way that 4♠ should go three off is on a spade lead. Declarer should be trying to get a diamond rough anyway. Even if Declarer does lead towards the Q of hearts as an entry declarer will still make the ♣A, ♦A, ♦K, rough, then later rough North's eventual exit card in the West hand, and still has another trump and the ♥A for 8 tricks. However I still think the contract should be rolled back."On the subject as to whether the possibility should be accepted that 4♣x could possibly make, then it is noted that East would have two opportunities to find the 'killing defence' of a diamond lead - either at trick 1 or when in with the C♣. Therefore, the possibility of 4♣x making is dismissed.
The Ruling:
The score should be adjusted to 4C*-1 by North, score +100 to EWLessons for everyone:
Partnerships need to be clear under what circumstances a double of a suit below the level of 3NT might be other than for take-out, and if so, what it actually means. The clue that South ignored here was North's redouble of 2♣ - a bid that tends to suggest a penalty-oriented three-suited hand, with a major shortage in partner's suit, namely hearts.