Mountnessing Bridge Club

When the wheels come off ... land on your feet!

Hand played on	March 28th 2008 - GWEN HERGA Men's Pairs
Board number	19
Dealer	South
Vulnerability	East West Vulnerable
Submitted by	Two club members - with an added comment from Mike Graham

	North ♠4 ♥AKT43 ♦AQT53 ♣Q4
West ♠QJT763 ♥ 9 ♦72 ♣KJ93		East ♠AK ♥Q87 ♦KJ96 ♣AT76	North	Bidding: East	South	West
	♠9852 ♥J652 ♦84 ♣852		2♥ No	3♥ 4NT	No No End	2♦ 3♠
			2♥ No	3♥ 4NT	No No End	2♦ 3♠

East reported

"I was playing strong twos in Diamonds, Hearts and Spades, with a weak Weak No Trump, allegedly with a strong partner in a County-level pairs competition. Unbeknown to me, partner was playing a Multi 2♦ style. I held the East hand shown, and I was pleasantly surprised to hear a 2♦ opening bid from partner - which I announced as strong and non-forcing. I was taken aback to hear a 2♥ overcall from North, and I began to suspect something may have been amiss, but still 3♥ to figure out what was going on seemed reasonable. 3♠ from partner continued to worry me, but I still had to ask for Aces, so I bid 4NT. Partner's (somewhat embarrassed) pass confirmed my suspicions, and a Heart lead from LHO brings down a not unexpected (at least not any longer), ♠QJ10763, ♥ 9, ♦72, ♣KJ93 from partner. After all it is a reasonable multi 2♦ opener if you had happened to be playing it! The heart lead was taken by North's King, and the diamond switch was won by my Jack. I played the Ace, King of Spades, then a Club to Dummy's King, and ran the remaining 4 spades in Dummy. A club from Dummy brought out North's Queen, giving four club tricks in total, and a total of 11 tricks.

We had devised a precision bidding sequence leading to the best possible contract, as 10 (or 11 if opponents don't cash) tricks are available in both Spades and No Trumps!"

POSTSCRIPT: courtesy of Mike Graham

I was looking at this featured hand - rather more here than meets the eye.... The 4NT bidder states that s/he was playing ACOL Twos in diamonds, hearts, and spades. Two things spring to mind:

(1) it is unlikely that 3♥ is natural

(2) 4NT looks suspiciously like some form of Blackwood. (OK, it may be quantitative).

So why did West pass 4NT? He knows that he has a weak two in spades, and partner wants to know how many aces/key cards he holds. I think there is Unauthorised Information here - West knows that his partner has misinterpreted

the 2♦ opening, consequent upon the announcement, and has acted upon this. His pass of 4NT is an action based on unauthorised information. Thus, EW should be subject to a penalty.

As TD, I would have had a careful scrutiny of the EW slam methods, as this could impact on the ruling.

If 4NT is simple Blackwood, West would bid 5♣, East would bid 5♦ and West must pass. North can double or not as he chooses - I would not allow West to remove to 5♠.

If EW play RKCB then it is slightly more complex, depending on whether EW play 30/41 or 14/30. If 30/41, West responds 5♣, and E bids 5♦, as East knows two aces are missing. However, a lot of pairs play that after the response to RKCB a step-1 bid (that is not the agreed trump suit - which West should assume is spades) is asking for the queen of trumps. So West should interpret 5♦ as a trump-queen ask, and respond accordingly - the TD should ask them their method. West has the trump queen - which should be shown by their agreed methods. East is now fully entitled to (1) assume his partner is bonkers (2) work out what is really going on, as he can now deduce this from the bidding (as he knows that his partner has not taken 5♦ as a sign-off). However, if he bids 6♦ I would allow North to double and not allow West to remove; if East bids 6♠ I would allow it.

As TD, I would not ask West to play in 6♦x - that would be cruel and unusual punishment, and however much West may have deserved it (by passing 4NT) I would relieve him of that task. I would assign an arbitrary five down, and advise that EW could appeal. I would hope that any such appeal would be heard by players who would be able to understand the sequence of events that should have occurred.

Incidentally, when a similar circumstance happened to a very good pair in a London event, one of the players concerned said afterwards (after landing in 6♥ on a 2-2 fit) that he felt like committing a "professional foul", and letting the TD assign whatever result he thought was right. He got lucky, as the TD said afterwards that he would have assigned a final contract of 6♥x. One opponent held QJ10xxx of trumps. He was so pleased with the final contract that he didn't double, and that cost his side the match, as they lost by 2 imps.

These situations are difficult...