Damage

[Chris]

North opened 4C (Gerber) and East queried the bid. South said it was asking for aces, but didn't mention that their agreement also includes the fact that it could be asking for aces with a weak hand and a long suit. East passed, South bid 4H showing 1 ace and all passed.

North did not add to the explanation before the opening lead.

At the end of the hand I was called to the table as E/W felt that they had been damaged due to not being fully informed about the bid.

After polling 3 other senior players I agreed that they had been damaged and adjusted the score to 5C making by E/W.

[Nick Whitten]

I don’t think I would adjust (much as I like to clobber MI offences as heavily as the laws and local practices allow ).
East is stretching to claim s/he was damaged by not being aware opener could have a weak hand with a long suit (what else could it be without any of the cards East holds?) And was that their agreed system or was North “improvising”?
Surely East can double 4C if only to suggest a club lead.
And if not, then why not double 4H next time round, which West should consider taking out to 5C even if it is primarily a penalty double.

[Chris]

Thanks Nick - this is the type of situation I find really difficult (probably because I am such a crap player). I guess it is possible that North had all the other cards - so North and East COULD have had 20 pts each. I was focussing on the misinformation - the fact that N/S did have an agreement that 4C could be a preemptive opening with a long suit - a bit like the gambling 3NT I suppose. Come on Ed .... what is your take on this one?

[Nick Whitten]

It is different if 4C was not ace-asking at all but a transfer to 4H and South was signing off, not showing one ace. Now I think you can rule that East would double 4C and EW reach 5C. And you can rule the same way if it is not clear what NS methods are.

IMO the explanation “partner wants to know how many aces I have” is sufficient to meet the “full disclosure” requirement. The opponents can infer what that persons hand is likely to be from their own general knowledge.

[Chris]

I hear what you are saying Nick and I have been pondering on this one for days. They did have an agreement that 4C opening is Gerber asking for aces, AND that it could be weak pre-emptive with a long suit (unknown by partner) or it could be strong looking for slam. It was the last bit that wasn't disclosed. East with three aces now knows that South has 1 ace so must be aware when the bidding comes back to her that North is pretty weak - but a weak Gerber opening would be most unusual (if not unheard of) in our club play. What happens if she doubles now? Partner thinks it's for penalties which would be good but they still miss out on their 5C, 5NT or 4S contract.

It's situations like this that make me think I'll never get the hang of directing!

[Ed Reppert]

The first question, it seems to me, must be "what is their actual agreement?" Having answered that, the second question should be "is it a legal agreement?" After that we get into whether the agreement was fully disclosed.

I don't know your regulations. It seems the agreement is "good hand, looking for slam, or a preempt in an unspecified suit" Is this a legal agreement?

If this were to happen in North America, the pertinent regulation would allow a

STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto.

This isn't a strength showing opening, it's a two way opening. So in North America, it would be illegal. Or so it seems to me. As I said, though, I don't know what your regulation says.

[Chris]

I have to say it is the first time I have ever seen this opening used as a weak, pre-emptive type bid. They use it in a similar way to the multi 2D opening - it could be a weak bid in a major suit OR a strong, balanced 20-21 pts. Their reasoning was that partner hadn't bid yet, opener knew what suit she wanted to play the hand in (hearts) but didn't know what level. I don't like it but it is legal - my problem was that they didn't fully disclose and I am sure both S and W thought the hand was strong. E should have known after the 4H bid from S showing 1 ace that something was up - but where does she go now? A double at this stage would surely be for penalty.

[Ed Reppert]

If their agreement is "two way", then there was MI. OTOH, if South thought it was strong, they probably don't have an agreement that it was two way. So, did North psych? Was it a legal psych? Let's assume a legal psych. In that case, EW have no recourse. If it was not a legal psych, then Law 40B5 tells the TD to adjust the score. If it was simply a case of less than full disclosure, then the TD must determine if EW were damaged by the MI, and if anything EW did (or did not do) subsequent to the MI was "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction), or wild, or gambling", and if so, if that contributed to the damage.

Note that if North thought the agreement was "two way", then it wasn't a psych, but there is still the possibility of MI.

It seems to me that if East's failure to compete is a "serious error", it's not unrelated to the infraction (assuming there was an infraction), so the bit in Law 12C1{b} about self-inflicted damage doesn't apply.

So, given a determination of MI, it seems clear to adjust, and 5C making by EW seems a reasonable adjustment.

[bluejak]

From what we have been told N/S knew it could be weak. When someone describes an opening as ace-asking there is a presumption placed in their opponents' minds that this is a slam try hand. North could have

Kx
KQJxxxx
AKT
x

That's a dreadful bid? Yes, of course it is, but TDs are not there to teach bridge. If a 4C opening asks for aces but may be weak, it needs to be described as such, so there is MI.

East's bidding was poor? No s***! And what defence do you play against Slam going ace-asking openings to show a strong hand? We need more sympathy for victims. There is a growing feeling in the game, emanating I believe from the USA, to blame the victims. This is especially true when they go wrong in strange situations, and we must be more sympathetic.

Here N/S did wrong: they misinformed their opponents. Their opponents, with no idea what to do, got it wrong, so we adjust.

As to adjusting to 5C, no I do not approve. Remember Law 12C1C which governs adjusting these days. You adjust to a single score or result only if you are very sure you know what the result would have been without the infraction [or are in North America].

Suppose East had been told that 4C was ace-asking, may be pre-emptive, may be slam-going. How would the auction have gone? No, we do not have a clue!!! He might have doubled 4C, and who knows what West would have thought that meant: he might have passed and doubled 4H. He might have passed thoughout since he had no real idea what to do.

I think a more reasonable adjustment would be to

. 10% of 6C-1, NS +100
+20% of 4H-1, NS -50
+20% of 4H*-1, NS -100
+50% of 5C=, NS -600