Join Bridge Winners
Restoring Another Equity

Paul's recent Restoring Equity poll reminded me a board that happened 6 years ago, when I was playing a team match against two renowned and fairly aggressive Anglo-Croatian experts.

West
AJ8x
Jx
KQxx
Qxx
North
xx
xx
AJ10xx
AJ8x
East
x
K10xxx
xx
K10xxx
South
KQ10xxx
AQxx
9x
x
W
N
E
S
1
1
1
2
P
3
4
P
P
P
D
4 West
NS: 0 EW: 0

1 was "clubs unbalanced or 12-14/18-19 balanced w/o 5M".

NE and SW were screenmates. MI was the issue:

  • N to E: 2 = fit-showing with 5+3+
  • S to W: 2 = 6, invitational.

4 went -2 for -200.

East called the director claiming MI – had he known 2 wasn't a fit-showing bid he would know the opponents don't necessarily have a double fit so his partner could still have a balanced hand with less than 4 clubs. Were this the case he wouldn't have bid 4 but would pass instead.

South remarked, since North didn't raise spades it should be obvious, from East's perspective, the rest of spades are 6-4-2 and therefore 4 was just a bid getting the deserved outcome since partner could (and often would) have a 4(333) 12-14 hand.

NS apparently didn't have a firm agreement about advancer's 2 jump. South thought the same principle applies as after (pass)-1-(1)-2 which is invitational with 6. On the other side, (pass)-1-(2)-3 would be fit-showing per agreement.

What is your ruling?

Award an assigned adjusted score (some contract or a weight score; which one?)
Award an artificial adjusted score (Ave+/Ave- or similar)
Result stands

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
10 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top