bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings :: Incomplete disclosure or psyche?

10 posts
bridgetalk member

Incomplete disclosure or psyche? ( 14:26:51 WedMar 19 2003 )

Country: UK

This board caused recriminations in the bar afterwards. Pairs, EW vul, dealer North:

J 9 x x x
x x
Q x x
x x x
K x x x
x A K Q J x x
K J 10 x x x x x
A K Q x x x x
A Q 10 x
10 x x x
A x
J x x

N E S W
P P(1) 1S 2D
4S P(2) P X
P P P

(1) Long hesitation. East decided this was too good for 2H, not good enough for 1H.
(2) East asked South if 4S was natural. A puzzled South said yes. East said that he had asked because some players play Truscott in this situation. He again took a long time before passing.

At the end of the auction South reserved his rights because of the long pauses by East, which no-one disputed. When dummy went down East reserved his rights, arguing that South should have told him that North could be this weak for his bid.

After AK of clubs lead and a heart switch, East took two top hearts and switched back to a club. West found himself endplayed and eventually returned the thirteenth club, which South ruffed high in dummy, discarding his diamond loser for three down.

This was a good score for NS against a row of -650s, so they did not persue their case. If they had lost 800 against best defence, would you allow West's double to stand?

EW were not finished. East claimed that South had misinformed him about the strength of North's hand by intimating that they do not play "Truscott" in this situation. Had he been correctly informed he would have bid 5H.

East agreed with South afterwards that he should have asked for an explanation of the 4S call, rather than asking whether it was natural, but nonetheless felt misinformed. NS play pre-emptive raises of major suits in competitive auctions, although South did not know this as "Truscott". South is well aware of the need for full disclosure of agreements, but was a little confused by the way East phrased his question. (East seems to think that "natural" precludes "pre-emptive".) He felt it was a matter of general bridge knowledge that a raise to 4M by a passed hand is a pre-emptive bid, and didn't really see what else he could have disclosed.

East's parting shot was to say that South either had an agreement that North could bid this way on three points, in which case it should have been disclosed, or that it was a psyche in which case he wanted it recorded as such.

Both parties are still on speaking terms, but can anyone say anything to calm the troubled waters?

James

AlanW

Re: Incomplete disclosure or psyche? ( 15:46:32 WedMar 19 2003 )

There are two completely separate issues here - incomplete disclosure and unauthorised information (UI).

First, did South explain North's 4S bid correctly? In my view this depends on what alternatives were available. If north has other ways of showing a raise with more high-card strength, eg via 2N or a cue-bid, then I think East is entitled to know this, however obscure his question (like South, I have never heard of such arrangements being described as Truscott, although I have played them myself for many years). If N's bid is simply two-way and can be bid either to make or as an advance sacrifice then I don't think East really needs any more explanation than he got.

If NS did have other ways to raise here and one rules that this implies incomplete disclosure, it is also vital to consider whether EW have been damaged by it. I will leave others to try to judge that at this stage, since I cannot work out the EW hands from the original posting. However, it's not immediately obvious that knowing N was pre-emptive rather than simply that the call might be based on either a big fit or high cards (surely the normal expectation of 'natural') would make that much difference to the decision East faced, whatever his hand.

On the issue of UI, it's clear West had this from the hesitations and the questions. So it's simply a question of whether West had logical alternatives to his double (and his 2D overcall) that he might have selected if he had not had UI, instead of the calls he did make. I won't try to suggest whether or not this might be the case without seeing the exact hand!

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Incomplete disclosure or psyche? ( 16:11:27 WedMar 19 2003 )

I have always liked puzzles! :smile:

J 9 x x x
x x
Q x x
x x x
K x x x
x A K Q J x x
K J 10 x x x x x
A K Q x x x x
A Q 10 x
10 x x x
A x
J x x

Let me presume that the first four lines are the North hand and the last four the South hand. So the middle four are the West/East hands. Look at the hearts: x A K Q J x x

Presumably that is x for West and AKQJxx for East. But East did not open [goodness knows why not :rolleyes:

], so all the other honours must be West. Also we know West's longest suit was diamonds since he overcalled in it. So now we know that the hands were [guessing how many small cards were where]:


        J9xxx
        xx
        Qxx
        xxx
Kx              xx
x               AKQJxx
KJTxxx          xx
AKQx            xxx
        AQTx
        Txxx
        Ax
        Jxx

May I remind all our readers that the software in this forum strips spaces? Please use dots, or the Pre formatting code, and it is best to preview your post.

Now let's get down to the query. East asked whether 4

was natural. Since it was natural, South answered "Yes". East having got the correct answer duly passed.

Ignoring the fact that despite 38 years on the tournament circuit I have never heard of a convention called Truscott in this position I presume that East is moaning because he wanted to know whether 4

was weak, which is of course the standard meaning of the bid in England. So why did he not ask that?

As for West's double, I would disallow that routinely. He has unauthorised information, pass is a logical alternative, so a ruling 4

-3, no double, seems fair.

South's comments were 100% right. 4

was natural, natural does include pre-emptive, that is the normal way to play it.

When we come to East's "parting shot" I might get a little stronger as a TD. His comments are unnecessary and almost offensive. He has got a bad board through his own efforts by bad bidding, failure to understand simple English and presumptions that his opponents are playing something strange despite evidence they are not. To blame someone else is not acceptable.

As for calming the troubled waters, I would not bother. someone should teach East not to blame others when he makes a mistake. :smile:

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

RMB

19 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Incomplete disclosure or psyche? ( 16:19:00 WedMar 19 2003 )

From the posting, I can't tell what the hand was. I guess?


          J 9 x x x
          x x
          Q x x
          x x x
K x x                  x
x                      A K Q J x x
K J 10 x x             x x x
A K Q x                x x x
          A Q 10 x
          10 x x x
          A x
          J x x


N    E    S    W
P    P(1) 1S   2D
4S   P(2) P    X
P    P    P

(1) Long hesitation. East decided this was too good for 2H, not good enough for 1H.
(2) East asked South if 4S was natural. A puzzled South said yes. East said that he had asked because some players play Truscott in this situation. He again took a long time before passing.

James asks: Both parties are still on speaking terms, but can anyone say anything to calm the troubled waters?

East should be encouraged to ask what bids mean, not ask "is it natural" when he means "does that a high card raise", and not to use names of conventions in questions.

South should be encouraged to fully describe bids, even when asked closed questions; but its hard not to say yes to "is it natural" and no to "do you play Truscott in this situation".

Damaged parties should call the director at the time - then they can whine about it in the bar as well. :biggrin:

Why should East-West think 4S is a psyche, as far as I can tell North-South never said that 4S could a 3 count with 5 spades.

James Vickers

10 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Incomplete disclosure or psyche? ( 19:15:01 WedMar 19 2003 )

Country: UK

Quote: David

May I remind all our readers that the software in this forum strips spaces? Please use dots, or the Pre formatting code, and it is best to preview your post.

Sorry, I tried the formatting code last time and it didn't work. Perhaps I'll try the dots next time. You were spot on with the hands.

Quote: David

...despite 38 years on the tournament circuit I have never heard of a convention called Truscott in this position...

I know Truscott as a conventional defence to strong club openers, and Crowhurst as a conventional 2C enquiry to a 1NT rebid. However I used to play in Germany, where Truscott is indeed used to describe a system of pre-emptive raises of 1M, and Crowhurst as a defence to 1NT (similar to what we call Capalletti or Pottage, and definately not invented or championed by Eric C). This was a source of much confusion until I cottoned on to this.

Quote: AlanW

If north has other ways of showing a raise with more high-card strength, eg via 2N or a cue-bid, then I think East is entitled to know this...If N's bid is simply two-way and can be bid either to make or as an advance sacrifice then I don't think East really needs any more explanation than he got.

NS use 2NT as a good raise to 3M, but not after 3rd hand openers. South was not sure whether he would expect North's sort of hand for the bid - it happened to work out well because of the misdefence, but could have led to -800 and a bottom. However, it isn't far out and could easily have had a little more shape and a little less strength, e.g.:

10 9 x x x x / x x / x / x x x x

which I think would be everyone's idea of a raise to 4S, so I don't think East should complain that he was misinformed as to high card strength.

I am reassured that no-one is calling for the psyche book to be dusted off.

James

Bridge Center on Sheridan

3 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Incomplete disclosure or psyche? ( 19:55:51 WedMar 19 2003 )

Country: USA

Was there unauthorized information?
Yes. West has UI from E's hesitation at his first turn, and his question at his second turn.
Does West have a logical alternative?
Double is reasonable, but, IMO, pass is certainly a LA to double.
Does the UI suggest one call over another?
Yes. The UI suggests East has something, hence double is more likely to be successful.

I would adjust to 4S - 3 (undoubled).

And East's "I would have bid 5H" is ridiculous.
He could have opened 1H or 2H or 3H, but chose to pass.
Now he's going to bid 5H opposite a partner who has done nothing more than make a 2D overcall? I doubt it.

I have never heard this 4S called "Truscott".

-Jim O'Neil
Oak Park, IL

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Incomplete disclosure or psyche? ( 21:36:30 FriMar 21 2003 )

I'm afraid I have no sympathy for East. And I agree completely with David and Jim - adjust to 4S - 3, undoubled.

8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union