[blml] Dear DSC: Let's drive s stake through the DWS

[David Burn]

[JF]

Think about a few cases and possibilities.  Spell out your arguments.  Write
about it now.

[DALB]

This has actually happened - I remember it well, for I was on the appeals
committee and missed dinner, which I would not have done had the blasted dWS
never occurred to anyone.

South opened 1D, West passed, North bid 1S and East bid 1NT. Systemically
this showed hearts and clubs (the convention card confirmed this), but West
- thinking it was natural - did not alert.

South, a little taken aback but knowing he could beat 1NT, passed and West
bid 2C. East, a dWS practitioner, alerted 2C and explained it as Stayman.
Actually, he had never heard of the dWS, but when asked why he alerted, he
said "I thought I'd better, when partner didn't alert 1NT." There was no
doubt that East-West were honest folk; there was no possibility that East
was acting as he did in an effort to put his opponents off (although a true
dWS practitioner could know that he was doing precisely that, and no one
would ever be able to tell whether or not he did know).

North, now thinking that East had a strong no trump and South a weak hand,
passed when otherwise he would have bid. He said afterwards, when my
committee was trying to unravel the whole mess, that he himself played 1NT
as hearts and clubs, and was thinking that this East-West pair did likewise
until East alerted 2C. Already, the dWS had made it close to impossible for
bridge to continue normally at this table - if East had just kept his trap
shut, nothing bad would have happened.

East, of course, passed 2C. Now South had to work out what was going on -
which again, he would not have done had East not invented the dWS all by
himself. Eventually, he concluded that East had psyched a 1NT overcall with
a long club suit. Since he had a pretty good hand with a long diamond suit
and a club stopper or two, he bid 3NT - after all, West had passed over 1D
and East had psyched, so North figured to have more than a minimum 1S
response. He said afterwards that he also played 1NT as hearts and clubs,
but when East alerted 2C, he assumed that this East-West pair didn't.
Afterwards, when questioned as to why he didn't ask West whether 1NT had
perhaps meant "hearts and clubs", he said "Why should I ask about an
unalerted call, especially when East explained 2C as Stayman?"

West led a heart, and 3NT went down when alternative games would have made.
When asked why he led a heart and not a club, he said "Because I had QJ108
of hearts and a singleton club." This at least could be empirically
verified, and turned out to be true.

Now, obviously North-South could have asked more questions than they
actually did ask. Equally obviously, the appeals committee could (and did)
spend the best part of an hour and a half working out what questions
North-South might have asked, and what they would have done had they
received the right answers. Here were four honest toilers trying to play
some bridge - but neither of the non-offending side knew what had really
happened, nor could they reasonably be expected to find out after the dWS
had reared its hideous head. The offenders were acting in all good faith,
and in strict accordance with the dWS, and it caused the most unholy
shambles. If they had been MS practitioners, of course, the auction would
have kept the noiseless tenor of its way, and I would not have had to play
the evening session in a state bordering on starvation (although I am
prepared to concede that the buffer zone was probably sufficient).

Good for the game? Pass the sick-bag, Alice.

David Burn
London, England