BBO Discussion Forums: Incorrectly announced transfer - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Incorrectly announced transfer and the confusion it caused..

#1 User is offline   keledor 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 2011-February-23

Posted 2012-April-11, 03:53

Playin in the EBU Spring sim pairs (board 9) we had the following hand and bidding


hv=pc=n&s=sj7h643dq6ckj9432&w=sa54hkq5dkjt985cq&n=skq93ha972d74cat7&e=st862hjt8da32c865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1np2np3cpp3dp3sppp]399|300|2NT announced as transfer to minors*[/hv]

The 2NT bid was not alerted but as West was about to bid - North announced it as transfer to minors.

3 Clubs not alerted as relay and pass or correct.

North / South are a genuinely inexperienced pair and when East queried the 2NT bid a little more was told it was both minors. I as west knew it was only Clubs but I can't say anything.

East thought 3 Diamonds as a result was a cue (ie that the 2NT was both minors...) and so ended up in 3 Spades.

If North didnt announce and just alert I'd just bid 3Ds anyway.

How do you get out of this mess as a TD!
0

#2 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,439
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food, Walking

Posted 2012-April-11, 04:15

View Postkeledor, on 2012-April-11, 03:53, said:


hv=pc=n&s=sj7h643dq6ckj9432&w=sa54hkq5dkjt985cq&n=skq93ha972d74cat7&e=st862hjt8da32c865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1np2np3cpp3dp3sppp]399|300|2NT announced as transfer to minors*[/hv]



2NT announced as transfer to minors*


It looks as if E/W were entitled to the explanation that 2NT showed 1 minor and 3C was to play opposite clubs. It appears that West would still bid 3D and East would Pass, so an adjustment to EW +110 looks appropriate.

A gentle reminder to NS to alert minor suit transfers and rebids (and to agree what 2NT is).
Robin

... with one degree in maths and another in astrophysics, it was either that or back to the dole queue on Monday (DNA)
1

#3 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,173
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2012-April-11, 05:08

Quote

It looks as if E/W were entitled to the explanation that 2NT showed 1 minor and 3C was to play opposite clubs. It appears that West would still bid 3D and East would Pass, so an adjustment to EW +110 looks appropriate.

A gentle reminder to NS to alert minor suit transfers and rebids (and to agree what 2NT is).

Are EW automatically deemed to get the diamonds right ? Isn't N 2:1 or more to hold Q so should there be some split between 3= and -1 ?
0

#4 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,439
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food, Walking

Posted 2012-April-11, 06:19

View PostCyberyeti, on 2012-April-11, 05:08, said:

Are EW automatically deemed to get the diamonds right ? Isn't N 2:1 or more to hold Q so should there be some split between 3= and -1 ?

Yes. Good point.

I could claim that the commentary says "is difficult see how he can make anything other than nine tricks" and as the commentator is another EBU TD, I have some backing for my ruling. But I suspect that at least one of us did not give the matter enough thought. :)
Robin

... with one degree in maths and another in astrophysics, it was either that or back to the dole queue on Monday (DNA)
0

#5 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,999
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2012-April-11, 11:54

View PostCyberyeti, on 2012-April-11, 05:08, said:

Are EW automatically deemed to get the diamonds right ? Isn't N 2:1 or more to hold Q so should there be some split between 3= and -1 ?

Depends how much you can find out about opener's hand. The play might easily reveal he has 13 HCP outside trumps. But yes, some weighted score between the two possibilities.
0

#6 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,283
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-April-11, 15:33

I agree with the weighted AS of 3 making and down 1, but don't we think that bidding 3 with the West hand -knowing that East will think it shows both majors- is a SEWoG?

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
0

#7 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 590
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2012-April-12, 07:55

View PostTrinidad, on 2012-April-11, 15:33, said:

I agree with the weighted AS of 3 making and down 1, but don't we think that bidding 3 with the West hand -knowing that East will think it shows both majors- is a SEWoG?

EW are entitled to a correct explanation of NS's agreements. If the correct agreement of 2NT is "takeout into a long minor" then that is the explanation EW are presumed to get and West can bid a natural 3 with impunity. If the actual agreement is "both minors" then again that is the explanation EW are presumed to get and, despite what he claims, I don't think West would now bid 3 if there was any chance that partner might interpret this as a cue-bid.

EW have to steer clear of (unwittingly, I'm sure), varying their defence so that 3 means one thing when West has first asked for an explanation of an alerted 2NT, and quite another when no explanation is asked for.
0

#8 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,283
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2012-April-12, 08:05

Oh wait... I assumed for my reaction that West had the information that 2NT showed both minors before he bid 3. In that case, I think 3 is a SEWoG.

But upon rereading, it may be so that West bid 3 with the information "transfer to the minors" and that East got the explanation "both minors" right before he bid 3. If that is the case then obviously 3 was not even close to a SEWoG.

Maybe the OP can clarify what information West had when he bid 3?

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
0

#9 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2012-April-24, 17:53

View PostRMB1, on 2012-April-11, 06:19, said:

I could claim that the commentary says "is difficult see how he can make anything other than nine tricks" and as the commentator is another EBU TD, I have some backing for my ruling. But I suspect that at least one of us did not give the matter enough thought. :)

Having played in Sim Pairs with booklets for forty years I cannot tell you how often I have been annoyed by statements as to the number of tricks, sometimes by commentators who are extremely good players. I remember Brian Senior writing "4 cannot be made" and a beginner in my club didn't like to draw trumps so he ruffed everything in sight, including some winners he did not know were winners, executing a perfect trump coup on his way to ten tricks. Grrrrr. If that Brian Senior ever comes near me ......
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users