[Benoit35]

Funny situation at the club last night. Partner and I play modified Michaels which he sometimes forgets.

RHO opens 1♣.
Moi, holding ♥AQJxxx and 5 clubs: 3♣
Partner: *crickets*

The bidding:

(1♣) - 3♣ - (3NT) - P
(P) - 4♥ - (X) - all pass

At this point I signal the failure to alert, the Director comes in and, after assessing the situation, asks us to resume the bidding from my 3♣ call onwards.
LHO: 3NT again.
Partner (now waken up): 4H. All pass.

The game is cold, but partner falls asleep again and forgets to draw out the last trump. Down 1.

Midway into the next board, it dawns on me that partner should never have been allowed his 4♥ bid! I would have bid it, and might have gotten doubled again - and I would have been the one playing it

What grade does the director deserve?

[blackshoe]

 Benoit35, on 2012-May-09, 09:23, said:

What grade does the director deserve?

Zero. This is director error. You should have called him back and asked him to apply Law 82C. Assuming the opener bidder, given the opportunity to change his final pass in the original auction, would have elected not to do so, I would adjust to 4♥X by you making whatever. If as you say it's cold, making four. If the opening bidder would have elected to change his final pass to something else, the TD will have to evaluate the impact of that on the final contract and hence whatever adjustment should be made. The alternative is to adjust to A+ for both sides, but adjusting to an assigned, rather than an artificial, score, is preferable.

[gordontd]

Why did you bid 4♥? Would you have bid it if your partner had alerted 3♣ and explained it as showing ♣ & ♥?

[Benoit35]

 gordontd, on 2012-May-09, 10:07, said:

Why did you bid 4♥? Would you have bid it if your partner had alerted 3♣ and explained it as showing ♣ & ♥?

Yes, I would have. The vulnerability was favourable, and I tend to stick to "Six-five, come alive".

[ahydra]

 Benoit35, on 2012-May-09, 09:23, said:

At this point I signal the failure to alert, the Director comes in and, after assessing the situation, asks us to resume the bidding from my 3♣ call onwards.

This looks odd. According to 21B a change of call is only allowed before partner has called - so LHO should not be allowed to change his 3NT bid (even though he didn't actually change it). Am I right in saying the correct procedure was for the hand to be played out, see if damage occurred, award an adjusted score if so?

ahydra

[blackshoe]

 ahydra, on 2012-May-10, 08:11, said:

This looks odd. According to 21B a change of call is only allowed before partner has called - so LHO should not be allowed to change his 3NT bid (even though he didn't actually change it). Am I right in saying the correct procedure was for the hand to be played out, see if damage occurred, award an adjusted score if so?

ahydra

Correct procedure was for the TD to offer the opening bidder the opportunity to change his last call (pass) to something else, and let things proceed from there. If, after the hand is played, the NOS are damaged by the MI, the TD shall adjust the score.

[ahydra]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-10, 08:15, said:

Correct procedure was for the TD to offer the opening bidder the opportunity to change his last call (pass) to something else, and let things proceed from there. If, after the hand is played, the NOS are damaged by the MI, the TD shall adjust the score.

Is that again Law 21B, this time from the point of view of the opening bidder?

ahydra

[blackshoe]

 ahydra, on 2012-May-10, 08:24, said:

Is that again Law 21B, this time from the point of view of the opening bidder?

ahydra

Yes. The opening bidder was last of his pair to call, and his side were misinformed by the opponents.

[barmar]

The fact that he's the opening bidder is not relevant to the law, it's just the way blackshoe identified the particular player, since the OP didn't provide compass directions (why not post a real bidding diagram with the handviewer tool?).

[Benoit35]

 barmar, on 2012-May-10, 09:43, said:

The fact that he's the opening bidder is not relevant to the law, it's just the way blackshoe identified the particular player, since the OP didn't provide compass directions (why not post a real bidding diagram with the handviewer tool?).

---

So, was my 4H bid (♠Kx ♥AQJxxx ♣Kxxxx) ethical, or is pass a LA if I assume partner understood my previous bid?

[barmar]

If your hand is typical for the bid, I think Pass is an LA. Partner presumably knows you have this type of hand and didn't bid 4♥ himself.

I would only say that Pass is not an LA if you could show that your system requires you to bid 4♥, perhaps to show that you're 6-5 with a much better hand than the minimum required for the bid.

[Benoit35]

 barmar, on 2012-May-10, 11:54, said:

If your hand is typical for the bid, I think Pass is an LA. Partner presumably knows you have this type of hand and didn't bid 4♥ himself.

I would only say that Pass is not an LA if you could show that your system requires you to bid 4♥, perhaps to show that you're 6-5 with a much better hand than the minimum required for the bid.

We have a pretty wide range for two-suited overcalls... I could have made that 3♣ bid on 5 HCP, non-vulnerable.

[gordontd]

 Benoit35, on 2012-May-10, 12:13, said:

We have a pretty wide range for two-suited overcalls... I could have made that 3♣ bid on 5 HCP, non-vulnerable.

Then I think you were nuts to make it on this hand, especially because of the good six-card heart suit.