[DWM]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding, East - West in brackets

(P) - 1NT - (2D) - 2H*
(P)- 2S - (3D) all pass

After East made his second pass the 2H bid was alerted. East asked, and was told transfer to spades, and east chose to keep his pass.

At the end North informed E-W that the 2H was infact a natural competitive bid.

The Director was called and the bidding explained.

EW claimed that they would have found game in spades if the correct information was provided.

NS claimed that as East could not find a bid after 3D they would not have found game without the miss information.

NS system is 1NT 10-12, after interference Lebenshol slow denies, so 2H was in no way invertaional. 2S is bonkers and has no place in thier system.

EW play double with 15+ points, suits natural 10-14/15 after 1NT by ops.

What would your adjusted score be and why?

[Fluffy]

North gets a penalty for explaining a bidding disagreement while partner is still playing (he can only explain when his side has won the contract).

Appart from that, I don't know, E-W should be able to know that no pair would ever play 2♥ as transfer, and it is really hard to see whom of them was gonna introduce a 4 card suit at the 2/3 level.

Also E-W had the info to reach 3NT and score 430 wich should be a top, but stopped in part score.

[david_c]

I tell E/W that I can't see how they would have done anything differently. Unless they can suggest something plausible (not involving changing East's second pass, since he had a chance with the correct information at that point), the score will have to stand. It looks like South's well-timed misbid of 2♠ has done the damage, and there is no redress for that.

[Walddk]

Fluffy, on Aug 24 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

Also E-W had the info to reach 3NT and score 430 wich should be a top, but stopped in part score.

I don't follow; which 430? If EW were to reach 3NT, I see it at least down 2 on a heart lead. Even more if North is on lead (club).

Roland

[ralph23]

I think EW made the wrong argument.

They should have argued that, had the NS agreement been properly explained, then EW would have doubled 2♠.

This is complicated of course by the incontestable fact that, had South been aware of, and capable of properly explaining, the NS agreement as to transfers after interference (i.e. there are none), then he would not have bid 2♠ in the first place.

But it that really EW's problem?

South misbid; that seems clear. EW were entitled to know that he has misbid, and not to be falsely informed that he was bidding according to the NS agreement.

Had they known, would they have doubled? Perhaps. It's an interesting conundrum.

[blackshoe]

At the point where South realized (or thought, in this case) that he'd misinformed opponents by not alerting 2 :h:, he should have called the director before saying anything. Now the players won't be making their own ruling, instead of leaving it to the TD to rule. If "at the end" means "after the play", then North corrected the MI at the appropriate time - but he should have called the director first. If NS had ended up declaring, then it would have been right for North to call the director and correct the explanation after the final pass, but before the opening lead was chosen.

EW claim damage from the MI because, they say, they would have reached 4 :s: with the correct explanation. I don't buy it. What do they claim they would have done differently?

Absent a convincing argument, I rule no damage, no score adjustment.

[paulg]

Given that East failed to double 2♥ when it was (correctly) not alerted, it's hard to see how they would ever reach a spade contract.

Paul

[Codo]

Walddk, on Aug 24 2007, 09:35 PM, said:

I don't follow; which 430? If EW were to reach 3NT, I see it at least down 2 on a heart lead. Even more if North is on lead (club).

Roland

After West bid his diamonds twice and I have AJ95 in their suit (Spades) and overall a balanced 11 HCPs with kind of a fit to partner+ the knowledge that righty has 10-12 balanced and lefty 5+ spades. Why on earth should I not bid 3 NT with the east hand?

South has two possible leads: Diamonds in his longest suit is out, so this leaves spades, pds suit. And after a spade lead, you surely receive 4 Diamonds and 4 Spade tricks + 1 Heart = 400. Of course at the table, with no UIs he may choose one of the other suits, but why should this be ruled after this bidding?

For the case:

There was an misinformation which has surely played a role in the later bidding.

OTOH to pass 3 Diamond and later claim that you had reached and made 4 Spade after the correct explanation was no option in my opinion. EW just demonstrated that they prefer not to bid game on this hand.
But if E/W can show me how they had reached 4 Spade of course I would still rule in favour for E/W. In doubt I protect the non offending side and advice N/S to protest against this descisssion because in a committee I would prefer to give a weighted score which is forbidden to german TDs.

[Fluffy]

Walddk, on Aug 24 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 24 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

Also E-W had the info to reach 3NT and score 430 wich should be a top, but stopped in part score.

I don't follow; which 430? If EW were to reach 3NT, I see it at least down 2 on a heart lead. Even more if North is on lead (club).

Roland

Well, I should say East, not E-W then.

But south has no lead but a spade on this auction, and even if he made another, then IMHO no director should let him do it and should adjust to 430 (it is 10 tricks Codo, Dummy has 6 diamonds, not 5).

I don't know if this fact can legally play any role on a director's or comitee's choice.

[LH2650]

cardsharp, on Aug 24 2007, 09:22 AM, said:

Given that East failed to double 2♥ when it was (correctly) not alerted, it's hard to see how they would ever reach a spade contract.

Paul

A late alert is still an alert, and you have no evidence that EW play a double of a natural 2♥ as showing ♠.

Ralph has it right, but was not emphatic enough. At the point that South bids 2♠, EW are entitled to the information that 2♥ was natural and that South thought it was a transfer. Given that, a double by West, and a continuation to 4♠ by East, seems reasonable enough to assign EW +420.

[jtfanclub]

Fluffy, on Aug 24 2007, 07:19 AM, said:

North gets a penalty for explaining a bidding disagreement while partner is still playing (he can only explain when his side has won the contract).

I would assume "at the end" meant "at the end of the hand", not "at the end of the bidding".

At first, I wrote that it should be adjusted to 3 spades making 4...East has shown no interest in game, why should the change of explanation change this?

But now that I think about it, I would adjust to 2 spades by SOUTH down 6!

I mean, think about it. South has made a bid which is perfectly valid, meaning that he opened 1NT with a spade suit and hates hearts. North has 3 spades, and so should leave it in. Without the mis-explanation, why wouldn't E-W simply let them play it in 2 spades? Assuming that 2 spades isn't a super-accept of hearts, of course, in which case North should have alerted it.

I mean, look at the E and W hands, and the vulnerability. If West had asked North what the 2 spade bid meant, and North had said "Five spades, doesn't want to play in hearts", don't you think both of them would have passed?

[Free]

The 2♥ bid was first not alerted. On that bid, he passed while he had a clear takeout Dbl (11hcp, 4-4 in the blacks, Hx in partner's suit, knowing againt 10-12 you intervene with good hands)! When he choose to pass, he choose to burry the ♠ fit for now. After the late alert, ofcourse he'll pass so that doesn't help him at all.

The big question is: what is 2♥? Is it really transfer or is it natural?
- if it's transfer, it's a mistake by North, which is not correctable
- if it's natural, the auction should go 1NT-2♦-2♥-p!-p-2♠-p-??? Will he now bid 3 or 4♠? If he bids 3, will opener bid 4?

I don't think it's that clear cut they'll find 4♠, especially after East bids like he doesn't have anything. I also wonder why West bid 3♦? It's a foolish action, knowing that he has good defense and already told his hand... 2♠ by South would've gone down a lot!

I'm not sure what I'd do, but I don't have much sympathy for EW's bidding so I won't give them 420. Depending on NS's agreements, I wouldn't let them get away with this either. Perhaps an adjustment to 170 for EW.

[inquiry]

No one has discussed a real problem with this hand. Assume for a minute that south did not alert 2♥ as transfer, would you pass 3♦ as north with a diamond void, great clubs, and three card "spade support"? If I had bid 2♥ to play, and partner had pulled it to 2♠ I would raise spades. Norths choice to pass is clearly influenced because he knew his partner had misunderstood his bid. I would have ruled quite differently. In fact, I might even have ruled NS 3Sx down a ton. At least I would consider that in the equation of figuring out what to do.

[TylerE]

Disagree. 6 hcp vs 10-12 is auto-pass.

[inquiry]

TylerE, on Aug 24 2007, 02:19 PM, said:

Disagree. 6 hcp vs 10-12 is auto-pass.

This is really a bigger problem than your short answer suggest.

1) If ns will not open 1nt with a five card major, then 2♠ will have to be huge heart fit, and willingness to compete in hearts. In which case north has a clear 3♥ bid (if no alert), six point be damned.

2) If NS can have a five or even six card major, then south could have something funky like:

AQJxx
Qx
xxx
Kxx

Where 3♠ maybe easy. Make it Axx of clubs and no heart queen (11) and it has a possible play for 4 spades and 3 spades is easy.

But anyway, the problem is fairly clear. North had a chance to "go wrong" if south hand not mis-alerted. In the last ACBL real tourney I played, I played with an 80 year old who surprized me by playing JACOBY 2nt... our auction was....

1S - 2NT (*)
3D - 4D
4S - 5D
5S - Pass

I bid 2NT with a balanced hand (not jacoby). he alerted as jacoyb and bid his short diamonds. I "raised" diamonds twice opposite his void. Finally I passed 5S, with a doubleton. The auction would be alot easier if I "woke up". As an aside, 6S makes on that hand.

[Fluffy]

inquiry, on Aug 24 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

No one has discussed a real problem with this hand. Assume for a minute that south did not alert 2♥ as transfer, would you pass 3♦ as north with a diamond void, great clubs, and three card "spade support"? If I had bid 2♥ to play, and partner had pulled it to 2♠ I would raise spades.

I've though if this, actually I would take 2♠ as fit no jump, I once overcalled 1♣ with 1NT on AKQx-Kxxxx-x-Axx and saw my partner bid 2♥. But for 2♠ to make any sense I think it has to be an overcall, not a direct opening, specially if weak. I ain't so sure you are forced to take impossible biddings as natural. Anyway I'd rather move the score to 4♥X than an ynumber of spades by N/S.

[Echognome]

Seems a clear 12C3 ruling since it was played in England.

[kenberg]

I always have had trouble following the logic of bridge rulings. The following has a sort or weird logical meaning to me.

The director is called at the end of the hand. He makes the following ruling based on the idea that EW can revise their bids reasonably based on accurate information, and they can use inferences from the earlier explanations, while NS can not use the explanations to revise their bids. So
1N-2D-2H-[ass
2S

At this point W can call on the basis that 2H was natural (this assumes natural is actually the agreement). He may also use, at his own risk, an inference that S apparently thought it to be a transfer and so may not (or may) have spades.
So W can reasonably X.

Now to North. He has bid his hearts naturally. His partner bids spades. He has three spades. Presumably he has not discussed this situation. No problem He passes showing a tolerance for spades, trusting that S, if his spade bid is based on a heart fit and whatever, will run to 3H. Who knows what partner is doing, but he has his call. Pass.


E has no reason to disturb this. Pass


S has heard his partner transfer to spades. It's been doubled but what is he to do? Pass


The contract is 2SX, played S.

No doubt I am wrong, I virtually always am on these issues. Seems logical to me.

Ken