[awm]

You hold ♠9xxxx ♥Txxxx ♦9xx ♣-

Your RHO is dealer, auction is:

Pass - Pass - 1♠ - 2♣
X - Pass - 2♠ - X
Pass - ???

What's your call?

[Apollo81]

so pard is 0346 or something, looks like a 3♥ bid to me

[gwnn]

I know there may be some X-ruffing going, but this doesn't look like a "good" 3♥ call to me. If we have game, partner will rarely pass my s/o.

[Fluffy]

If I had lebenshl avaible I'd try that, with my partner I can only bid 3♥ and hope he doesn't raise.

[mcphee]

Looks to me like 2N lebensohl is exactly what I have. I will correct to 3H over the expected 3C response.

[whereagles]

Whatever the system uses for saying "I have a weak hand with hearts", which is usually "3♥" , but leb on this particular occasion.

[TimG]

Somebody would have bid 2♥ on the previous round? Show yourself!

[skjaeran]

TimG, on Sep 10 2007, 03:51 PM, said:

Somebody would have bid 2♥ on the previous round? Show yourself!

Are you kidding? I'd not even think about 2♥ on the previous round. That's a sure road to get way overboard.

Now I'm bidding 2NT, lebensohlish.

[awm]

Here's the story that goes with this hand:

When the hand was played, the double of 2♣ was alerted and explained as drury.

The player holding this hand bid hearts over 2♠, and the contract failed when partner held only doubleton heart and the suit broke badly. The double of 2♣ was in fact a normal negative double. The 2♠ contract would not have fared well (perhaps opener would not have rebid 2♠ if not for believing his partner's double was drury). The opponents did not have an agreement that double here was drury (i.e. there was misinformation, not a misbid).

Because there was not much time left in the round, the player holding this hand did not call the director when (after the play) the misinformation came to light. He attempted to call the director after the round. The director ruled (without looking at the hands) that this player had forfeited his rights by failing to call at the time of the infraction, and that therefore the table result would stand.

So a few questions for directors out there:

(1) Is it in fact the case that by waiting to call, this player has forfeited his rights? Or should a ruling have been made?

(2) Given the result of this poll (i.e. virtually all bid hearts even given the correct information) should the table result stand in any case (say the director had been called as soon as the MI came to light)?

(3) Is it reasonable to argue that while bidding hearts is normal given the misinformation and also normal given the correct information, passing the double would be logical if informed that opponents are not on the same wavelength and that therefore pass should be allowed, or is this just trying for a double shot?

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Sep 10 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

(1) Is it in fact the case that by waiting to call, this player has forfeited his rights? Or should a ruling have been made?

You know, it seems to me that I've been in many Sectionals, Regionals, even a National, where the Director said "You know, you should have called me at the time of the infraction. You should forfeit your rights for waiting so long"...and then ruled on it anyways.

Technically, they forfeited their rights. Most directors aren't hardasses about it.

I just don't see how the 3♥ bidder was damaged.

[Apollo81]

I wouldn't pass the second double even if I knew the opps had a misunderstanding, and I'd still pass the first double even if I knew for sure that the ridiculous "Drury" explanation was right and the doubler had his bid.

If partner can't act on his own again, then we shouldn't be in the auction.