[lamford]

gnasher, on Sep 11 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

mjj29, on Sep 11 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

In particular, I don't know anyone who plays that definition of a jump rebid; it's generally made semi-limiting with enough for a reverse and no second suit, even if it has broken honours.

I think you must have misread the auction. Or, at least, I hope you have.

The auction in question is
  1♠-3♣ (string jump shift)
  4♠

Does a string jump shift show a broken suit?

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 15 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

I don't think passing 5C is fielding a misbid, because it's not obvious it is a misbid: it seems that NS don't have an agreement about strong jump shifts.

I would adjust to 4S making some assorted (weighted!) number of tricks, generally fewer than 10.

I agree with the first part of that; North-South clearly had no idea of their methods, but we still adjust as Pass is an LA and 5C is demonstrably suggested by the UI.

As only a low heart lead or the queen of spades lead lets through 4S, and as nothing seems to get a 5th trick, 100% of 4S-1 seems fine to me

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Sep 10 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

That makes a pass of 4♠ more than merely a logical alternative: it's blindingly obvious to pass.  North had UI that suggests not passing 4♠, so he can't bid 5♣.

What seems "blindingly obvious" to some people is not so obvious to others.

For example, it seems "blindingly obvious" to me that the correct personal pronoun to use when referring to a participant in the National Women's Teams is "she", but you and several other posters seem to prefer to use the word "he".

So although I happen to agree with your view that passing 4♠ is the correct call on the North hand, the correct course of action for the TD is to poll peers of North after the auction 1♠-3♣[strong jump shift]-4♠ to assess whether pass is in fact a logical alternative for this particular North.

VixTD said:

I was interested to hear opinions on whether to adjust on the basis of South's pass of 5♣. If NS really had no agreement and South was just giving what she thought was a likely explanation to try to be helpful (a common but erroneous practice) it's hardly fair to accuse her of fielding a misbid, whatever else she may have done wrong.

Correct. It is only possible to field a misbid if a player caters for her partner having deviated from their agreement. If there is no agreement in the first place, there is nothing to deviate from. This reminds me of a Brighton ruling posted on this fourm a few weeks ago (the thread seems to have mysteriously disappeared) where the auction went something like (1♠)-1NT-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠)-(P)-3♥-All Pass. 2♥ was described as a transfer, responder had a weak take-out in hearts. Apparently the TD ruled fielded misbid, but I think that this ruling would only have been correct if the TD had established the pair to have specifically agreed the transfer into the opponent's major as showing the suit. The overwhelming likelihood is that the pair had never discussed the situation, in which case there was no agreement and hence no misbid to field.

In such cases the TD just needs to consider the UI and the MI (the correct explanation was probably "no specific agreement").

Quote

Does a slight hesitation (assuming there was one) from North before 5♣ indicate to South that the explanation may have been incorrect?

Probably not. In auctions like this a slight hesitation normally just suggests that the player was spending a few seconds deciding what her partner's last bid was supposed to mean!

[MFA]

I would say back to 4♠, probably weighted between down one and down two. Agree with Frances and others.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Sep 18 2009, 11:49 PM, said:

For example, it seems "blindingly obvious" to me that the correct personal pronoun to use when referring to a participant in the National Women's Teams is "she", but you and several other posters seem to prefer to use the word "he".

The question I was answering was what a player sitting North in the given situation should do, rather than what a specific player should have done on a particular occasion that they encountered the situation. I therefore followed Fowler's advice that "where the matter of sex is not conspicuous or important he and his shall be allowed to represent a person instead of a man."

You'd have been on firmer ground questioning my mixing of tenses.