[bluejak]

On to the second session!!!!

Scoring: MP

    1♥ 2♠ 3♦!
 P 3♥  P 3NT
 P  P   P

Result:
3NT/S +2
NS +460

---

North alerted 3♦ as a Bergen raise, which was their agreement. The opposition did not ask until the end of the auction.

South admitted she had forgotten it was Bergen, and the alert reminded her. She said she bid 3NT because now she realised that partner might have poor hearts since 3♥ was a signoff over Bergen, not a rebid showing length. They play four-card majors.

This was not one of my better efforts: yes, this time I was the TD.

[Ant590]

(I think you have EW and NS switched in the commentary)

There seems to be UI, so time to give the south hand to players for a poll?

[bluejak]

What is it you find at the bottom of a budgie's cage, four letters ending in '..it'?

Ok, I have edited the post. Sorry.

[Mbodell]

There is still a minor problem with the original post. The results say 3nt/e +2 for N/S -460. Surely it ought to be 3nt/s +2 for N/S +460. My guess is it was rotated for convenience in reporting.

So South makes a panic 3nt bid that they shouldn't make. However, I don't think pass of 3♥ is a LA. So what would the South hand do. My guess is most souths would bid 3♠ fishing for 3nt and if partner can't bid 3nt sign off in 4♥. But some might go straight to 4♥.

How did they make 5? Opening lead of a spade should reveal the double stop in spades, and presumably the ♦T is hooked and west maybe ducks once and then hopes partner has the ♥A and tries to knock out the spade stop?

If the auction went 3♠-3nt then E is on lead and presumably leads ♠Q most of the time which N should win with the K (but sometimes will win the A giving away the later switch). The diamonds are played on and seeing the south hand west must guess which is more likely in the E hand: KJ or better of ♥, ♣K, or ♠A. I'd say the clubs would be played some amount of the time.

In 4♥ it will make or go down 1 depending on if the lead is the ♠Q or the risky but right on this layout ♣K.

So I'm guessing there is some weighted ruling? I'd want to poll to get some idea on if I have the auctions and plays right but my swag is something like:

10% N/S -50 4♥-1
25% N/S +420 4♥=
50% N/S +430 3nt+4
15% N/S +460 3nt+5

[gnasher]

South has an obvious raise of 3♥ to 4♥. Even if you disagree that 4♥ is clearcut, I can't see how anyone could believe that it isn't a logical alternative.

3♠ and 3NT are both suggested by the UI, so South bids 4♥ 100% of the time.

What would happen in 4♥? It's off immediately on an unlikely club lead (but not on the unlikely diamond lead, because West will try to give East a diamond ruff). On a spade lead, North has three lines:
(1) Ruff a spade high, draw trumps, play diamonds. The defence will be endplayed to provide a club entry when they win the second diamond (or the first club, if East has ♦A). That's playing for spades 3-3.
(2) Knock out ♦A, planning to throw a spade on a diamond before drawing trumps. Against best defence that needs diamonds 3-3 and no club ruff; declarer also needs to survive East's winning the second diamond and playing a club, which might prevent the later endplay.
(3) Draw trumps and play diamonds, then win the spade and use the endplay to obtain a club entry without letting East in. That needs West to have ♣AK and spades 2=6 or 1=7; again they might be able to prevent the endplay if East wins the diamond and plays a club.

I think that the third line is best, but only the first works on the actual layout.

I don't know how much of this analysis North would be capable of. I'd give NS some percentage of +420 and some percentage of -50, with exact figures depending on my view of North's ability. Paradoxically, if I think he's a good player he's going to get a worse score.

South also needs the rules explained to her.

Did EW do something egregious in defence to 3NT? Letting through a second overtrick looks bad, but I don't know if it's bad enough for them to forfeit any of their adjustment.

[helene_t]

South is remarkably honest in saying that the alert waked her up. Call me a cynic but my guess is that she didn't realize that the information was UI and that making use of it was illegal. Somehow I feel bad about punishing a player for giving such an honest account. Fortunately I would have ruled the same if she had claimed she would have realized anyway, or that her 3NT bid was based on the assumption that 3♥ shows extra length.

Anyway, emotions aside.

Agree with Gnasher.

[mamos]

So South has UI.

The nice lady explains her thought patterns which tell us exactly that she has done what 16B forbids.

In her Unauthorised Panic she has settled on 3NT.

What alternatives were there?

I don't think Pass is an LA (We don't know NS methods or lack of them but if 3♦ was natural 3♥ would have shown an unbalanced hand with at least five Hearts.

3NT is suggested by the UI and so I feel is 3♠. Surely if partner had a suitable hand for 3NT, he could bid it over 3♦. All roads would lead to 4♥ and I would adjust to 4♥ played by North.

Clearly 4♥ can be made by ruffing a Spade high, shutting our eyes and drawing trumps, but it does need trumps 3-3 which given the 2♠ call looks a bit unlikely. It does look natural for North to win the Spade and play Diamonds. Now EW can certainly defeat the contract by getting their Club ruff and West should be up to this as he knows North has AK♠ and presumably high Hearts, but in Mike's opinion (and the defence to 3NT) they might not.

So x% 4♥= and y% 4♥-1
What %?
Sarah thinks it's more likely to go down than make. We might ask North how he'd play, that might or might not help

Sarah wants 70% -1 30%=
I'm slightly more generous and might be persuaded for 50% 50% ("Boo" and general derision in the background)

Mike (and Sarah)

[hotShot]

gnasher, on Jan 3 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

South has an obvious raise of 3♥ to 4♥.  Even if you disagree that 4♥ is clearcut, I can't see how anyone could believe that it isn't a logical alternative.

3♠ and 3NT are both suggested by the UI, so South bids 4♥ 100% of the time.

bluejak, on Jan 3 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

  They play four-card majors.

Are you sure that playing four-card majors 3♥ is promising 6+♥? Otherwise there is no ♥ fit.

My 4cM days are long gone, but I'm quite sure that 3♥ would have promised only 5 cards. Wanting to be in game but trying to avoid playing a 4 level 5-2 fit, I would have bid 3NT back then knowing that partner holding 6♥ would correct that to 4♥ and preferring to be one down in 3NT than 2+ down in 4♥ at MPs.

I don't think that the UI suggests to bid 3NT (without a ♠ stopper), but certainly the UI suggests not to bid 4♥! Since other player would have no problem playing a 5-2 fit at the 4 level, this may force me the accept 4♥ as an LA, if this is what the polled players would do.

Edit:
Many club level player I know would pass here because there is no ♥ fit and no ♠ stopper!

[bluejak]

Mbodell, on Jan 3 2010, 04:57 AM, said:

There is still a minor problem with the original post.  The results say 3nt/e +2 for N/S -460.  Surely it ought to be 3nt/s +2 for N/S +460.  My guess is it was rotated for convenience in reporting. 

Oh my sainted aunt!

No, it was not rotated: I am copying the hands direct from the hand records.

But my notes were a bit scraggly and I did not put them in WNES, so I rotated the auction when transcribing,a nd the result was then put in consistently.

Still a bottom of budgie's cage job!

Ok, edited again.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Jan 3 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

South is remarkably honest in saying that the alert waked her up. Call me a cynic but my guess is that she didn't realize that the information was UI and that making use of it was illegal. Somehow I feel bad about punishing a player for giving such an honest account. Fortunately I would have ruled the same if she had claimed she would have realized anyway, or that her 3NT bid was based on the assumption that 3♥ shows extra length.

I think it is important to change the mindset. We are adjusting because a player did something illegal but did not realise it was illegal. The word "punish" is unfortunate. When you get a lady like this one who seems ethical but ignorant I doubt she would want to gain illegally.

[gnasher]

hotShot, on Jan 3 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

Are you sure that playing four-card majors 3♥ is promising 6+♥? Otherwise there is no ♥ fit.

If it doesn't, it promises a good enough suit to be playable opposite Ax.

A natural 3♦ is normally played as game-forcing. With an average five-card heart suit, opener will bid one of 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, or 4♦.

[StevenG]

gnasher, on Jan 3 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jan 3 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

Are you sure that playing four-card majors 3♥ is promising 6+♥? Otherwise there is no ♥ fit.

If it doesn't, it promises a good enough suit to be playable opposite Ax.

A natural 3♦ is normally played as game-forcing. With an average five-card heart suit, opener will bid one of 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, or 4♦.

That may be the expert agreement, but we are not told that NS are experts. In my non-expert partnerships I would expect North to bid 3♥, South to bid 3♠ and North to sign off in 3NT. I cannot see why South should lurch directly to 4♥ when there are spade losers and no guaranteed means of ruffing them.

Perhaps with Gnasher's agreements, 4♥ is a LA, but with my agreements, 3♠ is so superior a bid that I cannot imagine anyone who had 3♠ available choosing 4♥ in preference. Therefore I have my doubts that 4♥ is a LA for ordinary players.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Jan 3 2010, 06:57 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 3 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

South is remarkably honest in saying that the alert waked her up. Call me a cynic but my guess is that she didn't realize that the information was UI and that making use of it was illegal. Somehow I feel bad about punishing a player for giving such an honest account. Fortunately I would have ruled the same if she had claimed she would have realized anyway, or that her 3NT bid was based on the assumption that 3♥ shows extra length.

I think it is important to change the mindset. We are adjusting because a player did something illegal but did not realise it was illegal. The word "punish" is unfortunate. When you get a lady like this one who seems ethical but ignorant I doubt she would want to gain illegally.

Perfect: praise and explanation to the offender --then adjustment. Everyone comes off content.

To those who hate "me too's", sorry, but ME TOO

[Poky]

South has UI after partner alerts 3♦.

Is bidding 3NT with two small spades suggested by the UI?
- Well, I don't believe it. If anything, 3♠ is heavily suggested over 4♥. But the 3NT bid is a very bad bid no matter what the previous bidding meant. A player who is capable to bid like that with UI, is completely capable to do it even with no UI, in same amount.

So, no reason to change the score. NS just got lucky, this time.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Jan 3 2010, 11:25 AM, said:

Did EW do something egregious in defence to 3NT? Letting through a second overtrick looks bad, but I don't know if it's bad enough for them to forfeit any of their adjustment.

Letting through a second overtrick looks normal. You have to be very secure in your defensive agreements not to.

Look at it from West's point of view. Why couldn't the weak jump have been on QJ10xxx Axx xx xx? After winning the ace of diamonds a spade back beats it trivially. Yes, declarer should have ducked the opening lead in that case, but we've all seen players who don't do that.

I understand that 3NT+2 was a very common result on the frequencies, although likely to be played the other way up, and that conceding 3NT+1 was a very good result.

[bluejak]

Since 3NT was suggested by the UI, I disallowed it and adjusted to 4♥, This is cold off, of course, but ♣K lead seemed very unlikely, and a ♦ to the ace and a low ♣ back also pretty unlikely. However, the play is not too obvious either, so I decided on a weighted score of 4♥ making most of the time, going off occasionally.

North appeared to understand the UI problems, unlike South, and agreed it should be adjusted, but said he thought his partner would possibly bid 3♠ over 3♥ since she would not know he had six hearts or a good five. I realised that my consultant and I had overlooked this point, apologised, and went off to re-consider [and growl at my consultant!] .

I do not agree with people in this thread who think 3♥ shows very good hearts particularly, nor did I believe 3♠ was disallowed, so eventually I ruled
   40% of 3NT +2, NS +460
+ 45% of 4♥=, NS +420
+ 15% of 4♥ -1, NS -50

Both sides seemed happy enough.

[jallerton]

A few points here.

If the TD returns to the table and explains his ruling, is it appropriate for a player to ask the TD to revise his ruling, or should the TD simply refer the player to his right to appeal?

At the table, 3NT made 11 tricks but that was played by South. If you share Bluejak's view that South is permitted to bid 3♠, 3NT would end up being played by North. With the other hand being dummy, the defensive problem is different and there is a possibility that the defence would find the cashout. Hence it would seem appropriate to subdivide the 3NT by North into weightings of 10 and 11 tricks.

Finally, if Bluejak is entitled to growl at his consultant for not noticing something, is not the consultant entitled to growl back at Bluejak for not noticing the same point?

[hotShot]

jallerton, on Jan 6 2010, 09:58 PM, said:

If the TD returns to the table and explains his ruling, is it Finally, if Bluejak is entitled to growl at his consultant for not noticing something, is not the consultant entitled to growl back at Bluejak for not noticing the same point?

No he can't! It's the consultants job to find what you missed.

[blackshoe]

I think that if a player has a problem with a TD's ruling, he has every right to say so. I think also such player needs to be careful that his discussion doesn't take too long, and doesn't devolve to argument.

[bluejak]

Both North and South were extremely polite - ok, so were East and West. There is nothing wrong with asking for a ruling under Law 82C, which is effectively what he did.

I am intrigued at the 11 tricks: that is what it says in my notes, but I am surprised. Perhaps my notes are wrong. I agree with Jeffrey's analysis.