[bluejak]

Scoring: IMP

---

 W    N    E    S
1NT   P  2♣   P
2♠  Dbl 2NT   P
3NT   P   P     P

Result: 3NT/W -1, NS +100

2♠ was not alerted, but asked about anyway. South said "Penalties, probably".

West said afterwards that he would not have bid 3NT if he had no been told it was penalties, but would have bid 4♠ instead.

Any offers?

[lamford]

I will have a go; presumably West meant that he would have bid 3S instead, as would I if told that the double was "undiscussed" which must be the presumed meaning, as we should assume MI rather than misbid.

I don't think we should deny West redress for making the ridiculous claim that he would have bid 4S. Unlike a claim statement, his response to the TD provides the basis for ruling, but he is not bound by remarks he makes which can often be silly. The overriding question is "would peers of West, with the correct information, have bid 3S?" This must be forcing, showing five spades, and therefore East will raise to 4.

This makes routinely, as clubs are 3-3 and South never gets in, so my adjustment is to 100% of 4S making, the normal contract without the infraction.

I presume that on a heart lead in 3NT, declarer won, and at some stage misguessed which minor suit finessse to take.

[bluejak]

I believe that in all judgement rulings we assess all evidence, so we take note of his assertion and mentally allow some weighting to it.

The problem is that while I agree with Paul as to what 3♠ should show I cannot remember that sequence ever in all my years of playing, and am not convinced that a player would necessarily make the bid for fear partner might be on a different wavelength.

The TD thought similarly: E/W were misinformed, possibly damaged, but quite likely the auction would reach 3NT. He gave an adjustment with some weighting for 4♠. Even there, entries to do everything is the problem, and 4♠ might go off. So here gave a percentage of 25 or thereabouts to NS -620, and the remainder to NS +100, both for table score and for 4♠ -1.



The interest in these problems seems considerably less over the last few. It may be because they are just boring examples, or it may be a surfeit of this type of problem. I have some more from the Swiss Teams, but I have decided to hold them over for a time.

[hotShot]

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 10:16 PM, said:

 W    N    E    S
1NT   P  2♣   P
2♠  Dbl 2NT   P
3NT   P   P     P

Result: 3NT/W -1, NS +100

2♠ was not alerted, but asked about anyway. South said "Penalties, probably".

Actually I did not post to this, because I did not get it.

Why is the 2♠ bid from West explained by South as penalties.....

[lamford]

hotShot, on Jan 14 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 10:16 PM, said:

 W    N    E    S
1NT   P  2♣   P
2♠  Dbl 2NT   P
3NT   P   P     P

Result: 3NT/W -1, NS +100

2♠ was not alerted, but asked about anyway. South said "Penalties, probably".

Actually I did not post to this, because I did not get it.

Why is the 2♠ bid from West explained by South as penalties.....

Come, come .. surely you realised just like everyone else that bluejak meant "the double of 2♠". If bluejak was meticulous in checking and rechecking the OP we would get fewer of them, so we should not be so pernickety.

[jdonn]

West's claim is dumb, implausible, and made me laugh out loud. No redress. What in the world is it about a double of 2♠ being for penalties that makes it more likely for west to rebid spades when he didn't otherwise?

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 14 2010, 11:17 AM, said:

The problem is that while I agree with Paul as to what 3♠ should show I cannot remember that sequence ever in all my years of playing, and am not convinced that a player would necessarily make the bid for fear partner might be on a different wavelength.

And what does 3H by West mean? I would suggest that it should be 5-3- (3 2). But I am getting sidetracked.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 14 2010, 11:52 AM, said:

What in the world is it about a double of 2♠ being for penalties that makes it more likely for west to rebid spades when he didn't otherwise?

It was the other way round. If the double had been stated to be takeout, or even "undiscussed" it is more likely West would have bid spades again than if it were explained as penalties.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Jan 14 2010, 09:17 AM, said:

The problem is that while I agree with Paul as to what 3♠ should show I cannot remember that sequence ever in all my years of playing, and am not convinced that a player would necessarily make the bid for fear partner might be on a different wavelength.

Apparently this is within a weak NT system where 2C followed by 2NT is a random invite without necessarily having a major.

A 3S rebid after that with a maximum and a fifth spade is rather common among players who would open 1NT with a five card major. Something derailed West from doing that while accepting the invite on this hand -- it is reasonable to rule that the "penalty" explanation prevented the 3S rebid.

In ACBL, the 2NT bid would have to be alerted because it is the first clue that responder might not have a major, but that is not relevent to the problem.

If West meant he would have bid 3S (not 4), the score should be adjusted to 4S=

[mjj29]

I (the TD) decided that the correct explanation was "undiscussed" rather than "takeout", which means I don't think they would have reached 4S all of the time (after consultation), hence the weighted ruling.

aguahombre is correct in his description of the system

[bluejak]

hotShot, on Jan 14 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

Why is the 2♠ bid from West explained by South as penalties.....

Could I claim I was just testing to see if anyone was awake?

It is strange: I make a lot of typing errors so while I do proofread, I find so many errors in spelling and suchlike that I probably do not check the facts as much as I should. mea culpa [bet the spellchekka does not like that ]

As to people not getting it, it must be the snow.