Adjustment ? BIT EBU
#1
Posted 2010-January-15, 21:00
The auction proceeded with E as dealer:
2♦(weak)-X-P-2♥(slow)-P-2N-P-3N
3N makes and cannot be beaten.
N was asked before the lead what X followed by 2N showed and said it was 18-19 (not corrected by declarer). It also emerged that a direct 2N would have been 2 suited. Their agreement is unclear, we felt that if the holder of the 6 count was right and it did show 18-19, then the 16 count was taking advantage of the BIT.
We didn't ask for a ruling in a match played privately as we won it anyway.
What do people reckon ?
#2
Posted 2010-January-16, 03:45
Cyberyeti, on Jan 15 2010, 10:00 PM, said:
Do NS play lebensol in that situation? If so it's a lot less clear what the UI shows there.
#3
Posted 2010-January-16, 04:00
London UK
#4
Posted 2010-January-16, 04:41
gordontd, on Jan 16 2010, 05:00 AM, said:
Quote
2N would have been natural, that was the other bid he said he was considering.
#6
Posted 2010-January-16, 10:07
If a direct 2NT is really a two-suiter, then 18-19 for double, then 2NT, is unworkable. So, the doubler overbid and got lucky. Was he supposed to pass 2H when he had a 2NT bid the first time and a flawed system?
The exact hands are irrelevent, but we don't even know if the doubler had 3 hearts.
In any case, the slow 2H had nothing to do with advancer's holding and nothing to do with the result.
#7
Posted 2010-January-16, 10:10
aguahombre, on Jan 16 2010, 11:07 AM, said:
If a direct 2NT is really a two-suiter, then 18-19 for double, then 2NT, is unworkable. So, the doubler overbid and got lucky. Was he supposed to pass 2H when he had a 2NT bid the first time and a flawed system?
The exact hands are irrelevent, but we don't even know if the doubler had 3 hearts.
In any case, the slow 2H had nothing to do with advancer's holding and nothing to do with the result.
He didn't have 3 hearts, was 3235.
#8
Posted 2010-January-16, 11:48
Cyberyeti, on Jan 16 2010, 09:10 AM, said:
aguahombre, on Jan 16 2010, 11:07 AM, said:
If a direct 2NT is really a two-suiter, then 18-19 for double, then 2NT, is unworkable. So, the doubler overbid and got lucky. Was he supposed to pass 2H when he had a 2NT bid the first time and a flawed system?
The exact hands are irrelevent, but we don't even know if the doubler had 3 hearts.
In any case, the slow 2H had nothing to do with advancer's holding and nothing to do with the result.
He didn't have 3 hearts, was 3235.
then, the doubler had already left himself no other options than to rebid 2NT regardless of the slowness or fastness or whatever. Result stands. There is no offending side, but someone should advise the declarer and his partner to plug up the holes in their system unless they play the cards like Meckwell.
#9
Posted 2010-January-16, 12:34
aguahombre, on Jan 16 2010, 12:48 PM, said:
Cyberyeti, on Jan 16 2010, 09:10 AM, said:
aguahombre, on Jan 16 2010, 11:07 AM, said:
If a direct 2NT is really a two-suiter, then 18-19 for double, then 2NT, is unworkable. So, the doubler overbid and got lucky. Was he supposed to pass 2H when he had a 2NT bid the first time and a flawed system?
The exact hands are irrelevent, but we don't even know if the doubler had 3 hearts.
In any case, the slow 2H had nothing to do with advancer's holding and nothing to do with the result.
He didn't have 3 hearts, was 3235.
then, the doubler had already left himself no other options than to rebid 2NT regardless of the slowness or fastness or whatever. Result stands. There is no offending side, but someone should advise the declarer and his partner to plug up the holes in their system unless they play the cards like Meckwell.
No need to play like meckwell, just have all 3 finesses work on every board ...
#10
Posted 2010-January-16, 16:32
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#11
Posted 2010-January-18, 13:17
#12
Posted 2010-January-18, 15:16
Pict, on Jan 18 2010, 02:17 PM, said:
My point was that dummy said the 2N bid was 18-19, his partner who was about to declare and should have corrected the explanation if it was wrong didn't, so we assumed it was correct. Oppos I believe were experienced players (certainly their team mates were) and should have known the proprieties of correcting the explanation if it wasn't right.
Declarer then turns out to be 2-3 points light of this opposite a hesitation that to me at the time felt like he wanted to bid something more serious, so it seemed reasonable to ask the question.
As it happened, this was board 1 of the match, had I seen some of the other stuff that went on in the match (weirdness not any ethical issues), it would have surprised me less.
Example: favourable
xxx, Axxxx, J, Axxx
Partner opens 3♦-X-P-3N-P-P-?
The man bid 4♦, we doubled and he found his partner with Q109 to 8 and out, for -300 and a big gain.

Help
