[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

---

..P....P....2♦*...P
2♥*..P...2♠...2NT
3♠...3NT...P...4♦
...P.....P.....P

2♦ was a multi, weak two in a major or strong two in a minor or strong balanced
2♥ was to play opposite a weak two in hearts
2♠ showed a weak two in spades
2NT showed both minors, not alerted

Result: 4♦ (E) =, NS -130

EW's defence to a multi-coloured 2♦ is that: in 2nd seat double shows 13-15 (semi)balanced (or a hand too strong for a direct overcall), 2NT shows 16-18 (semi)balanced, suit overcalls natural; in 4th seat double is a takeout of the bid major, otherwise bids are as in 2nd seat; in 6th seat 2NT shows the minors, otherwise bids are as in 4th seat.

East called the director and corrected the failure to alert before the opening lead. East [yes, I meant North] didn't want to reopen the bidding, but asked for a ruling at the end of play.

Any comments?

[paulg]

Presumably it was North who did not want to change his final pass after the missing alert was announced and then asked for the ruling.

East seems to have the easiest pass in the world over 3NT, so I'd be interested in why he bid 4♦. It certainly looks a bid that could be based on UI - if he says 3NT is 'pick a minor' then I might ask why he did not alert it and what his partner would bid with KJx KTxx Axx xxx?

So assuming East does not have a credible explanation, I will be ruling 3NT down some.

[jallerton]

I agree with Paul. We need to ask East why he bid 4♦.

I'd be interested to know if E/W had any agreement on the strength for the 2NT bid. If it showed say 10-13HCP, East might argue that the 3NT bid by a passed hand is impossible and thus partner it is clear from AI that partner must have forgotten the system and/or not intended 3NT to be natural.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on Feb 27 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

I agree with Paul.  We need to ask East why he bid 4♦.

I was East. It seemed to me that while hands which can't open the bidding exist where 3NT makes opposite this one, they would have to not deviate from Paul's suggestion by so much as an honour card, and partner cannot possibly know that, for instance, ♠KJx♥K10xx♦Axx♣xxx will be OK, but ♠K10x♥K10xx♦Axx♣xxx, ♠KJx♥K10xx♦xxx♣Axx, ♠KJx♥Kxx♦Axxx♣xxx will not.

On the other hand, there is no guarantee that 4♦ is going to be any better a contract if he has one of these hands, but the unauthorized information that partner probably doesn't have anything like one of these holdings (thinking I had a natural 2NT overcall) probably makes 4♦ a safer bet (i.e. fewer undertricks) and therefore demonstrably suggested.

I didn't really bid 4♦, of course, I took my medicine in 3NT (down five). I was wondering about it later, though, so I thought I'd see what reactions it would have provoked.

[bluejak]

There are many places where people say "But I know that partner has such-and-such from the authorised information". The simple answer is that the UI Laws still apply. A more complex answer is that the authorised information only justifies the action taken if it means there are no LAs suggested.