[Fluffy]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-ps-1NT*-2♠
3♣-ps-ps-3♦
X -ps-ps-ps

---

♣A lead, and switch to ♠8 wich goes small Jack.

-1NT alerted as forcing 1 round.


-EW are no regular pair.

-screens at the table, south asks west if 1NT denies 4 card spade. He answer yes denies. Declarer asks again and again west says it denies 4 card spades.

So declarer ducks and east gives partner a ruff for down 1.

South isn't very happy about the outcome and calls director. But then someone starts to point out that west would have 14 cards for the duck to work (2 spades 5 hearts 2 diamonds and 5 clubs).

What do you think?

[RMB1]

> answer what you know not what you think

I think I don't know enough.

Did anyone ask East what 1NT showed or denied?
Did anyone ask West/East what the double meant?

(What juristriction? - In England, without screens, the unalerted double would be TO.)

[hotShot]

East did not raise the 1♥ opening with 3 card support, are they playing 4-card majors or is this a forcing NT from some sort of 2/1?

[Fluffy]

1NT as alerted forcing 1 round, they play 2/1

[jallerton]

RMB1, on Mar 20 2010, 06:45 AM, said:

Did anyone ask West/East what the double meant?

(What juristriction? - In England, without screens, the unalerted double would be TO.)

South isn't very happy about the outcome and calls director. But then someone starts to point out that west would have 14 cards for the duck to work (2 spades 5 hearts 2 diamonds and 5 clubs).

I suspect this deal comes from Spain, but as they are holding their trial for Ostend at the moment, they may have been using standard EBL screen regulations.

It seems that East must have interpreted the double as penalties, but as they are not a regular partnership, I suspect that they did not have a specific agreement.

Quote

South isn't very happy about the outcome and calls director. But then someone starts to point out that west would have 14 cards for the duck to work (2 spades 5 hearts 2 diamonds and 5 clubs).

The duck would work if West had started with a 2524 shape. Whilst East would be more likely to pull the double holding 5-card club support, he might have been expected to have pulled the double to 3♥ on his actual hand.

[hotShot]

Declarer made it clear, that he would take the spade trick, if the 1NT bid does not deny a 4 card spade suit.
Whether the duck might or might not work is irrelevant.

How strong is:
1♥ - 1♠
something - 2♥
and does it promise 3 card support?

If the above sequence does not promise 3♥'s or if it is stronger as:
1♥ - 1NT*
2m - 2♥

than it is illogical to agree that the 1NT bid denies a 4 card spade suit.

Since West assures that 1NT denies a 4 card spade suit, I have to assume that this detail was discussed.

Since the event was important enough to play with screens, I assume there is a written system description available to check that and we can ask East about the agreement and why he deviated from it.

I suspect the result will be that EW did not have a specific agreement.
Than there would have been a MI that caused damage. The score should be corrected to 3♦X made.

[barmar]

I think it's just as likely that East chose to ignore that aspect of the agreement. It looks like he wanted to make a non-constructive heart raise, so he bypassed his spades.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Mar 19 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

What do you think?

Is this combined with the thread title a trick question?

What I think is west could be 2524 and declarer made a good play since spades can't be 1-4 based on the explanation!

What I then think is EW have no true agreement, west guessed at an agreement instead of stating there was no true agreement, and this caused declarer to go wrong. Time for a score adjustment.