[Trinidad]

Scoring: XIMP

---

The auction:
 West  North  East  South
     -          -        -       1♦
 Pass   Pass   1NT*  Pass
 2♦**   Pass    3NT   Pass
 Pass   Pass

* Alerted and explained as 10-14 (this is the EW agreement)
** West thinks this is a transfer to hearts, East says afterwards that he thought it was a cue (asking for majors, INV or better). This bid was alerted, but both meanings are alertable in The Netherlands.

NS call the TD after the hand. They think that East may have used the UI that his partner understood his 1NT as 10-14 when he jumped to 3NT opposite a hand that could have 0 HCPs.

The TD comes to the table and decides that UI may have been used. EW appeal. East, an experienced player and a TD, says that he psyched 1NT, intending to play there, unless West did something. Now that West has cued 2♦, he was certainly worth a jump to 3NT. (West still thinks that they had agreed that 2♥ was a transfer.)

You are on the AC. What do you decide?

Rik

Edit: It may be good to know the table result: 3NT made after a diamond lead, followed by a small heart from hand by declarer for South's jack. Another diamond followed and another small heart for the ace. This gave East 9 tricks.

[helene_t]

LOL at the "psyche".

If they don't know what NT range they are playing I suppose it is plausible that they don't know their follow ups either.

If E took 2♦ as a transfer then it doesn't really make sense to bid 3NT. He knows his p doesn't have a hand worth a 1♥ overcall, so if he was happy to play a partscore opposite a hand that would pass 1NT, he would be even happier to play a partscore opposite a hand that would transfer to hearts.

So I think I would let the table result stand.

[rogerclee]

Best procedural penalty ever.

[iviehoff]

Trinidad, on Mar 29 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

* Alerted and explained as 10-14 (this is the EW agreement)

This is alertable in the Netherlands? Isn't this pretty much the normal meaning of 1N in the protective position?

If E and W had agreed over the meaning of 2D, and that meaning had been as E claims, I don't think there'd be a problem here. Even if E had forgotten the correct range for the NT, then, given an invitation from W, it is no abuse of the UI to bid game here. But E and W don't agree, and if W is more nearly correct, then E's bid looks like a close relative of unauthorised panic.

When a player says his bid is a psyche not a misbid, in a situation where precisely this misbid is rather common, and then asserts his partner's response is a misbid, against his partner's strong objection, it could sometimes be true. But it is unlikely, and unlikely claims need strong evidence, and so with deference to William of Ockham I would dismiss this appeal. The situation is a little unfortunate because if what E is saying is the unvarnished truth, then he did nothing wrong.

Yes, Helene, if E had understood W's bid as W intended it, it was probably foolish to bid 3N. But 3N is not the bid that carefully avoids taking advantage of the UI.

[WellSpyder]

A remarkably similar thing happened at our county match yesterday:

West North East South
............................. 1♦
Pass Pass 1NT Pass
2NT Pass 3NT Pass
Pass Pass

1NT was by agreement 11-15 or something similar. 2N was alerted as a transfer to a minor (presumably clubs in this case). East chose to bid 3NT rather than 3♣ since he actually had an 18 count.

As far as I know, East had no UI affecting his choice. But it turned out that West had actually forgotten the system and intended 2NT as invitational. Does this mean the 3NT bid has "fielded" the misbid, or does the fact that he has more points than advertised absolve him from making the normal response to 2N?

[hotShot]

I think this is a typical case of a pair that has made some agreements and are left with a hole in their system. I am almost sure that 2NT would show some 2 suited hand and that dbl is agreed to show shortness in opps suit.
So East has no systemic bid available and is to strong to pass and has to "invent" an underbid of 1NT each time.

If I'm right with my assumptions that 1NT was misexplained, since it contains an implicit agreement to open some stronger hands 1NT too. But I don't see that the MI damaged NS.
I don't think it's UI to East that he underbid the first round, so I guess I would let the table result stand, unless I have prior knowledge of a similar "psyche".

However I will point out to EW that they have an agreement now they have to disclose.

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on Mar 29 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

However I will point out to EW that they have an agreement now they have to disclose.

If the agreement to which you refer is that a balancing 1NT might include an 18 pointer, I'd say "maybe". Suppose they discuss, decide to retain (or make) the agreement that it shows 10-15 or so, and one of the forgets? Certainly I would agree that the second time that happens, an explanation that he forgets (and possibly an alert, I'm too tired to be sure) is appropriate, but if I had a misunderstanding about a bidding agreement, discussed it and affirmed an agreement, I certainly wouldn't expect that I still have an "agreement" that it might be something else because there was a previous cock up.

[VixTD]

I too am surprised that such a common and natural meaning for 1NT requires an alert.

An unscrupulous East, knowing full well they play transfers in this situation and realising from partner's explanation that he has misbid, might invent a cock-and-bull story about cue-bids to avoid the danger of playing in a part-score when West has reasonable values.

I'm not convinced that West's failure to overcall suggests to East which explanation might be correct. West could have a hand like this one with significantly better hearts and still not consider it an overcall.

Surely EW have some agreement about their methods in this situation? Do they play transfers over direct 1NT overcalls? What does their convention card say?

I agree with Iviehoff, and I'd be adjusting the score to 2♥ (E) making eight or (more likely) nine tricks.

And East's claim about psyching should be disregarded. I often get players who forget that they play 3♣ as Ghestem insisting that they had known what they were doing all along when they bid it, so they should not be subject to penalty for failing to raise their partner's new suit bid.

[bluejak]

One happening does not create an agreement.

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Mar 29 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

One happening does not create an agreement.

HotShot's argument was that they have no other way of showing a balanced 17-count than by "underbidding" 1NT. So it's not about an implicit agreement following from partnership experience, but about a whole in their system.

Not sure I agree with that. Presumably x followed by 1NT would show 15-18 or such. Not sure why E bid 1NT on this hand. Maybe he was afraid p would bid 2♣ so that he would have to rebid 2NT. If he always bids like that whenever he has 15-18 points with a doubleton in a suit p would have to bid at the 2-level then yes. But maybe he just did it this time and will double next time.

[jdonn]

Trinidad, on Mar 29 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

You are on the AC. What do you decide?

That east is a big fat liar.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 29 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

You are on the AC. What do you decide?

That east is a big fat liar.

Insufficient evidence. Nothing in the original post suggests that East is either big or fat. But with the rest of your conclusion, I agree entirely.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Mar 29 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 29 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

One happening does not create an agreement.

HotShot's argument was that they have no other way of showing a balanced 17-count than by "underbidding" 1NT. So it's not about an implicit agreement following from partnership experience, but about a whole in their system.

Not sure I agree with that. Presumably x followed by 1NT would show 15-18 or such. Not sure why E bid 1NT on this hand. Maybe he was afraid p would bid 2♣ so that he would have to rebid 2NT. If he always bids like that whenever he has 15-18 points with a doubleton in a suit p would have to bid at the 2-level then yes. But maybe he just did it this time and will double next time.

We have no evidence that this is what happened.

I generally play about 11-15 in this position. Not too long ago I looked at a 17 count, and thought about doubling then bidding NT, which shows this. Then I thought "to h*** with it" and bid 1NT. It neither means there is a hole in my system nor that I have an agreement to play this way.

Interesting enough, Terence Reese in one of his books on play hands, had much the same problem, finally decided to double, got a bad result, and wrote in the book "Next time I shall bid 1NT even though I am too strong". Did he have an agreement?

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Mar 29 2010, 11:12 AM, said:

Interesting enough, Terence Reese in one of his books on play hands, had much the same problem, finally decided to double, got a bad result, and wrote in the book "Next time I shall bid 1NT even though I am too strong".  Did he have an agreement?

I remember this but I don't think it's a good analogy. It was just a (lousy) 16 count, and it was over a major where he believed he would be compelled to rebid 2NT rather than over a minor where he would often get to rebid 1NT. This east could have doubled a minor but instead underbid by 4! points on a hand with great controls.

I mean what is this, if you want to bid it on 16 or 17 or 18 and you will do it when you have that hand then that is either your agreement or quickly becomes your agreement.

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Mar 29 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

Interesting enough, Terence Reese in one of his books on play hands, had much the same problem, finally decided to double, got a bad result, and wrote in the book "Next time I shall bid 1NT even though I am too strong". Did he have an agreement?

No.

But if this hand systematically can't double, then their range is not 10-14. It's like those who claim that they play 5-card majors and 4-card minors.

But you are right, we don't know what their de facto agreement is. Maybe his partner would expect him to double and bid 2NT over a 2♣ response.

[Trinidad]

About the alert of 1NT:

The Dutch alert rules state that you should alert anything that your opponents may not expect. The classic Dutch bridge courses do not treat balancing situations any different from direct overcalling situations. I would say that a large group of players plays a 15-17 1NT, also in the pass out seat.

This was played at a bridge club where I expect that about half the players play something like 11-14 and the other half something like 15-17 because they have never really thought that anything else would be possible. Therefore, to me it seems fair to alert it.

Rik

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

I mean what is this, if you want to bid it on 16 or 17 or 18 and you will do it when you have that hand then that is either your agreement or quickly becomes your agreement.

If it "will quickly become your agreement" it's not your agreement now, and if it's not, there can have been no infraction.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 29 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

I mean what is this, if you want to bid it on 16 or 17 or 18 and you will do it when you have that hand then that is either your agreement or quickly becomes your agreement.

If it "will quickly become your agreement" it's not your agreement now, and if it's not, there can have been no infraction.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we will all have a merry Christmas. Or are we mind readers now?

So what's his proof that he knew the 10-14 agreement when he bid? What's his evidence other than his word? I have evidence he is lying, which is that I have never seen someone underbid by 4 points intentionally for a notrump opening bid or overcall or balance in my entire life. And then, that his partner clearly believes they play transfers here but he finds a meaning for the cuebid that would allow him to bid 3NT with a maximum (how convenient!)

Why is this not cut and dried? He has the UI of hearing the explanation that is nothing like his hand. His only evidence that he didn't take advantage of that UI is not only self serving but (at best) very inplausible, and also requires believing his partner messed up the system on their next bid. I don't even see what is difficult about this ruling. I can't recall seeing another appeal with so little (no) merit.

[peachy]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 29 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

You are on the AC. What do you decide?

That east is a big fat liar.

I really wanted to say that, just didn't want to duck - let alone respond to - comments about *unfounded accusations* and *lack of evidence* etc. But that is how I saw it.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2010, 02:33 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 29 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 29 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

I mean what is this, if you want to bid it on 16 or 17 or 18 and you will do it when you have that hand then that is either your agreement or quickly becomes your agreement.

If it "will quickly become your agreement" it's not your agreement now, and if it's not, there can have been no infraction.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we will all have a merry Christmas. Or are we mind readers now?

So what's his proof that he knew the 10-14 agreement when he bid? What's his evidence other than his word? I have evidence he is lying, which is that I have never seen someone underbid by 4 points intentionally for a notrump opening bid or overcall or balance in my entire life. And then, that his partner clearly believes they play transfers here but he finds a meaning for the cuebid that would allow him to bid 3NT with a maximum (how convenient!)

Why is this not cut and dried? He has the UI of hearing the explanation that is nothing like his hand. His only evidence that he didn't take advantage of that UI is not only self serving but (at best) very inplausible, and also requires believing his partner messed up the system on their next bid. I don't even see what is difficult about this ruling. I can't recall seeing another appeal with so little (no) merit.

I guess when you said what I quoted earlier, you didn't really mean it. Okay, fine. Have it your way.