[jvage]

Scoring: IMP

---

East_South_West_North
Pass_1♣___Pass_1NT
2♣___Pass_3♣___X
3♥___All pass

N/S plays 5-cards openings. 1♣ shows 1+ after which they play transfers. 1♣ was alerted and explained as 1+. 1NT showed 10-12 without 4+ major. 2♣ was not alerted, North asks before he doubles and West says this is natural. After 3♥ the TD is called. He basically just asks the players to continue and call him back if there is a problem (would you have done anything different?). 3♥ was 1 down, N/S +100. When the TD is recalled North first said that he would have bid 4♦ if correctly informed, then says that he thinks East should have passed 3♣X. The TD adjusted to 4♦ N=, N/S +130.

N/S appeal because they don't think East had any reason not to pass 3♣X. They think the score should be 3♣X with 4 tricks, to quote the appeals form; "the result with optimal defence, I had already decided to lead the ♥T" (which would be a lead from the wrong side, it seems to be only 3 tricks on a trump-lead from either side ).

East's statement comes close to admitting that he got what Bluejak calls "Unauthorised Panic". He says that when 3♣ was doubled it seemed partner did not have much clubs and that it sounded like opponents had a lot of minors. It was likely partner had a bit in the majors, so he bid 3♥ to show his other suit. E/W agree after the fact that 2♣ showed spades and another.

PS: E/W did not actually complain about this so you may think it's unrelated, but N/S's CC was incorrectly labeled. In Norway we don't have any prealerts, but systems are split into 4 groups (natural, artificial, strong minor and HUM, the last type is only allowed in some top tournaments), each with a a colour code on the CC, based on opening bids. N/S's CC was marked "Natural" (but with a correct description, the system is allowed in the event). A natural system requires at least 3+ for openings in a minor and 4+ for openings in a major, a correct description for N/S's system would be "Artificial".

How would you rule? I am afraid I have no other information.

John

[helene_t]

If North had said that with correct explanation he would have bid 3♦ instead of X then I might have believed him.

But that he would have bid 4♦ over 3♥ is silly. At the point of his final pass it is obvious that E has majors so the MI doesn't matter.

I would let the score stand but remind W that if they have no agreement about a call, correct explanation is "no agreement", not "natural".

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Apr 15 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

If North had said that with correct explanation he would have bid 3♦ instead of X then I might have believed him.

But that he would have bid 4♦ over 3♥ is silly. At the point of his final pass it is obvious that E has majors so the MI doesn't matter.

I would let the score stand but remind W that if they have no agreement about a call, correct explanation is "no agreement", not "natural".

If they truly have no agreement, yes. But some few players have the (implicit or explicit) meta agreement that undiscussed calls are natural.

[jvage]

I agree with the two comments about the MI-aspects of the case.

No-one has commented on the UI from partners explanation of the 2♣ call, which was the basis for the appeal and in my opinion more interesting. West explained 2♣ as natural and then bid 3♣, after which East bid 3♥. Since no-one has commented on this, does it mean that all agree 3♥ was OK?

John

[blackshoe]

No. OTOH, is pass an LA? What does 3♣ mean in their actual system?

[RMB1]

To answer the UI question.

I think West is entitled to know that 2♣ on this auction may be misunderstood. Partner's 3♣ is further evidence that partner may have misunderstood. I do not think any player would pass 3♣X, risking playing that contract; so I do not think Pass is a logical alternative. Perhaps XX and 3♦ are logical alternatives but once partner has bid 3♣ the risk of a misunderstanding is too great, and bidding the better of one's suits is the only logical alternatives. I do not think there is a logical alternative to 3♥.

[jvage]

blackshoe, on Apr 18 2010, 08:19 AM, said:

No. OTOH, is pass an LA? What does 3♣ mean in their actual system?

When we discussed the case we only had written evidence, one problem was that it seemed neither the players nor the TD had even considered what 3♣ was supposed to mean after a two-suited overcall. Among stronger players in Norway the most common agreement is probably a good raise with support for at least one suit, but I don't know the actual agreement (undiscussed is perhaps the most likely).

Even if this was from the third division (of four), the players are normally better than average club-players, since average club-players generally don't play in the national divisions.

[Fluffy]

my 2 cents: if west has clubs he will pass 2♣, 3♣ is a strong raise and east has no reason to pass 3♣X other than to show a minimum hand with no preference for either major.

But forcing him to pick the only LA among 5 that ends in disaster seems ridicoulous.

[campboy]

I think some respondents have failed to notice the claim in the original post that 2♣ actually shows spades and another, not the majors. So I do not see why there should be any LA to completing the description of the hand with 3♥.