[Mbodell]

Scoring: MP

1nt(12-14)-P-2♦(transfer)-X
2♥-3♦-P-...3nt(slow)
P-...4♠(slow)
All pass

---

4♠-1, NS claims 3nt would have been down a lot more than 1.

[RMB1]

Before I would adjust, I would ask the meaning of X, 2♥, 3♦, and 3NT (in the context of the earlier X).

[bluejak]

Fair comments, but I think it not unreasonable to guess that you will get the answers dbl shows he would have doubled 1NT, 2♥ shows three hearts, 3♦ shows some values and is natural but not forcing, and 3NT is to play.

Would West pass a "fast, happy" 3NT as John Probst used to put it? Certainly!

So I would adjust to some weighted score of 3NT down four, three, two and so on.

[barmar]

Doesn't double of a transfer bid usually show length and strength in the transfer suit, with little implied about the rest of the hand? It's generally intended as a lead director, with possible sactifice suggestions if partner has a fit. So 3♦ is just a "raise" of East's diamonds.

[Mbodell]

Nobody at the table asked about any of the bids until after the hand. West at first thought the X showed diamonds (lead direct, some values and hence the 3♦ was a "raise"), but when 3♦ was pulled to 3nt worried that maybe the X was take out of hearts and showed 4♠.

Bidding 2♥ over the double probably shows 3+ card support for N/S.

[helene_t]

barmar, on May 10 2010, 06:52 AM, said:

Doesn't double of a transfer bid usually show length and strength in the transfer suit, with little implied about the rest of the hand? It's generally intended as a lead director, with possible sactifice suggestions if partner has a fit. So 3♦ is just a "raise" of East's diamonds.

This is not obvious when opps play a weak NT. Many play the dbl as showing a hand that would have doubled 1NT for penalties.

But Mbodell's explanation makes sense, otherwise the 4♠ bid is hard to explain.

[peachy]

I would adjust to 3NT down however many that is. To me it is obvious that Doubler used UI to bid 4S on K764. He would have passed an in-tempo 3NT and even if he hadn't, Pass is very clearly a LA not suggested by the UI while bidding is strongly suggested over pass, by the BIT.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on May 9 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

So I would adjust to some weighted score of 3NT down four, three, two and so on.

No you wouldn't, ACBL...

[bluejak]

Damn, sorry, I do not usually make that mistake.

Ok, Four down for the offending side, three down for the non-offending side.

<mutter> <mutter> another black mark in my book.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on May 10 2010, 12:39 PM, said:

barmar, on May 10 2010, 06:52 AM, said:

Doesn't double of a transfer bid usually show length and strength in the transfer suit, with little implied about the rest of the hand?  It's generally intended as a lead director, with possible sactifice suggestions if partner has a fit.  So 3♦ is just a "raise" of East's diamonds.

This is not obvious when opps play a weak NT. Many play the dbl as showing a hand that would have doubled 1NT for penalties.

But Mbodell's explanation makes sense, otherwise the 4♠ bid is hard to explain.

It also means that pass was not an LA for this West player at the point that he bid 4♠.

Probably EW are not very experienced in defending against a weak NT (ACBL).

Rik

[peachy]

Trinidad, on May 11 2010, 07:37 AM, said:

Probably EW are not very experienced in defending against a weak NT (ACBL).

Rik

Also probably not experienced in the UI laws = how to act when one has received UI from partner.