[aguahombre]

Pict, on Sep 16 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

To tell the truth I don't much care about the EW bidding system.

I just wanted to make a point about East's explanation, that seemed to have been overlooked or ignored in the initial rush to pillory North (not on Bluejak's part).

No doubt East was trying to be ethical and provide full disclosure, but he made such a mess of it that he casts doubt on whether there has really been a BIT by North.

I seem to remember other threads where it was agreed, "no agreement" was woefully inadequate when the side being asked has firm agreements in related situations. I see nothing wrong with the attempt at as full disclosure as possible; and see nothing unusual about advancer taking his time to absorb the information and arrive at a choice of call.

But if doubler passed 3S with that hand (AXXXX KX AXX AXX), and it worked --he must have more knowledge about partner's slow bids than he should; or he decided 3S must be a weak advance because their side has agreements over a known Jordon 2NT (double and 3H available).

TD needs to investigate that.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on Sep 16 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

... or he decided 3S must be a weak advance because their side has agreements over a known Jordon 2NT (double and 3H available).

Although it is a bit off-topic, it must make sense to play double as Lebensohl, and other bids as transfers. This releases 3S to be minor-suit Stayman. Perhaps North spent some time trying to remember whether he was playing Lebensohl or Rubensohl in this position?

[Pict]

aguahombre, on Sep 16 2010, 11:31 AM, said:

Pict, on Sep 16 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

To tell the truth I don't much care about the EW bidding system.

I just wanted to make a point about East's explanation, that seemed to have been overlooked or ignored in the initial rush to pillory North (not on Bluejak's part).

No doubt East was trying to be ethical and provide full disclosure, but he made such a mess of it that he casts doubt on whether there has really been a BIT by North.

I seem to remember other threads where it was agreed, "no agreement" was woefully inadequate when the side being asked has firm agreements in related situations. I see nothing wrong with the attempt at as full disclosure as possible; and see nothing unusual about advancer taking his time to absorb the information and arrive at a choice of call.

But if doubler passed 3S with that hand (AXXXX KX AXX AXX), and it worked --he must have more knowledge about partner's slow bids than he should; or he decided 3S must be a weak advance because their side has agreements over a known Jordon 2NT (double and 3H available).

TD needs to investigate that.

Agua

The slight problem (that people are too polite to mention) is that East's alert is already an infraction, because they have no alertable agreement.

In effect East is trying to mastermind the auction for everyone at the table.

That includes his partner who has (probably) forgotten he passed.

Looking at this post, I very much doubt that EW/NS are involved in any sophisticated bidding of the kind you suggest,

I imagine that's the reason for Lamford's last pointless post.

[campboy]

East is quite right to alert, as per OB 5B10. What confuses me is how this can be an accurate description of anyone's agreements. People normally discuss "responses to 1M openings", not "responses to 1st or 2nd seat 1M openings".

[Pict]

campboy, on Sep 16 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

East is quite right to alert, as per OB 5B10. What confuses me is how this can be an accurate description of anyone's agreements. People normally discuss "responses to 1M openings", not "responses to 1st or 2nd seat 1M openings".

Let me help you Campboy - OB whatsit.

'A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.'

There is no suggestion that East intended to treat his partner's call as if it showed a raise.

Of course even if he did intend to do that, how does he avoid a TD call.

Either I have no idea of the rules on alerting (quite possible) or I've being playing for years with one hand tied behind my back.

[aguahombre]

Pict, on Sep 16 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

campboy, on Sep 16 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

East is quite right to alert, as per OB 5B10. What confuses me is how this can be an accurate description of anyone's agreements. People normally discuss "responses to 1M openings", not "responses to 1st or 2nd seat 1M openings".

Let me help you Campboy - OB whatsit.

'A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.'

There is no suggestion that East intended to treat his partner's call as if it showed a raise.

You quote a passage which states East should alert if he intends to act as if 2NT was alertable. Then you say there is no suggestion East intended to do so.

The suggestion that he intended to treat 2N as a heart raise was the alert itself in compliance with the passage you quoted.

Any suggestion that East was trying to mastermind, or to do anything other than follow the disclosure rules, is way out there in deep left field.

Maybe he slopped up the explanation, but I would (after pausing to let it all sink in) conclude that 2N was probably going to be treated as a heart raise.

As TD, I would rule that 3S plays, and the result stands. There were two ways for North to show real values and he chose neither of them. Even if 3H is not a discussed bid, double followed by 3S would show values. So, if North had values and they missed game, it is their own fault; and if North didn't have values, they got where they should get. No foul.

[CamHenry]

The consensus seems to be that E's uncertain explanation doesn't help matters, and that North could well have been dithering about what his bids meant. After the dust settled, it turned out that W had indeed intended his 2NT to be a constructive raise: he held ♠Qxx♥AJTx♦Kxxx♣xx. North had three spades to the K, four small hearts, and a balanced 8-count; while 3♠ was makeable double-dummy it didn't make at the table.

Those paying extra attention here will note that E did not, in fact, have anything like his opening bid: he had three small hearts and balanced dross, and was playing silly games. After taking +50 on a partscore board, when the result might have been conceding a partscore or defending a game for +100, EW decided not to make a fuss, so the ruling never happened and it's of academic interest.