[blackshoe]

Actually, if South misinformed opps (through the alert) then he should call the director and inform the opponents of the MI as soon as he realizes he's misinformed them. It's North who should call the director before the opening lead, if he thinks the alert was incorrect.

[jillybean]

Neither op indicated that there was MI before the opening lead, I called the director when I saw dummy.
If in fact there was MI, my partner had a natural ♠ lead.

There were imo, 2 problems with this auction. #1 the potential MI and #2 potential UI with South's pass of 3N
The director wasn't forced to think on his feet, he took the hand away with him and consulted with others
and still failed to even see the second problem.

Oh well, what can you do.

[pran]

jillybean, on 2010-December-01, 06:45, said:

Neither op indicated that there was MI before the opening lead, I called the director when I saw dummy.
If in fact there was MI, my partner had a natural ♠ lead.

There were imo, 2 problems with this auction. #1 the potential MI and #2 potential UI with South's pass of 3N
The director wasn't forced to think on his feet, he took the hand away with him and consulted with others
and still failed to even see the second problem.

Oh well, what can you do.

You are not supposed to do the director's job, but nothing prevents you from pointing out your suspicions or fears to him.

[campboy]

jillybean, on 2010-December-01, 06:45, said:

Neither op indicated that there was MI before the opening lead, I called the director when I saw dummy.
If in fact there was MI, my partner had a natural ♠ lead.

There were imo, 2 problems with this auction. #1 the potential MI and #2 potential UI with South's pass of 3N
The director wasn't forced to think on his feet, he took the hand away with him and consulted with others
and still failed to even see the second problem.

Oh well, what can you do.

What UI do you think South has?

[pran]

campboy, on 2010-December-01, 13:10, said:

What UI do you think South has?

The player doesn't need any opinion on that.

It is perfectly proper for him to just point out that he finds South's pass to 3NT strange with his spade support if 2♥ really was a transfer bid. He may also point out that he finds an agreement using transfer bids so that the weak hand becomes declarer strange and that he suspects North's 2♥ bid really was natural rather than transefer (in particular after seeing North's hand).

From there on it is the director's duty to investigate and establish the facts, and eventually make his ruling.

[campboy]

Absolutely, a player doesn't need an opinion on that to ask for a ruling. But it is hardly fair to complain that the director hasn't considered the effect of UI on South when South doesn't have any UI.

[peachy]

jillybean, on 2010-November-30, 06:25, said:

3♥ was announced as a transfer, isn't it logical to play in your 9 card fit rather than 3N with ♥ xxx?

In another response you mentioned these were C players with 'no masterpoints'. For THEM, in my estimation, it is inconceivable not to play in a 9-card major suit fit when such is located via the transfer. It may even be that they had no agreement and that the transfer announcement was made in confusion; I don't expect a reasonable player to agree to a method where after a 2C opening, the weaker hand is made declarer on purpose. However, if it can be ascertained that their agreement was 'transfer', then - as said above - it is odd that they stayed in 3NT. But that is what C-player bridge often is, odd. Nevertheless, the TD owes the players an investigation into facts also in cases where he rules "no adjustment, result stands".

[barmar]

peachy, on 2010-December-02, 05:59, said:

Iusion; I don't expect a reasonable player to agree to a method where after a 2C opening, the weaker hand is made declarer on purpose.

They may not have ever agreed this explicitly. Someone probably taught them that after 2♣-2♦(waiting)-2NT you play your normal NT responses, and they just assume this applies to 2♣-2NT for consistency.

[wank]

lol on bbo i regularly see people pass to give false preference to partner's second suit with 1 and 3 or some such. many people just don't understand the concept of giving preference. as such i don't consider south's actions suspicious at all - a bad player will consider himself to have done his duty with 3S, what happens next is partner's responsibility.

what is suspicious though is the 3H transfer agreement. i would guess south was confused about when transfers apply. EW had misinformation then, but we've got no clue as to this being relevant on the hand, i.e. did it damage EW?

obviously at the time of the bid north considered 3H to be natural, unsurprisingly. assuming he didn't convert to south's absurd way of thinking he should have corrected the definition prior to the lead. he didn't so give him a stern talking to/PP