[daveharty]

The following auction took place at my local club tonight:

---

The facts:

1. 1NT was alerted and explained by East as "the red suits."
2. At the end of the auction, when West was asked if they play Sandwich NT, she responded "No."
3. When the E/W convention cards were reviewed, both were marked identically: "Sandwich NT" was indicated in the "Notrump Overcalls" section; "Systems on" was checked next to "Direct" overcalls, with a "15-18" range indicated.
4. 3♦ made exactly for +110.
5. West's actual hand was: ♠AK ♥J53 ♦AJT6 ♣QJ93.

The director was called at the end of the auction, and again at the conclusion of play. N/S argued that East's alert woke West up to the fact that 2♦ was not a transfer, and that 3♦ was not a retransfer. (3♦ would have been a retransfer in an uncontested auction in which the NT opener superaccepted, but E/W had no agreement about whether that would apply in a contested auction.) They argued that West's hand was quite suitable for play in hearts, which is what West "should have" assumed was East's intention. A heart contract by E/W would have made either seven or eight tricks depending on the defense and line chosen.

What do you think?

[mrdct]

I'm going to force West to bid 2♥ and then I need to know what East holds to predict what might happen after that.

[Antrax]

Can you force a player to make an insufficient bid?

[aguahombre]

 Antrax, on 2012-September-06, 22:27, said:

Can you force a player to make an insufficient bid?

I don't believe we can force the offending side into a ridiculous agreement like systems on after a strong NT overcall in the sandwich position when the opponents have bid two suits naturally. Partner needs to be able to get out at the two-level in clubs, diamonds, or hearts.

It seems from what we know about East's hand, they would always get to 3D after West's misbid. East has bid and explained according to what is on their card. West has made the 2NT bid because of the UI that he has misbid; but East will still bid 3D. The 2NT bid must be something within the red-suit convention, but considering the number of points in a deck, I can't imagine East doing anything different.

West, if he was not taking advantage of UI, has an automatic 3D bid with that hand after pard took out his strong NT to 2D. His authorized information is that he will find long diamonds and some portion of the 6 points not accounted for.

Result stands because of the correct explanation, the misbid, and the fact that 3D would be reached anyway. That leaves, for those of us who really want to punish West (I do), a PP for the 2NT bid. He should also get extra weasel points for his alibi about how his hearts are a playable suit.

[iviehoff]

 daveharty, on 2012-September-06, 21:36, said:

2. At the end of the auction, when West was asked if they play Sandwich NT, she responded "No."

This question should not have been asked or answered. You aren't allowed to ask a player about their own bids, even by dressing it up as a general question about their system. They shouldn't have answered it, though they may have a defence that they were suckered into it. You can look at her system card though. Provided NS aren't complaining about EW misusing any UI that arose from answering it, and EW didn't feel constrained by the UI, it probably doesn't matter.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-06, 22:56, said:

IIt seems from what we know about East's hand, they would always get to 3D after West's misbid. East has bid and explained according to what is on their card. West has made the 2NT bid because of the UI that he has misbid; but East will still bid 3D. The 2NT bid must be something within the red-suit convention, but considering the number of points in a deck, I can't imagine East doing anything different.

What do we know about East's hand, other than that his diamonds are probably longer than his hearts?

[blackshoe]

 mrdct, on 2012-September-06, 21:56, said:

I'm going to force West to bid 2♥…

I'm sorry. Thumbscrews are a violation of the zero tolerance policy.

[Trinidad]

Ok. And now for the ruling:

Convention disruption has very little to do with it. West misbid and has UI from East's explanation.

Both the 2NT rebid and the pass of 3♦ "could have demonstrably been suggested" over LA's by the UI. With 3 card "support" for partner's supposed 5+ heart suit and a maximum 1NT bid, 4♥ (instead of the last pass) is certainly an LA. It is clear that the UI made the pass more attractive. Therefore, West was not allowed to chose pass.

An AS obviously depends on the other hands, but it should be based on a 4♥ bid by West instead of his last pass. If this was a MP pairs game, that probably will already lead to a bottom, so it is not so relevant what would happen after 4♥. (Maybe East, who thinks that West will be something like 7-5 in the red suits, would bid 6♦. Maybe East will redouble, what do I know?)

Rik

[bluejak]

While I play Systems On after a 1NT bid whether opening, overcalling, overcalling protectively, or overcalling in fourth position, there are strong arguments put forward here by aguahombre and another thread sometime by various people, including I seem to remember Frances, which suggested that after a fourth hand overcall of 1NT natural responses was the only sensible approach. Thus we want to get some idea of what this pair would play before we rule.

Before people comment on the impossibility of that, I don't play a natural 1NT in this position, but I know what responses I would play if I did. If West bid it as natural then the chances are he plays it as natural in some partnerships so we should enquire what responses he plays in those.

Plus, of course, after I hear the facts, the first thing I do is to ask West why he did not bid hearts over 3♦. The answer is often revealing.

Of course, if I were mrdct I would ask West why he did not bid 2♥ over 2♠. But I think the answer would be less revealing.

[Trinidad]

Of course, it is always good to ask some questions, but I don't think it is a wild assumption to say that 2♦ would have shown hearts if the 1NT overcall would have been natural (as West intended), because:

- the "system on" box on the cc was checked
- if 2♦ would have been natural, wouldn't West just bid 3♦, instead of 2NT?
- everything else in the OP just radiates that 2♦ showed hearts. (The discussion is actually about whether 3♦ would be a retransfer on this auction.)
- if West genuinely thought that 2♦ would be natural (in response to his natural 1NT overcall), he would have had every opportunity to say so himself, but it seems he didn't.

So, instead of dreaming whether it is technically superior to play natural advances^*, let's just answer the OP's question.

Rik

^*If we want to dream what is technically superior, I would propose:
- Bids below 2 of opener's suit are natural
- Bids from 2 of opener's suit and higher are transfers
- A transfer to responder's suit is Stayman

In this case that translates to:
2♣: transfer to ♦
2♦: transfer to ♥
2♥: Stayman, INV or better
2♠: transfer to ♣

[Trinidad]

It seems that West is the kind of inexperienced player who just doesn't know the rules. Why am I saying that?

The average club player would think: "Ouch, we have a misunderstanding. I will have to bid 2♥, since I am supposed to think that 2♦ is a transfer. Oh, fortunately they bid 2♠. I can just pass. That will limit the damage."

The actively ethical (or better educated) player will think: "Ouch, we have a misunderstanding. I will have to bid 2♥, since I am supposed to think that 2♦ is a transfer. Oh, they bid 2♠. I could just pass, but I could also compete with 3♥. Since I have support and a maximum, that will certainly be an LA. The UI suggests pass, so I will have to bid 3♥."

An inexperienced player thinks: "Oh, he didn't understand me. How can I tell him that I do have a balanced hand? Well, by bidding 2NT, of course."

Rik

[RMB1]

Is 1C-P-1S-1N-P-2D=transfer alertable? Probably irrelevant, I assume it wasn't alerted (because overcaller knew it wasn't a transfer).

If you play system ON after 1S-1NT overcall, is there much reason not to play system ON after 1C*-P-1S-1NT when the overcalling side may want to play in clubs anwway.

[Fluffy]

aside from the final result, the 2NT bid is a gross violation of UI rules and deserves a PP

My first reaction was the same as mrdct, overcaller needs to bid 2♥ over 2♦ and then we gotta see. But remembering similar facts about revokes... Is it possible to accept a non LA such as 2NT and then seek for rectification on a later stage (the final pass) if it is more profitable for the NOS?

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-September-07, 09:52, said:

What do we know about East's hand, other than that his diamonds are probably longer than his hearts?

If we believe East bid according to the Sandwich agreement which was actually in place, that is all we need to know...plus the fact that there are only 40 points in a deck.

[Trinidad]

 Fluffy, on 2012-September-08, 07:39, said:

aside from the final result, the 2NT bid is a gross violation of UI rules and deserves a PP

My first reaction was the same as mrdct, overcaller needs to bid 2♥ over 2♦ and then we gotta see.

It has already been pointed out that 2♥ is insufficient, but 3♥ is clearly an LA.

 Fluffy, on 2012-September-08, 07:39, said:

Is it possible to accept a non LA such as 2NT and then seek for rectification on a later stage (the final pass) if it is more profitable for the NOS?

There are two infractions (2NT and Pass). These two infractions led to the table result. For the AS we will look what the damage is of each of them. Therefore, we evaluate what would happen:
1) With the first infraction, but without the second
2) Without the first infraction (when the second cannot occur anymore)

Suppose (these numbers do not relate to this actual case) that the table result would be +140 for the offending side. Without the second infraction, the score would have been -800 for the offending side. And without the first infraction, the result would have been -500 for the offending side.

The ruling would be that the second infraction will have damaged the NOS (from +800 to +500), as well as the first (from +800 to -140). By reasoning in this way, we will always give the NOS the best result out of removing a combination of infractions (as long as the remaining combination of infractions and corrections is still possible).

Rik

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-06, 22:56, said:

It seems from what we know about East's hand, they would always get to 3D after West's misbid. East has bid and explained according to what is on their card. West has made the 2NT bid because of the UI that he has misbid; but East will still bid 3D. The 2NT bid must be something within the red-suit convention, but considering the number of points in a deck, I can't imagine East doing anything different.

I disagree. West is supposed to bid 3♥. It's an LA, and 2NT is suggested by the UI. We let the auction start as it should have (without the first infraction):

---

What will happen now?
For starters, after 3♥, EW will not be able to play in 3♦ anymore. (What's with all these insufficient bids in this thread? )

Furthermore, there is no reason why the auction should stop in 3♥. That depends entirely on East's hand (though I would think that 3♥ is forcing to 4red, irrespective of East's hand). But let's give East a not so special 3-4 red.
What does East think now? West is showing something like a big hand with 7(6) hearts and 5 diamonds, willing to play 4red opposite a Yarborough. Suddenly, East's "not so special 3-4 red" is huge and he might want to make a slam try.

A possible layout, from East's point of view after 3♥ could be something like:

---

Do you think that East would pass 3♥ with this East hand? I would not want to see my partner claim after trick 1 for +230. And my partner would not pass out 3♥ more than once.

Rik

[aguahombre]

We disagree whether we can force a systems-on agreement, when they haven't discussed systems-on, and it is such a bad idea.

You are right, of course about scenarios if systems are on.

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-08, 10:00, said:

We disagree whether we can force a systems-on agreement, when they haven't discussed systems-on, and it is such a bad idea.

You are right, of course about scenarios if systems are on.

Look at the OP again.

If systems would be off (as you seem to think) would there be any discussion about whether 3♦ was a retransfer? Would West have bid 2NT (or the obvious 3♦, with four (4!) card support)?

The answer to these questions is no. Conclusion: West was playing systems on, we are not forcing that on EW. Whether you think systems on is a bad idea is irrelevant. (And I can just add that -IMNSHO- natural is a worse idea than systems on, but that is just as irrelevant.)

Rik

[aguahombre]

N/S are making the retransfer Case, not E/W. I looked again, and stand by my points. If you would like to insist on retransfers, fine. I don't like Convention disruption anyway.

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2012-September-08, 03:23, said:

Is 1C-P-1S-1N-P-2D=transfer alertable?

It requires an announcement: "Transfer" if 1NT is natural, an alert otherwise.