BBO Discussion Forums: Misinformation without damage? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Misinformation without damage?

#1 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,125
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-October-09, 11:21

MP Tournament.



South opens 1NT announced as 15-18. North bids 2NT (not alerted or announced) and South bids 3NT, all pass. North then informs the table that South failed to announce the 2NT bid which was a transfer to . East calls the TD, explains what has happened and then asks if he can speak to the TD away from the table. TD declines and asks East to speak up, East says that he would not have passed had he received the correct explanation of North's bid - he then shows his hand to TD. TD nods and asks all to play on and call him back later. West who had not yet faced his bid now does so (small spade) and NS make 3NT. TD rules that no damage was done and result stands. East takes his word, but when the tournament is over he realises that 4x-2 would have been an excellent score and wonders if opponents would really have risked 5 over that.

Under national regulations, 2NT as a transfer to should have been announced, in absence of which it is to be considered natural. Both partnerships are regular, NS being more experienced. In NS agreements, the only replies to the transfer are 3 positive and 3 negative, 3NT is undefined. In EW agreements, 3 by East over 2NT would be natural, 2 by East over 1NT would have promised spades plus a minor.

Your thoughts on this?

[Edited to correct errors pointed out below]
0

#2 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,334
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2019-October-09, 14:35

Do we really believe E would have bid 3 rather than waited for N to indicate that 3 was as far as he wanted to go ?
0

#3 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,625
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-October-09, 16:07

My first thought is that you have north and south reversed in your third sentence. My second thought is that East should not have needed to call the TD when he did, because whichever of north or south spoke up about the failure to alert, he should have called the director himself before speaking up. My third thought is that I wonder what North would have done after a proper alert (okay, announcement) and a 3!D bid from South. And what both South and North would have done over a 3!H bid by East over 2NT. Which is not to say that I think East would necessarily have bid 3!H at that point. I suppose if I knew him... B-)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
1

#4 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,989
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-October-10, 01:24

Do your regulations really say that announcements shall be made by the player who makes the affected call himself?

Such a regulation makes a joke of the entire auction. The only sensible regulation here should be that it is South who is responsible for announcing the 2NT bid by North.
0

#5 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,125
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-October-10, 02:41

 pran, on 2019-October-10, 01:24, said:

Do your regulations really say that announcements shall be made by the player who makes the affected call himself?

Such a regulation makes a joke of the entire auction. The only sensible regulation here should be that it is South who is responsible for announcing the 2NT bid by North.

No,the sentence in OP erroneously swapped N and S sorry, as those S and W of Norway guessed ;)
0

#6 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 745
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2019-October-10, 05:41

View PostCyberyeti, on 2019-October-09, 14:35, said:

Do we really believe E would have bid 3 rather than waited for N to indicate that 3 was as far as he wanted to go ?

East advised the director before the play was commenced that he would not have passed - that is usually an indication that he would have bid 3 given the chance.

North Southj may be more experienced - but they are not experienced.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
0

#7 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2019-October-10, 06:14

First of all, the TD made a serious error by letting E speak at the table and looking at the hand is also not good. Secondly, bidding 3 on this hand, with a 1NT on your left, is begging for trouble. That 4x - would W really have raised? - gives a good score, might be clear afterwards, but during the auction you canít know whether the result will be -2, -3 or -4, -4 being quite likely. But, if E was seriously considering 3, why didnít he ask about the 2NT? Actually, I think EW were lucky that E didnít make the call. I donít see that 4 is likely and an opening lead with hearts might have resulted is all kinds of discarding problems when the diamonds were cashed. A spade lead makes sure that the result is 3NT= and not one up.
Joost
0

#8 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,334
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2019-October-10, 06:19

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-October-10, 05:41, said:

East advised the director before the play was commenced that he would not have passed - that is usually an indication that he would have bid 3 given the chance.

North Southj may be more experienced - but they are not experienced.


Yes, but that's very easy to do when you know that if it's disastrous, you won't be held to it.
0

#9 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,125
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-October-10, 07:27

View PostCyberyeti, on 2019-October-09, 14:35, said:

Do we really believe E would have bid 3 rather than waited for N to indicate that 3 was as far as he wanted to go ?

East had passed both over 2NT and over 3NT, so it is not clear whether he meant that with correct information he would bid immediately over the transfer or just that he would no longer pass out 3NT. TD did not ask.


View Postblackshoe, on 2019-October-09, 16:07, said:

My second thought is that East should not have needed to call the TD when he did, because whichever of north or south spoke up about the failure to alert, he should have called the director himself before speaking up.

Correct of course.

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-October-09, 16:07, said:

My third thought is that I wonder what North would have done after a proper alert (okay, announcement) and a 3!D bid from South.

South should bid 3 positive, over which North should bid 3 splinter, game force. If South forgot that and bid 3 then North might either pass, splinter 3 or bid 3NT signoff.

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-October-09, 16:07, said:

And what both South and North would have done over a 3!H bid by East over 2NT.

Minor transfers are relatively new to them and I doubt North ever discussed a conventional defence to interference with South (who is insufferent to conventions in general). So by South almost certainly double would be punishment, 3NT natural with stop, 4 invitational, pass not contemplated. Given that, I expect North would pass over double or 3NT but raise 4 to game. If you polled South's peers I suspect 3NT would prevail.
0

#10 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,125
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-October-10, 08:06

View Postsanst, on 2019-October-10, 06:14, said:

First of all, the TD made a serious error by letting E speak at the table and looking at the hand is also not good.

To be fair to TD, it was East who made him look at the hand, but clearly in an attempt not to speak further at table. The situation is delicate, as West had not yet faced his bid, and presumably anything said or implied would be AI to North South. Of course it's not rocket science for anyone to figure out that East must be short in diamonds and probably have a long major.

View Postsanst, on 2019-October-10, 06:14, said:

Secondly, bidding 3 on this hand, with a 1NT on your left, is begging for trouble. That 4x - would W really have raised? - gives a good score, might be clear afterwards, but during the auction you canít know whether the result will be -2, -3 or -4, -4 being quite likely. But, if E was seriously considering 3, why didnít he ask about the 2NT?

As said, we don't know if East meant that he would interfere over 2NT. He had no particular reason to ask about the 2NT, most players in the club play it as a natural invite and that is what no announcement or alert means. Even if he would interfere over a diamonds splinter I doubt he would contemplate it over a balanced invite, missing all top honours.
0

#11 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 18,746
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-October-10, 08:30

I also think it's unlikely they would actually reach 4 if East overcalls. West has poor heart support and some defensive tricks, why would they continue the preempt?

And while down 2 in 4 is possible, so is down 3 if you don't play perfectly.

#12 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,625
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-October-10, 08:47

View Postpescetom, on 2019-October-10, 07:27, said:

South should bid 3 positive, over which North should bid 3 splinter, game force. If South forgot that and bid 3 then North might either pass, splinter 3 or bid 3NT signoff.

Yeah, I misread your OP, sorry.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#13 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,125
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-October-10, 09:37

View Postbarmar, on 2019-October-10, 08:30, said:

I also think it's unlikely they would actually reach 4 if East overcalls. West has poor heart support and some defensive tricks, why would they continue the preempt?

Yes I agree West is unlikely to join in. If they reach 4 it is because East bids it over 3NT, whether or not he bids 3 over 2NT as transfer. The question is I think whether East West deserve a poll here, once TD has decided what East intended to bid when.


View Postbarmar, on 2019-October-10, 08:30, said:

And while down 2 in 4 is possible, so is down 3 if you don't play perfectly.

The double dummy outcome is down 2, as TD could have known before ruling and all knew after the tournament. Yesterday I played it through just in case it was based on some unlikely play and I made down 2 easily, but maybe I misplayed defence somewhere.
0

#14 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 18,746
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-October-11, 09:04

View Postpescetom, on 2019-October-10, 09:37, said:

The double dummy outcome is down 2, as TD could have known before ruling and all knew after the tournament. Yesterday I played it through just in case it was based on some unlikely play and I made down 2 easily, but maybe I misplayed defence somewhere.

No, I think it just depends on declarer playing well -- either playing South for honor doubleton in clubs or picking up the entire spade suit by cashing the King and then taking a deep finesse.

#15 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,125
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-October-11, 10:13

View Postbarmar, on 2019-October-11, 09:04, said:

No, I think it just depends on declarer playing well -- either playing South for honor doubleton in clubs or picking up the entire spade suit by cashing the King and then taking a deep finesse.


Yes you have to think about spades a bit, but with long diamonds on your right and NT on your left the King seemed fairly obvious.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users