Chris3875

The bidding didn't actually go quite like that ... after the 2NT bid by East, West bid 2H which was alerted by East and eventually (after the director was called) accepted by North. East then bid 2NT again and West bid 3H, and East bid 4H. At this point there was a lot of body language and sighing from West who bid 4NT. Their card shows 4NT as blackwood. East then said "Oh, you want SPADES" bid 5S - all passed. I felt that unauthorised information had led to the 5S bid - further East commented that he didn't know they played transfers after a 2NT opening bid (they've only been playing together for about 4 years !!) They made 11 tricks. I wasn't at all happy with the way this auction was conducted. What is your adjusted score?

Whew ... someone told me that Declarer should have become Dummy. That seemed weird !

Auction was over and Declarer promptly led a small diamond ....... I couldn't actually find anything to cover this infraction, so said "pick it up and play on".

I ask this question purely out of interest - we ended up playing the hand in 4C and all were happy. South opened the bidding 1NT and North replied 3C which was alerted and explained as a transfer to diamonds. South duly bid 3D and then North bid 4C. Their system card says that 4C is Gerber except after a genuine club bid. When the 4C bid was made, South made the comment "Now I am in an ethical dilemma" and passed. Any comment on where this auction should have progressed - if at all ?

Yes, you are right - I didn't think it through. A 2H bid would show 10+ points and 5+ hearts - a "comparable" bid.

Trying to get my head around the 2017 laws. If North calls 1H at partner's turn to call and the bid is not accepted by LHO I understand that the call is cancelled and partner can now make any call he wishes. Say he bids 1S and North has 5 hearts and 3 spades - he would normally now support the spade bid. Under the new laws of "comparable" bids does North have to repeat his hearts or can he bid the spades. Does a jump to 4S for example show a "comparable" hand i.e. an opening hand which the 1H bid showed.

[[hv=pc=n&s=sakt9764hdkt62ct7&w=s2h853daq983c8542&n=sj853hq764d7ca963&e=sqhakjt92dj54ckqj&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=ppp1h3s4h4sdppp]399|300[/hv] South hesitated for some time before making the initial Pass and after East's 1H opening bid, then bid 3S which was described as weak. East maintains she would not have doubled if she had known the hand only contained 5 losers and a void.

After the 3C bid by West was passed out, West realised he had made the wrong explanation. South called the director who told the players to play the hand and that it would be looked at later. The hand made 10 tricks. The director ruled that the score should be adjusted to 3H/S making 7 tricks ! East says he will never allow N/S to play in 3H, but will always bid one more time. This was passed on to me for my comment - my thoughts were that according to Law 75B the director shall award an adjusted score following a mistaken explanation infraction when this infraction results in damage to the opponents. I am not a good player but feel that N/S can only make 8 tricks in spades or hearts, while E/W have 10 tricks in either clubs or diamonds, so cannot see that N/S were damaged.[hv=pc=n&s=st975hak9752d3ct4&w=sq62hjt83dk86ca97&n=sak84hq64dq74cqj8&e=sj3hdajt952ck6532&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2np3cppp]399|300|2NT alerted and described as strong, balanced 20-22[/hv]

No line of play was stated as Declarer had forgotten there was a trump out.

Declarer was in a spade contract and held the winning Club, the winning Diamond and 3 spades to the Jack. RHO had a club, a diamond, the Ten of spades and a couple of other cards. The lead was with LHO. Declarer had obviously forgotten about the outstanding trump, but in my opinion whatever LHO led, Declarer would win the trick and at some stage play out her trumps from the Jack down. RHO objected, saying that Declarer MAY have played a small trump first. My thought is that that would be more than careless play - it would be completely crazy. I allowed the claim to stand.

I was trying to be polite when I said "less so" because I am planning to show these posts to the people concerned. One player (the one who transferred) is still coming to supervised bridge (and I am making a mental note as I type to have a session on not speaking when partner is asked a question about the bidding, even if they answer incorrectly) and the other has been playing for about 6 months only.

I should have also added that I asked West about their system and whether they had an agreement to play transfers - she said "Yes, when I remember" !!

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt9h642d9632ck72&w=sk4hakt975dcqj843&n=sq8632hdat8754ct9&e=sa75hqj83dkqjca65&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1np2dp3dp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] N/S are experienced players and E/W are less so. After East's 3D bid, South asked the meaning of West's 2D bid and was told by East that it was diamonds. West then said, No - it was a transfer to hearts. Director was called and bidding continued as shown. They made 12 tricks. Despite the unauthorised information, I felt that it was not logical for West to pass the 3D East bid (holding a void in diamonds), and with 6 hearts I was comfortable for her to bid 3H. I felt that she would have bid 3H even without the question and answer at the table. I felt the same about the 4H bid by East (holding 4 hearts of her own) - but perhaps not quite as comfortable with that. I did consult with a couple of other directors in the room and they felt it should have been taken back to 3D going off a million. Comments please.

Thanks blackshoe and Lanor Fow - I guess I was trying to think of a response from North that wouldn't bar partner Lanor and as far as I could see there is none !

North opened the bidding 1NT (15-17) and South responded 4C (Gerber). North bid 2S, not accepted by LHO. Unfortunately, on the day, the director did not ask North why he bid 2S, just assumed he had misread the written bidding as 2C (Stayman). Scenario 1 - North meant to bid 4S showing 2 aces - am I correct in thinking he can now bid 4S and the auction continues without penalty ? Scenario 2 - North thought partner had bid 2C (Stayman) so his 2S response was intended and insufficient. If he now changes his bid to 4S does it become a conventional response to the Gerber ace ask? I have no idea whether he actually had 2 aces in his hand or not. I also don't know what the composition of South's hand was - he may have had a long minor intending to bid 6C or 6D or, in fact, ANYTHING - who knows. My feeling is that North is caught between a rock and a hard place and that any 4-level bid becomes a conventional response to South's 4C. I was asked my opinion - but feel I am missing a bit of vital information. Help !

Hi Blackshoe - what about in this instance though where he was actually trying to transfer to spades ... and only had 2 small hearts. Can he transfer now ? I find this situation really difficult. What do you think about the Director adjusting the score to 2H by West going off ? I can't get my head around it at all.

Going back to Bad_Wolf's reply - if the Director decided that the 1S was NOT unintended and treated it as insufficient, accepted by North - then surely West's later bid of 2H would not be a transfer to spades but would be showing a second suit. With 4 hearts and 3 spades, wouldn't East pass or even bid 3H ?

Well, if you read my OP you will see that I didn't decide anything but if I had been there AND directing I probably would have simply let the auction continue to its 2S making 8 tricks conclusion (depending on what West may have told me about his bid if I had been able to ask). But maybe I am missing something.

[hv=pc=n&s=s94ha62dat7cj9543&w=saqt532h73dj42c86&n=sj8hjt95dq953cakt&e=sk76hkq84dk86cq72&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1np]399|300[/hv] West now bid 1S and North Passed whereupon West said "that wasn't what I meant to bid" and the director was called. The following is a copy and paste of the email I received - I have a situation from yesterday which may interest you. Board 13 began P-1NT(12-14)-P-1S:P At this point I was called and there was a complicating factor in that West announced that he did not intend to make his bid! I was playing a hand and did not arrive for a minute or so, just to complicate matters. I ruled that bidding could continue but that the comment made was unauthorised and that East could not act on it. Bidding now continued by EW 1NT(!)-2H; 2S. The contract made exactly 8 tricks, but I delayed making a decision as I had not yet played the hand. I had the misfortune to play a slow pair last up, was finished last and my computer guru had the scores ready and printed and announced before I could even alter any results. I had to make decisions on another hand as well, which was a little simpler, so now had to return to the above hand. Systemically I know 2S is a transfer to a minor for this particular pair. I cannot possibly allow them to change the whole meaning of the auction, even if they have been aided by the acceptance of the insufficient bid. I adjusted the score to 2H by W for -200 and the new scores were posted on the web site. One of the aggrieved players asked by email about the time I got home how they could challenge the severity of my decision. I pointed out that he had given his partner unauthorised information and that I did not permit the transfer sequence. I also said that I could instead have changed it to 3C for -400, which was perhaps more appropriate than the actual 2H. This is one of my regular partners and I feel there is no joy on the way. The person directing on the day (who sent me the email) is an excellent player (far, far better than me) - and I think if I had been directing I would have simply allowed the auction to continue as the "insufficient bid" had been accepted by South, but maybe I am missing something. I would have liked to know what West was thinking when he bid the 1S. I'd be interested to hear your comments pls people.

Surely without the UI that partner has an opening hand and 5+ hearts, North would (should) never bid on to 4H if South corrected their 1H IB to 2H ?

This is a question in a few parts. North opens the bidding 1H, holding 5 hearts and 12HCP. East passes, and South (snoozing) and holding 5 hearts and 13HCP bids 1H, not accepted by West. In their system a bid of 2H by South would show 3+ hearts and 6-9 points, 3H would be 3+ hearts and 10-11 points, and 4H could be a weak preemptive raise OR an opening hand and 3+ hearts. 2NT would show 4+ hearts and an opening hand. If South elected to change his bid to 2H and North decided to bid on with a pretty basic hand, would you later adjust the score ? Would you allow a 3H, 4H or 2NT bid by South ?

North opens the bidding 1NT - East passes and South bids 1C. Before anyone can comment on the insufficient bid, West passes. North bids 1D, East passes and South bids 3NT. All pass.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk73hkj76532d85c6&w=sa962hatdakjt762c&n=sj854hq9dcakt9843&e=sqth84dq943cqj752&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1d]399|300[/hv] I'm not sure how the bidding went after this, but East ended up in 6♦ When West made the opening bid of 1♣it was described as "at least 3 clubs". Before the opening lead was made, there was no explanation from West about this bid being incorrect - his later comment was that he had been thinking of opening 2 clubs (strong) but changed his mind and inadvertently bid 1♣ To compound the problem, at the conclusion of the auction North made an opening lead out of turn which was accepted by East. At no stage was the director called until after the hand when North was disgruntled about the opening bid by West. 6♦ made 12 tricks and was an absolute top for E/W. This was played at a neighbouring club and I wasn't there on the day. E/W are a very experienced pair - both of them being directors. Any thoughts on this one?

My thought process on the day was that the initial 3H bid showed 6 hearts and lower end of the "weak" scale, whereas the attempted change to 3D was showing 6 spades and the higher end of the "weak" scale. If there had been no UI (the attempted change of bid), I seriously doubt that South would have bid on to 4H as she held only 13 points and I saw it more as giving partner an opportunity to correct her misbid. Apparently North had forgotten their system and was initially transferring to spades with the 3H bid.

I understand that the 3♦ bid showed a maximum in spades.