how to rule

[dosxtres]

Case 1

 

Responder holds: xx x xxxxxx xxxx

 

1♠ 2♥ (No alert. It should show 5 hearts+ from Convention card)

2♠ 3♦

3n 4♣

5♣ 6♣

 

6 clubs making. Anything to rule?

 

 

Case 2

 

Responder holds: xx K Q AQxxxxxxx

 

1♠ 3♣ *Alerted as major raise, 6-9 HCP

4♠ 5♣ Convention card confirms 1♠ 3♣ is major raise.

5♠ 6♣

pass

 

6 clubs making. Anything to rule?

[helene_t]

1: I assume responder had some high cards but his distribution was 2164. 2♥ could be a psyche. If so, there is no problem. If there is some evidence that 2♥ was systematic and opps were damaged, adjust.

 

2: Really weird. Was this from a BBO tournament, i.e. with self-alerts? Looks more like a real-life case. Anyway, openers reaction looks as if he took it as a spades raise so probably the explanation was correct. If you judge that the explanation was incorrect, still there is only reason to adjust if opps were damaged.

[dosxtres]

Both face to face

 

1. diamonds mixed with hearts.

 

 

2. Explanation correct. 1S 3C was written on cc. Responder thought he did bid a forcing bid but didnt remember he was playing bergen in that moment.

[helene_t]

Ok, tx for clarification.

 

1) No adjustment. Missorting one's hand is not an infraction.

 

2) Maybe responder took advantage of seeing p's alert card, or opener took advantage of responder shaking his head when seeing the alert card. In that case you may have to adjust to a spades contract. This can be very difficult to judge, obviously.

[jtfanclub]

Case 2

 

Responder holds: xx K Q AQxxxxxxx

 

1♠ 3♣ *Alerted as major raise, 6-9 HCP

4♠ 5♣ Convention card confirms 1♠ 3♣ is major raise.

5♠ 6♣

pass

 

6 clubs making. Anything to rule?

For 1 probably not. I'd have to actually see the hands.

 

For 2 opener did everything right. Would responder have continued bidding clubs even if his partner hadn't alerted the 3♣ bid? Well, if his partner had...

 

AKxxxxx xxx Ax x which sure looks like a 4♠ over a SJS to me, 6♣ is possible although less than 50%, and spades look bad. You have three losers in the red suits (assuming one ruff), plus a spade loser or two. So 4♠ looks bad and 5♣ looks like an obvious bid- I wouldn't consider a pass here to be an LA.

 

But over 5♠, now the hand seems much more powerful for spades (although still a minimum, since he jumped over a SJS). now partner might have:

 

AKQJxxxx xx Ax x. That looks solid, and 6♣ is far froms a sure thing. I think a pass of 5♠ should be an LA, and the alert of the 3♣ call certainly demonstrably indicates a club slam is more likely to work (for one thing, partner has a far stronger hand on a jump from a light invitation than he would on a jump from an SJS). I think it has to be adjusted to 5♠.

 

Except....

 

5♣ is an obvious wakeup. You give the auction

 

1♠ 3♣ (6-9 hcp and spade support)

4♠ 5♣

 

to 100 people of their level, and I would hope 99 of them would say "Oh, partner forgot we were playing Bergen". There is no other meaning for 5♣ here. But if that's the case, then there's no longer any UI. Opener has woken up legitimately, responder knows that opener has woken up legitimately, and all of that's AI. So if the one spade bidder actually had a singleton club and solid spades, and by some miracle they made 6♣, then it should be allowed. Stupid bids aren't illegal just because they made.

 

Tough problem. I'm schizophrenic enough that I'd rule to adjust it to 5♠ at the table and reverse the ruling to 6♣ making with the AC, assuming that they argued persuasively that they were no longer confused after the 5♣ bid.

[helene_t]

hey Dosxtres,

 

You can post real-life tournament problems in the "offline bridge" forum. If you post them here, people will assume that you are talking about a BBO tournament.

[dosxtres]

Thank you for your answeres and sorry. I thought it was about ruling, not only online ruling.

[barmar]

Thank you for your answeres and sorry. I thought it was about ruling, not only online ruling.

The name of the forum is "BBO Tournament Directors Forum", and it's in the section "Bridge Base Online Discussion". They both imply that discussions here should be about BBO. Discussions about bridge not specifically related to BBO belong in the "Bridge-Related Discussion" section.