Adjust or not ?

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=skj8643hakdq6cj83]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

You are south in the 4th seat.

 

Auction proceeded P-P-1N-2♣(1)-P-2N(2)-P-3♠-P-P-P

 

(1) card (not looked at till after the auction) says single suited with a major, asked and explained as both majors

 

(2) S is not a good player and has no idea of the proprieties here, he gave the explanation of the 2N bid as it would have been had the 2♣ bid been both majors, and wasn't 100% clear what it was even then. There was a suggestion (can't imagine why) that it didn't show any values opposite the both majors version, but did show some opposite the single suited version as 2♦ was the weak hand bid. S actually said that he only bid 3S because he knew from the explanation that partner was weak, and clearly had no concept of what UI was.

 

At the end of the auction, S explained the mistaken information that they were playing 2C as single suited with a major.

 

I don't and never have played this system and neither had the director. The question is what does 2N mean (I thought it suggested he would have raised either major to 3). The pair themselves were unclear.

 

Our contention was that as the hand is as maximum as it can be in the 9-14 box they were playing, he should bid 4S rather than 3S. The contract of course makes 9 tricks. The hand opposite was 9x, xxx, 98xx, AKQx and the clubs were 5-1, diamonds 5-2 spades AQ double onside.

 

Director ruled score stood.

[axman]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=skj8643hakdq6cj83]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

snip

 

At the end of the auction, S explained the mistaken information that they were playing 2C as single suited with a major.

 

I don't and never have played this system and neither had the director. The question is what does 2N mean (I thought it suggested he would have raised either major to 3). The pair themselves were unclear.

 

Our contention was that as the hand is as maximum as it can be in the 9-14 box they were playing, he should bid 4S rather than 3S.

Kearse's rendition of Cappelletti [2C= single suited TO] suggests that 2N promises 11+good points with at least 3 cards in all suits.

 

KNowing partner's pancake was unsuitable for opening suggests that 10 tricks in a suit are likely to be tenuous [but might be easy]. Nine tricks in NT probably has play and probably depends upon the lead. As a believer in killer OLs I vote for 3S 85% of the time or pass [but not very often].

 

ps it is curious that the defense didn't go CA,SA,C ruff.DA,C ruff,DK for 5 defensive tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

ps it is curious that the defense didn't go CA,SA,C ruff.DA,C ruff,DK for 5 defensive tricks.

 

Had partner led his club this might have happened, but at neither table did this happen. Partner led from his diamond suit, the NT was on a slightly bent 2425, so we started D AK, diamond ruffed with the QS overruffed promoting partner's 10S as a second trump trick but that only added up to 2 diamonds and 2 spades.

 

2N should go one off ace of spades and 5 diamonds.

[sfi]

There was a suggestion (can't imagine why) that it didn't show any values opposite the both majors version, but did show some opposite the single suited version as 2♦ was the weak hand bid. S actually said that he only bid 3S because he knew from the explanation that partner was weak, and clearly had no concept of what UI was.

Apart from this exchange I would not have expected the UI to suggest that 3♠ will be more successful than 4♠. However, South's comments suggest that the UI affected his actions and I would likely have adjusted to 4♠-1. Offhand I don't see any reason that the defence would be different.

 

On a side note, there is no reason to adjust the contract to 2N. Passing is simply not a LA.

[bluejak]

This is another example of "unauthorised panic", discussed a number of times in IBLF in our former home, and even appearing recently in the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee minutes. :P

 

Whne a player learns from an alert or answer to a question or both that his partner has ascribed a different meaning to his bid from the meaning he intended, players have a habit of bidding their longest suit at the lowest level without reference to the actual hand, whether it is strong or weak, whether this is a misdescription or not, and so on. I am afraid that is what this player did: after the description "both majors" he automatically bid spades at the lowest level.

 

Now, while it is unfortunate that a player does this, and no doubt a breach of Law 73C, basically we only adjust if he has chosen an action suggested over an LA by the UI. The UI suggests bidding spades till the cows come home or partner passes, so it certainly suggests bidding 3♠ rather than pass. But is pass an LA?

 

Does it suggest bidding 3♠ rather than 4♠? I do not think so, really. Is 4♠ an LA opposite a passed partner? I do not think so, really. Is pass an LA? I do not think so really.

 

So I do not adjust, merely explain in a nice way to South the requirements of Law 73C.