Is this MI? If so, then ....

[bluejak]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=st3ha92daj75c8765&w=saq98h7d94ckqjt93&e=sj654hqt5dkqt8ca4&s=sk72hkj8643d632c2]399|300|Scoring: s pAIRS {mp}

------P--1♣-2♥

-3♣-3♥-3♠--P

-4♠--P---P---P[/hv]

 

1♣ was alerted, asked, and described as short, showing 2+ clubs, playing 5-card majors. 3♣ was not alerted. 4♠ made.

 

After the hand N/S realised East had bid 3♠ on a minimum, and discovered 3♣ was natural and forcing. They claimed it should have been alerted, and North said he would have bid 4♥ not 3♥ if he had known 3♣ was forcing - and now the spade fit might be missed.

 

The sequence is not specifically covered in any of the examples in the regulations. The basic regulation says:

 

Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if

{a} it is not natural; or

{b} it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

 

So is a forcing 3♣ 'potentially unexpected'?

 

If there is MI, is there damage?

 

If so, how do you adjust?

[Echognome]

I think that 3♣ should be alerted (unexpected meaning = forcing).

 

So on that basis I would rule MI.

 

Now, comes the tougher question. North claims he would have bid 4♥ given the correct meaning. I personally don't believe him. The only difference in the auction to him is that his opponents have shown more strength and thus made a 4♥ jump even more dangerous.

 

Furthermore, I find it quite likely that West would have found a 4♠ call regardless (after P - P - ?). So, if I believed North, I would at most give a weighted ruling. Something like 75% of 4♠ and 25% of 4♥X, although I'm not confident about the weighting.

[iviehoff]

Not the same as, but sufficiently similar to Orange Book 5G2(5)©, which says that a forcing raise of a one-of-a-suit opening bid is alertable, to provide analogy. So I would say it was alertable.

 

To an intelligent North, I don't think there is damage. An intelligent North should already have a very good idea of the total strength of the opposition, from his partner's wjo, even if he is surprised by its distribution between the opposing hands. To a less intelligent North, the alert may have helped him do the arithmetic, and made him more likely to jump to 4H.

[TimG]

So is a forcing 3♣ 'potentially unexpected'?

 

If there is MI, is there damage?

 

If so, how do you adjust?

I think the forcing nature of 3♣ makes it "potentially unexpected", even just plain "unexpected". So, yes, there is MI as a result of the failure to alert.

 

I think it is reasonable for North to consider the auctions differently based upon the forcing/non-forcing nature of 3♣. With his 9 HCP and partner's ~5-9, it is certainly possible that this is a partscore deal. There are other arguments to be made, but this is enough for me.

 

How to adjust, I do not know. If North bids 4♥, would 4♠ possibly show a control in a move towards a club slam rather than a four-card suit? If so, 5♣-1 seems a possibility.

[cherdanno]

Wow there is a lot in this thread that I disagree with. A weak jump overcall opposite a passed hand can be stronger than 9 hcp, so there is no reason for North to assume that this isn't a partscore deal.

 

If opponents have more strength, that makes the jump to 4♥ less dangerous, not more dangerous, as opponents probably have a game on. Whether that's enough of a reason to bid 4♥ rather than 3♥, I don't know, but I think we ought to start by considering the non-offending side's claim.

(I would find it difficult to work out what North would really have done, given that he didn't notice what happened when he saw dummy.)

 

Assuming 3♣ was game forcing, I expect East to double 4♥, and West to pass this.

 

Finally, something I agree on: a forcing 3♣ also seems unexpected to me.

[TimG]

Wow there is a lot in this thread that I disagree with. A weak jump overcall opposite a passed hand can be stronger than 9 hcp, so there is no reason for North to assume that this isn't a partscore deal.

 

If opponents have more strength, that makes the jump to 4♥ less dangerous, not more dangerous, as opponents probably have a game on.

Yes, opposite a passed partner the weak jump overcall could be weaker than 5 or stronger than 9, but even opposite a less wide ranging jump overcall, there is potential for this to be a partscore deal when West makes a competitive raise to 3♣. Things change when 3♣ is forcing.

 

I agree with you about 4♥ being less dangerous when the opponents have more strength.

[Echognome]

Well, I retract the "even more dangerous" and change it to "possibly more dangerous."

 

If EW cannot make game, then jumping one level higher is worse, if the opponents choose to defend.

 

If EW can make game, then yes, you are looking for 300 or 500 vs their game. However, if you hit 800 or 1100, then you are likely worse, unless they can make slam.

 

There are many, many factors of course, since maybe they do not find the right strain, or you push them up to a higher level and they go down. Of course you could be phantoming.

 

But I certainly don't buy that the opponents having more strength makes it more safe as much as you don't buy that it makes it more dangerous.

[bluejak]

The TD decided that there was MI, ie the bid was alertable. However, she decided that there was no damage, not being very impressed by the suggestion that 4♥ might be bid with correct information.

[mycroft]

As is frequently said in the ACBL appeals books, why can't the hands be:

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&w=s9854h7d94ckqjt93&e=saqj6hqt5dkqt8ca4]266|100|Scoring: Swiss Pairs[/hv]

 

3C competitive raise, 3S big hand, natural game try, 4S "well, I have 4 spades, what do you think?" and again, 4H directly works better (because of the heart split, 4S still makes).

 

I agree that 2H opposite a passed hand could be more powerful than this one, but surely not too much. I don't, however, think that the potential presence of a 4-4 spade fit in p-1C-2H-3C, no matter how the points are set, is enough to bid 4H to talk them out of it.

 

In other words, 4H works over 3H because they have a spade fit, not because of the forcing nature or otherwise of 3C, nor the partscore or game nature of the hand. I don't think the MI changes the probability of that much - from zero, I guess (with 3C passable, negX is pretty much required) to possible but highly improbable (because the negX is still available, and possibly still superior).