ACBL!

[jdonn]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxhjtxxdkqtxxxcxx&w=s9xxxxhkxdjxcjt9x&e=skjxhaqxxdaxxckxx&s=saqtxhxxxdxxcaqxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♣ - (P) - 1♦ - (1NT)

P - (2♠) - P - (P)

P

 

West alerted 1NT, and when asked explained it as a light takeout with at least 9 cards in the two suits. When dummy came down the director was called and he said he would return after the hand. 2♠ was set one trick on a club lead.

 

The director was called back and ascertained the following:

- The explanation fit the actual agreement, so east misbid.

- They play "systems on" after natural 1NT overcalls (such as 1♠ 1NT).

- Their notrump system is such that 2♠ is a transfer to clubs, 2NT is a transfer to diamonds.

- They have no agreements about transferring to a suit the opponents have bid. Further, east claimed to be unclear whether 2♥ by west would have been natural or a transfer.

- If 2♠ were a transfer to clubs then 2NT by east would say he likes clubs (would accept an invitation if partner is inviting with clubs), 3♣ would say he doesn't.

- They have no agreements about bidding a suit after the transfer. It is most common in the area to play it as shortness but also relatively common to play it as natural. East claims to never have heard of playing it as shortness, or indeed to having thought about the issue at all. West has heard of that agreement but says they haven't discussed it.

- Without having an auction to go on, south feels he would not have doubled 3♠ but would have doubled 4♠.

- The director polled 3 strong players (there weren't many available) on holding the west hand, partner bid 1NT for takeout, you bid 2♠, and partner rebid 2NT. Two said it does not exist in practice and they would bid 3♠, one said it means partner had a strong notrump and forgot our agreement and he would pass. Here are some more results for you.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=34367&hl=

(I personally disagree that it can be a strong 4522 since that would double first, but there you have it)

 

East clearly had unauthorized information from the explanation of 1NT and must be made to bid as though it was explained as strong and natural. By ACBL rules (and I know I'm butchering the wording, I'll let blackshoe correct it) pretty much the director has to determine the worst result for E/W that was reasonably likely. What result is that?

[gordontd]

There seems to me to be a contradiction between

 

- They play "systems on" after natural 1NT overcalls (such as 1♠ 1NT).

 

and

 

east claimed to be unclear whether 2♥ by west would have been natural or a transfer

[campboy]

Well, I play systems on after a 1NT overcall of an opening bid with some partners and I have no idea whether that would still apply if it was a 1NT overcall in the sandwich seat. This player presumbly has even less idea than I do since at least I do play that 1NT is natural here.

 

If this auction came up with no alerts I would assume that the 2♠ bid was intended as natural (even though I am confident that (1♣) 1NT pass 2♠ would not be).

 

[edit]I also play the same style of transfers so spades -> clubs.

[jdonn]

There seems to me to be a contradiction between

 

- They play "systems on" after natural 1NT overcalls (such as 1♠ 1NT).

 

and

 

east claimed to be unclear whether 2♥ by west would have been natural or a transfer

They had no agreement after a natural 1NT overcall in the sandwich seat since they don't even play one, east simply made a mistake. So the director determined their agreements on the most similar auction he could think of.

 

I don't see the contradiction between having one agreement, but not knowing your agreement for sure in a situation that is slightly different and that technically you don't even play.

[blackshoe]

East clearly had unauthorized information from the explanation of 1NT and must be made to bid as though it was explained as strong and natural. By ACBL rules (and I know I'm butchering the wording, I'll let blackshoe correct it) pretty much the director has to determine the worst result for E/W that was reasonably likely. What result is that?

For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

 

You've skipped over a couple of things, though. There are other criteria for a score adjustment than just "the player had UI". :D

[helene_t]

I think the worst likely result for EW is 4♠x-3. After all there were a couple of people here who would have bid 4♠ with the West hand. Most likely, however, one or both players would smell the mistake even without UI and they would end in 2♠, 2NT, 3♣ or 3♠.

[Sadie3]

What happened to misunderstandings and just plain bidding mistakes? I didn't think they were punishable as long as the agreements were explained correctly.

[bluejak]

There are also constraints put on you by partner giving you UI. Misunderstandings are fine where there is no UI, you sometimes get away with them, but you have to follow the UI rules.

[blackshoe]

I think "get away with" is an unfortunate choice of words. Rather, there are cases where a pair might successfully recover from a bidding misunderstanding (or where things may work out well in spite of a misunderstanding), and those are fine, so long as there was no UI.

[Codo]

To me there are three bids possible for East after 2 ♠:

 

1. 2 NT, showing a good hand with clubs

2. 3 ♣ showing a bad hand for clubs.

3. 3♥, beliving that transfer to their suit is stayman.

 

If the third possibility is not avaiable because this treatment is not used in that area, there are just the first two possibilitites.

 

I have no idea, why West shouldn`t take all these bids as at least invitational to 4 Spade, so he always has a clear 4 Spade bid and I would rule 4 ♠ X -3 for both sides.