Should we have asked for ruling

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saqhj10dj10964cak96]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Partner opens a weak 2♠ which is 0-10 4+ cards.

 

RHO overcalls 2N alerted as minors, you pass, LHO bids 3♥ and RHO bids 3N.

[/hv]

 

Do you double ? and what do you lead ?

 

It turns out that your opponents (a married couple):

 

a) disagree on what 2N means

B) seem to think a balanced 12 count is a perfectly reasonable 2N overcall

 

Their hands are basically ♥AKQxxx and ♦Q opposite ♠KJ and ♦AK so has 9 top tricks unless you lead a club. Partner opted to lead a heart, but said with the correct explanation he'd have led the J♦ so it would have made anyway which is why we didn't appeal after the MI. The opponents have nothing on their card at all under defence to weak 2s.

[iviehoff]

Partner opens a weak 2♠ which is 0-10 4+ cards.

...

It turns out that your opponents ... seem to think a balanced 12 count is a perfectly reasonable 2N overcall

A conversation between stained cooking vessels, then.

 

What would your partner's lead have been to an explanation of 2N in the form "no agreement"? As that seems to be the actual situation.

[campboy]

Did opponents have any agreements about responses to NT overcalls (or 2NT openings) which might be relevant?

 

Unless they could justify that 3♥ is forcing opposite a natural 2NT I would adjust the score to 3♥ making some number of tricks, since 3NT bidder has UI which suggests bidding on and pass is an LA if 3♥ could be a weakness takeout from his point of view.

[bluejak]

We have talked about "unauthorised panic" before, whereby someone bids a suit, partner describes it a meaning something else, and the player always rebids their longest suit without a jump.

 

The corollary for no-trumps is that when a player bids 2NT meant as natural, and partner alerts and/or describes it as some convention, the player always rebids 3NT over a 3-suit response, ignoring such fripperies as showing four or five card majors or completing transfers.

 

I would have called the TD but without much confidence of getting an adjustment.

[aguahombre]

We have talked about "unauthorised panic" before, whereby someone bids a suit, partner describes it a meaning something  else, and the player always rebids their longest suit without a jump.

 

The corollary for no-trumps is that when a player bids 2NT meant as natural, and partner alerts and/or describes it as some convention, the player always rebids 3NT over a 3-suit response, ignoring such fripperies as showing four or five card majors or completing transfers.

 

I would have called the TD but without much confidence of getting an adjustment.

exactly. And since this is so common, and since you have articulated so clearly why 3NT should not be allowed, why is it that the rulings (rulers) don't seem to back us up?

[bluejak]

Most times they are. But this one is special: transfer into the opponent's suit. Players at this level have no agreement over such things and assume it does not exist.

[aguahombre]

I don't think 3H would be a transfer, nor would 3D be a transfer after a natural 2NT overcall (disregard the 12 points as even possible). new suits are usually natural and forcing, or rarely natural and nonforcing in my world. I have only seen transfers (or 3c stayman) used by very inexperienced players. I am prepared to be jumped on, but that is my story and am sticking to it.

[jeremy69]

I have only seen transfers (or 3c stayman) used by very inexperienced players. I am prepared to be jumped on, but that is my story and am sticking to it.

 

I'll be inexperienced then. I play system on in such situations and have agreements with some partners as to what transfer into the opponents known suit means. I don't think I am on my own at least in England.

[jdonn]

I don't think 3H would be a transfer, nor would 3D be a transfer after a natural 2NT overcall (disregard the 12 points as even possible). new suits are usually natural and forcing, or rarely natural and nonforcing in my world. I have only seen transfers (or 3c stayman) used by very inexperienced players. I am prepared to be jumped on, but that is my story and am sticking to it.

LOL

[bluejak]

I do not know anyone who does not play System On over a natural 2NT overcall.

[StevenG]

I do not know anyone who does not play System On over a natural 2NT overcall.

As far as I know, I do not know anyone who does play System On over a natural 2NT overcall.

[campboy]

I do not know anyone who does not play System On over a natural 2NT overcall.

For preference, I don't play system on (but I don't play system off either!), and with some partners 3♥ is GF with exactly 4 hearts here.

 

But I agree, we need to find out whether this pair play transfers after NT overcalls before we can rule. Most pairs do, but then most pairs know what a 2NT overcall of a weak two is.

[Cyberyeti]

I play system on with the transfer to the oppos suit showing a singleton in their suit 444 GF.

 

I have no idea what oppos would have played.

 

The other fly in the ointment is that the 2N bidder was 4333 so should 4♥ which is doomed also be in the frame. His hand was KJ10x, xxx, AKx, Jxx.

[campboy]

I don't think 3NT is suggested over 4♥, since if advancer thinks 2NT was unusual she should have better hearts than might be expected without the UI (as indeed she does). So I would certainly not adjust to 4♥.

[mike777]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=saqhj10dj10964cak96]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Partner opens a weak 2♠ which is 0-10 4+ cards.

 

RHO overcalls 2N alerted as minors, you pass, LHO bids 3♥ and RHO bids 3N.

[/hv]

 

Do you double ? and what do you lead ?

 

It turns out that your opponents (a married couple):

 

a) disagree on what 2N means

:D seem to think a balanced 12 count is a perfectly reasonable 2N overcall

 

Their hands are basically ♥AKQxxx and ♦Q opposite ♠KJ and ♦AK so has 9 top tricks unless you lead a club. Partner opted to lead a heart, but said with the correct explanation he'd have led the J♦ so it would have made anyway which is why we didn't appeal after the MI. The opponents have nothing on their card at all under defence to weak 2s.

Can we back up please.

 

 

You open 2s showing this......what are my rights in your bridge country?

 

funny enough I have not discussed my defense to this.

 

In ACBL country I call director and ask what are my rights. :)

 

btw I assume this was alerted in your country.

[mjj29]

Can we back up please.

You open 2s showing this......what are my rights in your bridge country?

It is certainly legal in the EBU at any level ("contains 4 cards of the suit bid" is about the only restriction). Being a natural 2-level opening it should be announced, rather than alerted, presumably with something like "weak to positively anaemic". However, I woould certainly consider it something I would draw the attention of my opponents to at the start of the round.

[Cyberyeti]

Can we back up please.

You open 2s showing this......what are my rights in your bridge country?

It is certainly legal in the EBU at any level ("contains 4 cards of the suit bid" is about the only restriction). Being a natural 2-level opening it should be announced, rather than alerted, presumably with something like "weak to positively anaemic". However, I woould certainly consider it something I would draw the attention of my opponents to at the start of the round.

We do draw opponents attention to this at the start of the round, and our normal announcement which is helpful but almost certainly technically illegal is "Weak and somewhat unusual" or similar and this normally causes oppos to dive for the convention card.

 

We've been playing this for many years to a reasonable level (Tolly every year, last 8 of gold cup etc).

 

It came about after I sat down opposite somebody I hadn't played with before, and haven't played with since, and at different points of the event, with our card saying 5 card weak 2s, both of us opened 4 card weak 2s, and in both cases partner psyched a strong bid opposite. In each case this generated a huge result, but we realised how much trouble it could get us into.

 

After this my regular partner and I agreed to play this 1st and 3rd although we by no means open all of them.

 

The first 4 figure penalty arrived on the first board we did this, but not in the expected column, I opened 2♠ on Jxxx, xxx, xx, Jxxx, LHO overcalled 3♦ and partner with his 2N opener with ♦ AQ10x applied the axe for +1100.

 

My hand in this case was 5 small spades and Qxx clubs.

[Pig Trader]

You open 2s showing this......what are my rights in your bridge country?

 

No. Our hand was the one shown but partner opened 2♠.

 

Barrie :D

[vigfus]

The main purpose of weak 2 and weak 3 opening are used give the opps a difficult situation to deal with. That works often and the Weak opening bidders smile - they managed to make the opps do something wrong.

 

Here we have a case where the opp's were very lucky to land on their feet. AND THE W2 OPENING SIDE IS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT.

 

Score stands. No question about that.

[campboy]

Whatever your personal feelings about a treatment or convention, here we rule according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2007). If a player has landed on his feet not by being lucky but by illegally using information from partner's alert -- although there is legitimate debate as to whether that is what happened here -- then we must adjust the score.

[iviehoff]

...although we by no means open all of them....

Are you sure you have fully disclosed your methods?

[Cyberyeti]

...although we by no means open all of them....

Are you sure you have fully disclosed your methods?

Full disclosure of methods is awkward unless you want quite a large piece of paper.

 

We disclose on the card the simple rule, which is "will not contain 2 aces" and indicate that vulnerability will colour this slightly (but only slightly).

 

The other considerations are quite complicated so we wait to be asked.

 

Example:

 

xx

AKJx

xxxx

xxx

 

We will pass this (definitely in first seat) as we would have to open 2♦ (rebidding 3♥ if partner bids 2N in first), but we'd open

 

xx

KJxx

xxxx

xxx

 

in first seat as we open 2♥ and rebid 3♦ with the minimum, but in 3rd seat (where partner can't ask) in theory we should open 2♦ so it's more of a tossup. We might also lie about the shape and open 2♥ on either hand.

 

The rebid considerations may well mean opening the hands with the red suits the other way round.

 

Also we wouldn't open Jxxxx, AQx, Qxx, xx for example where you don't have a bad hand, but the virtue of it is not in your suit and you have plenty of defence.

 

I'd welcome any discussion on how one should disclose agreements that require a page of A4 to fully explain. I struggle to keep hold of a convention card through a session of bridge let alone extra documentation.

[bluejak]

A player's approach to defensive bidding is never really described on a SC. We have had many rulings where partner has passed and later bid spades and people say "but he cannot have six spades". Any partner of mine who opened a weak two on

 

Jxxxxx

Axx

Ax

xx

 

would speedily be an ex-partner.

 

Would you bid 1♠ over 1♦ with

 

A7xxx

Axx

Ax

xxx

 

or

 

KQTxx

Jxxx

x

xxx ?

 

I would overcall with the second and not the first: many people I know would overcall with the first and not the second.

 

In general, I think that people who want to know style have to ask rather than rely on SCs.

 

And my experiences of asking about style in certain jurisdictions are not happy experiences ... :ph34r:

[vigfus]

Whatever your personal feelings about a treatment or convention, here we rule according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2007). If a player has landed on his feet not by being lucky but by illegally using information from partner's alert -- although there is legitimate debate as to whether that is what happened here -- then we must adjust the score.

How experienced is the pair who opens 2♠, ranging 0-10 HCP's and 4+ spades? In my opinion, usually advanced+ at least.

How experienced is the pair who makes a 2NT bid over weak 2 with 12 HCP's? In my opinion, usually advanced- or less, sure no expert.

So now we come again to the first statement of mine about usage of weak preemtive bids. Those bids have the main purpose of giving the opps a difficult situation to deal with. That worked very well this time. LHO made a very dangerus bid of 2NT. AND his partner misunderstood his bid completly. So here we have a 2-0 in favour of making the opp's miserable.

Of course we have UI here. But because of that, is it mandatory to rule that the 2NT bidder has to make some idiotic decision because of that ? I say NO

And now we come to the final contrac of lucky 3NT. How can we justify some ruling to ensure that the opp's will have 3-0 because they had already 2-0 ?

 

My main point of this that the TD should try to protect weak players against strong players in situation like this. The weaker players get enough bad boards, and will not be happy of unfair ruling (in their opinion) when they finally have good board against such preeemtive bids.

 

And finally. I use the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (2007) for ruling.

[Cyberyeti]

As I understand it, our opponents were experienced players, but had recently arrived in the UK from South Africa and apparently they find the style of bridge in the UK is very different and a lot more aggressive.

 

They won our Corwen qualifier (county pairs championship) but found the final an eye opening experience.