Another phone ruling

[RMB1]

I don't have the full hand. North: ♠Q ♥KJ ♦98765 ♣AQ753.

 

West deals: (1NT) 2♣ (P) 3♥, (P) 3NT End. 1NT is 12-14. 2♣ is alerted, East asks and is told "Landy. Both majors".

 

This is NS's agreement - it is on both convention cards. North has forgotten, but there is no partnership history of forgetting this convention.

 

3NT makes +2 despite EW having 5 spade tricks. 3♥ or 4♥ would not make, East has ♥Axxxx (and would double 4♥).

 

EW have no real agreements about the auction (1NT) 2m[NAT] (P) 3M.

 

How do you rule? North has UI. Are there logical alternatives to 3NT: Pass/4♥? Which logical alternatives are not suggested by the UI?

 

If 4♥ is a logical alternative, is pass a logical alternative if the auction continues

(1NT) 2♣ (P) 3♥, (P) 4♥ (X) P, (P) ?

 

Robin

Edited November 21, 2009 by RMB1

[helene_t]

Do opps play weak or strong nt? If weak, 3♥ would probably be forcing opposite a natural 2♣ and 4♥ is obvious. Otherwise pass is an alternative. 3NT is not an alternative.

 

But maybe it is plausible that N would have been waken up by the 3♥ even without the alert. So I think I would let the score stand.

[RMB1]

Do opps play weak or strong nt?

Weak. OP edited. Robin

[jallerton]

Yes, it is plausible that North might remember that 2♣ was conventional from partner's 3♥ bid, but North might equally conclude

that his partner has a long heart suit.

 

To answer Robin's questions. I would bid 4♥ (rather than 3NT or 4♦) over an undiscussed 3♥, so yes, 4♥ looks like a logical alternative.

 

Once 4♥ has been doubled, I do not think that as many as 20% would seriously consider redoubling for business, so Pass looks to be the only logical alternative at that stage.

[paulg]

As Helene says, 4♥ looks the normal bid absent UI. When this is doubled, the only alternative to pass that I can see is a redouble (to play).

 

So I'd be ruling 4♥ doubled minus a few.

 

Paul

[jeremy69]

I agree that 4H is the obvious bid. If it were doubled I think that pass is the only likely action. Players who misbid and then suggest that they are woken up by partners call are to be treated with suspicion in my view.

 

But maybe it is plausible that N would have been waken up by the 3♥ even without the alert. So I think I would let the score stand.

 

Why should we be giving the benefit of the doubt to the offending side here? Why should he wake up to his misbid?

[bluejak]

I would not have thought that 4♥ was 100% action. Certainly pass must be considered. There is no reason to run if 3♥ or 4♥ is doubled.

 

So, depending on the other hands, some percentages of 3♥, 4♥, 4♥ doubled, and possibly 3♥ doubled.

 

I am still surprised how any people talk about the most likely action or what would have happened. Ok, that is forgivable for our American friends, where Law 12C1C does not apply, but the norm for adjustments is to weight them.

 

And I would growl at the person who held this hand and bid 3NT! :lol:

[blackshoe]

the norm for adjustments is to weight them.

I daresay some (few, fortunately) should be weighted with lead and thrown in the ocean. :lol:

[RMB1]

And I would growl at the person who held this hand and bid 3NT!  :angry:

The offender was the one who rang me and asked for a ruling (the following morning) after the club TD had been unsure how to rule. The offender thought he could be "woken up" by partner's alert/explanation and had not understood his obligations in this position.

 

It was too early for me to consider 4HXX. :)

 

Robin

[RMB1]

I would not have thought that 4♥ was 100% action.  Certainly pass must be considered. 

I thought that Pass was suggested over 4♥, so did not include 3♥ (the outcome from Pass) in my ruling.

 

The UI suggests playing in hearts is not a good idea, so not only does the UI suggest playing in not-hearts over hearts, it also suggests playing in 3♥ over playing in 4♥.

 

Robin

[duschek]

I thought that Pass was suggested over 4♥, so did not include 3♥ (the outcome from Pass) in my ruling. 

 

The UI suggests playing in hearts is not a good idea, so not only does the UI suggest playing in not-hearts over hearts, it also suggests playing in 3♥ over playing in 4♥.

Agree with Robin. Among logical alternatives, only 4♥ is legal so we must adjust the score based on a 4♥ bid by North.

 

I think it is reasonable to adjust to simply 4♥ doubled with whatever number of tricks it would likely get (which could then result in a weighted score).