mistaken bidding perhaps?

[jeremy69]

with an explanation which was, as it turns out, correct all along.

 

That's the point. It isn't the correct explanation because South says so or the alternative is bizarre. What compelling evidence was there that it was not a transfer because that is where the onus lies?

[gordontd]

It isn't the correct explanation because South says so or the alternative is bizarre.

No, it's the correct explanation because South says so and the alternative is bizarre, and their system card is consistent with it, and North says she was confused. Am I supposed to discount all of these factors to impose on them an agreement I do not for one moment believe they had (and nor do their opponents believe they had such an agreement)?

[jeremy69]

it's the correct explanation because South says so and the alternative is bizarre, and their system card is consistent with it, and North says she was confused. Am I supposed to discount all of these factors to impose on them an agreement I do not for one moment believe they had (and nor do their opponents believe they had such an agreement)?

 

Of course South says so because that is what they believed unlike North at the time. North was not perhaps entirely sure and as you determined confused but believed it to be right when she bid it. My working and not very knowledgeable theory is she believed 1D to be some sort of negative(0-7) and 3H to be transfer because it was system on over any natural 2NT. When partner was vehement that this was all rubbish she quickly gave in and said she was confused.

I've never seen any system card have anything referring to this situation so the absence of information I would dismiss. I'm not saying you weren't right about your assumptions, after all you were there and I wasn't, but I don't think you have to impose on them any agreement merely to say in the light of the available evidence it is not completely clear so will rule misinformation not misbid.

[Lanor Fow]

My working and not very knowledgeable theory is she believed 1D to be some sort of negative(0-7) and 3H to be transfer because it was system on over any natural 2NT. When partner was vehement that this was all rubbish she quickly gave in and said she was confused.

 

When I first saw the auction I thought it must be a strong club auction, because that would have made perfect sense.

 

But no, they were playing simple Acol and there was nothing to alert.

 

Wouldn't the CC give evidence that they weren't playing a strong club system with a negative 1d as in your working hypothosis?

 

I would also argue that the law doesn't ask for it to be 'completly clear', merely a lack of 'lack of evidence'

[jeremy69]

I would also argue that the law doesn't ask for it to be 'completly clear', merely a lack of 'lack of evidence'

 

I was arguing that it was not clear which it was and when it is not clear misexplanation rather than misbid is usually the presumption.

 

Wouldn't the CC give evidence that they weren't playing a strong club system with a negative 1d as in your working hypothosis?

 

Yes it would and it didn't. I was just theorising that North thought that they were playing a forcing club of some sort at the time she bid 1D. After all one is struggling to find an explanation of why 1D was the original chosen response.

 

She may have been confused but so were her opponents and it wasn't their fault!

[blackshoe]

She may have been confused but so were her opponents and it wasn't their fault!

So? You still need a legal basis to adjust the score, and "there was MI" doesn't fit this case.

[wyman]

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

 

Is the player allowed to "wake up" to the fact that they are not playing transfers by virtue of partner not alerting the 3H call? [Certainly she's allowed to wake up, but when partner's actions suggest that she wake up, I don't know that she can...]

 

It seems to me that 4S is an LA to 3N, and that the failure to alert is UI that demonstrably suggests passing 3N.

 

Given that many tables played 4S-1, I think an adjustment (or at least a partial adjustment, if that's allowed in your jurisdiction) would be reasonable.

 

But I'm just learning, so if this is nonsense, I'd be interested in hearing why (rather than just "LOL" or "NO" :blink: )

[dburn]

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

No. "Typically" 1♣-1♦-2NT does not deny a four-card major, so if you are playing this "bizarre" method (first described in the Bridge World circa 1983 and currently employed by, among others, Zia Mahmood and his partners) 3♥ shows four spades and 3N denies a like number.

[wank]

i find it amusing how you all think you can understand the north player's reasons for her actions better than the director who talked to her at the time.

 

some people just aren't very good. better players after the event have a tendency to foister their own logic onto players who employ none.

[gordontd]

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

 

I don't think it would be typical for a player who is not yet very clear about when transfers apply. "Superacceptance" is likely not in her vocabulary.

 

It seems to me that 4S is an LA to 3N, and that the failure to alert is UI that demonstrably suggests passing 3N.

She thought she showed spades when she bid 3H. She then had UI from the lack of alert of 3H telling her that her partner didn't understand her to have shown spades. To now bid 4S would look to me to be using the UI, an example of what has been termed "unauthorised panic".

[bluejak]

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

Only typical for a certain type of player, and the evidence suggests this is not that type of player. In the clubs in which I play if the bidding went

 

1NT 2♥[transfer]

2NT

 

responder would be totally confused, and would shrug her shoulders and bid 3NT with any type of strong hand, and pass with any type of weak hand.

 

Is the player allowed to "wake up" to the fact that they are not playing transfers by virtue of partner not alerting the 3H call? [Certainly she's allowed to wake up, but when partner's actions suggest that she wake up, I don't know that she can...]

No, the alert is unauthorised information, and she must make every effort possible not to gain from knowledge of the lack of alert.

 

It seems to me that 4S is an LA to 3N, and that the failure to alert is UI that demonstrably suggests passing 3N.

I think it suggests passing, yes. But whether 4♠ is an LA is another matter.

 

Given that many tables played 4S-1, I think an adjustment (or at least a partial adjustment, if that's allowed in your jurisdiction) would be reasonable.

When you decide what to do in a ruling case, you ignore what happens at other tables.

 

But I'm just learning, so if this is nonsense, I'd be interested in hearing why (rather than just "LOL" or "NO" :) )

Not nonsense, no, and I have tried to answer. It is a common failing on forums [fora?] to say something is wrong without explaining why and your reminder is good.

[gerry]

If I was north I would explain my cock up before the lead. Whether technically required or not, at the table it is far better to steer a safer course through the ethical shoals. If I was EW I would be pissed off.

[bluejak]

I cannot see any reason why you should be pissed off. The evidence is that the lady sitting North was out of her depth. The ethics of the game - as against your personal ethics - do not require her to explain the cock-up. Complete lack of tolerance for lesser players, while common enough, is hardly beneficial to the game. Furthermore, personal ethics are just that: your own ethics, and it is unreasonable to expect others to follow them.

 

Why not just play the game to the rules as best you can, and when things go wrong leave it to the TDs [and ACs if necessary] and not get worried when lesser opponents do foolish things? Most such foolish things benefit you: it is greed that means you get upset the odd time the foolish thing rebounds in favour of the person perpetrating it.

[wyman]

I would explain my cock up

:ph34r: :o B)

 

Must be a British thing... :P

[campboy]

A quick google search gives six different possible etymologies, none of them obscene.

[wyman]

A quick google search gives six different possible etymologies, none of them obscene.

Oh I'm certain that the history of the phrase is not obscene, just making jokes.

 

You'd certainly get a look from folks in the States, though; this is definitely not a phrase used here.

[campboy]

Since the most plausible explanation is from brewing real ale, it is no surprise that it is unknown in the states :)