WBU Swiss Pairs 4

[VixTD]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s108haq72daj52cj83&w=skq9653hk5d10643c4&e=saj7hj1094dkq7ckq9&s=s42h863d98ca107652]399|300|Scoring: MP

1NT(1)..X..2♠(2).X(3)

....P......P.....3♣....P

....P......P[/hv]

(1) 12-14

(2) agreement is that XX, 2♣/♦/♥ are transfers to ♣/♦/♥/♠. 2♠has no meaning within the system. It was not alerted.

(3) Penalties, not alerted

 

Lead: ♠K, then Q overtaken and J♠ was led to trick three.

 

Result: 3♣ (S) =, NS +110

 

East called the director and complained that he expected South to have at least four (five) spades for his bid, and would have switched suits at trick three had he suspected South could have been short in the suit.

 

Is he due any redress?

[mycroft]

Um, for his, or his partner's, mindless defence? I don't think so. But...

 

E/W +140. 2S unalerted is spades. N/S may not have an agreement about 2S, but E/W are entitled to know they play transfers through 2H, so that when south pulls the double to 3C they have the same way of guessing South's hand as North does; West has a reasonable chance of bidding 3S. Not saying anything at any time, including after 3C, about the rest of their system, or the "does not exist" nature of 2S, is MI.

 

I don't believe this category of mindless is "Serious Error", so they get all of +140. I wish I could take something away from East, but I can't.

[jallerton]

How do E/W get all of +140? In Wales, weighted scores are permitted. Call me an overbidder if you wish, but I would find it very difficult to stop short of game (unless opting to defend a doubled contract) on the West hand once partner had doubled 1NT, so to include 0% of any 4♠ contract seems wrong.

 

But was there an infraction at all by N/S? "No agreement" is not alertable, but it is important for the TD to ask South why she bid 2♠ and to find out whether this sequence has occurred previously in this partnership; this might reveal the existence of an implict agreement.

[bluejak]

What's the infraction?

 

I was given the East hand as a bidding problem: I said I would find out what 2♠ meant before calling over 3♣. I cannot believe East did not.

 

I don't think our score of -620 was very good. Why are all these hands our bad boards?

[mink]

If West knew the N/S system after 1nt (x) and if he knew that 2♠ was not part of this system, he might just pass, and maybe the others do pass, too. 200 for E/W should be part of the weighted score. However, I have no idea which weight to assign to each possible score.

 

Karl

[dburn]

If West knew the N/S system after 1nt (x) and if he knew that 2♠ was not part of this system, he might just pass, and maybe the others do pass, too. 200 for E/W should be part of the weighted score. However, I have no idea which weight to assign to each possible score.

If West knew the NS system, West might just bid four spades (as jallerton would, and as I would if I knew that South would bid 2♥ with long spades).

 

Of course, if West had asked about the unalerted 2♠ and received the answer "it doesn't have any meaning in our system", he would have bid four spades at some point in the auction. But owing to blindingly stupid English (and therefore Welsh) regulations West can't do this (or at least, he will think that he can't do this owing to blindingly stupid ways in which the aforementioned blindingly stupid regulations are stated).

 

North-South plus 110, East-West plus 620, the Laws and Ethics Committee minus both of those scores and costs in the case of at least several million pounds.

[VixTD]

Of course, if West had asked about the unalerted 2♠ and received the answer "it doesn't have any meaning in our system", he would have bid four spades at some point in the auction. But owing to blindingly stupid English (and therefore Welsh) regulations West can't do this (or at least, he will think that he can't do this owing to blindingly stupid ways in which the aforementioned blindingly stupid regulations are stated).

The chief TD and I agreed that the EBU regulations did not serve this situation well, which I think is what Mr Burn is saying.

 

5 B 5 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category.

5 B 10 A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

 

Opponents will probably assume that an unalerted 2♠ shows spades, but OB5B5 only says that they have the right to assume that there is no agreement that it might not show spades. There's an inference from OB5B10 that North should not alert 2♠ as he is not going to act as though it is alertable.

 

We thought NS had abided by the alert regulations, and that EW had not done enough to protect themselves (doesn't 3♣ look a little suspicious?).

[jallerton]

Well, this is not entirely clear. There is a case for saying that 2♠ is alertable on the basis of having a potentially unexpected meaning: South is expected to bid 2♥ on most hands that would make a normal bid 2♠ so North has the knowledge that either South has forgotten the system or she has come up with some esoteric meaning for 2♠: on general principles that information ought to be shared with East/West, so if I had been North I would have alerted 2♠ and explained "no agreement but we have agreed...........".

[jallerton]

What's the infraction?

Well there might have been an infraction by East:

 

1NT(1)..X..2♠(2).X(3)

....P......P.....3♣....P

....P......P

 

(2) agreement is that XX, 2♣/♦/♥ are transfers to ♣/♦/♥/♠. 2♠has no meaning within the system. It was not alerted.

(3) Penalties, not alerted

 

5 E 2 Doubles

The rules for alerting doubles are:

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

Short, Nebulous, Prepared and Phoney minor openings.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

[c] No trump bids.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for penalties; alertable otherwise.

(d) Suit bids that do not show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if showing the suit doubled; alertable otherwise.

 

If the unalerted 2♠ bid showed spades, then East should have alerted the penalty double of 2♠ by virtue of (a).

 

But if the reason for the lack of alert was "no agreement as to whether 2♠ showed spades" then 2♠ did not show spades then in that case, East would have been correct to not alert the penalty double by virtue of (d).

 

How East is supposed to work this out when he is not allowed to ask about the opponents' auction until his own turn to call is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[up until about 4 years ago, the alerting regulations in Wales were rather simpler and East would not have had to worry about such subtleties - the penalty double would not have been alertable whatever the agreement, or lack thereof, for 2♠ .]

[bluejak]

[up until about 4 years ago, the alerting regulations in Wales were rather simpler and East would not have had to worry about such subtleties - the penalty double would not have been alertable whatever the agreement, or lack thereof, for 2♠ .]

Sneaky. What you mean is they were more complex but happened to work out well in this situation.

[greenender]

How East is supposed to work this out when he is not allowed to ask about the opponents' auction until his own turn to call is left as an exercise for the reader.

My practice is to say "sorry - I don't know whether to alert the double without checking on the meaning of 2♠". Nobody has ever objected to this that I can recall (although I suppose that somebody who had declined to alert 2♠ because they knew jolly well it was natural, might raise an eyebrow).

 

The alternative is to alert* and if asked explain as above: if no questions are asked, then you ask about 2♠ at your turn and withdraw or confirm the alert accordingly: if RHO would have acted differently had you not alerted he may get his call back (although he would have been wise to ask about the alert).

 

*because an alert always provides less specific information than a non-alert, and tends to prompt a question which enables the whole thing to be sorted out.

[campboy]

Oops, nevermind