Opinions Please

[karen4]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sqjt64hj98dt7ck64&w=s52ha753dk6cqt987&e=sa973hq642d4caj32&s=sk8hktdaqj98532c5]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

South opens 1NT third in hand. Their agreement is 12-14, semi balanced, may contain a singleton honour.

 

North bids 2♥ transfer

 

South bids 3♦ which shows diamonds (no minimum number asked or specified) and a singleton spade and is non-forcing. The convention card backs up that this is their agreement.

 

This is passed out

 

West leads a spade and declarer makes 9 tricks. West is aggrieved as he thinks the club lead that he would have made if not informed that South had a singleton spade would have worked better.

 

Any views

[Phil]

NS have an agreement about the definition of an insufficient bid? :(

[karen4]

Sorry, original post edited. I meant 3♦ of course

[jeremy69]

South seems to have psyched twice once to show a semi balanced hand and once to show a singleton spade. However if the convention card shows that breaking the transfer shows that suit and a singleton in the transfer suit i don't see West has cause for complaint. Personally I would have the hand recorded because I think people who play like this may not be as straightforward as they could be! Who knows it might be the 9th occasion this year they have done this. :(

[Phil]

Jurisdiction matters doesn't it?

 

Seems the ACBL would take issue with a systemic checkback to discover an unbalanced 1N opening.

[karen4]

EBU land

[Pict]

Looks like an illegal opening and a systemic fielding arrangement.

 

Of course it could all be a coincidence, and I'm buying a lottery ticket.

[mycroft]

Yeah, I would have this one recorded.

 

A) as Phil has said, in some places this would be an illegal attempt to cater for an illegal agreement.

B) in many places, this could be used, even if not designed, as a method to cater for a psychic, which violates either psychic control regulations or "real agreement is X or Y, and Y is an illegal agreement".

 

I would also ask C) has this ever happened before, and D) why did opener decide this would be a good psychic, and E) why did he decide to lie again with 3D?

 

I'm guessing there is a serious undertone of "wait, I can likely get out of this if I..." after 1NT-2H, even if there was no intention of using 3D to protect the psychic at the time he opened. If there was, then things get a lot messier. If this happens again with the same player and system, then things get a bit ugly.

[bluejak]

I don't understand the comments about illegal openings. They have an agreement which is legal, and South has not followed his agreements, ie he psyched. So far, so good.

 

After the auction progressed he reached a situation where he had to do something. As is perfectly normal with a psyche, his next bid did not show his hand correctly. Well, it wouldn't, would it? You do not expect his system to cater for a psyche do you?

 

Yes, I agree with Jeremy about keeping a record, but it is not illegal to psyche, and it is not illegal to have the agreements they have, and it is not illegal not to follow them. The only real problem, as Jeremy says, is if this action is normal. But suppose it is a one-off: nothing illegal, why worry?