Logical Alternative

[Chris3875]

The 2S bid by North was not alerted and was supposed to be a transfer to clubs - which was not their system. North plays that with another partner. The result was 5C making 12 tricks by North.[hv=pc=n&s=st92haqj4dak2ca72&w=sakq74h873dt83cq4&n=s8hk6dq954ckjt953&e=sj653ht952dj76c86&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1np2sp4sd5cppp]399|300[/hv] Edited October 27, 2010 by Gerardo
Deleted duplicated diagram

[WellSpyder]

Why did south pass 5♣? As described in the OP it is not clear that south has any UI, and it is north's bid over 4♠ that the director will want to consider in the light of possible LAs. But I would certainly want to investigate whether north may have provided UI to south either by making clear that they expected 2♠ to be alerted or by pulling a face at the 4♠ bid, or whatever.

 

Edit: I didn't spot the double when I wrote the above - it seems much more plausible for South to pass 5 clubs after 4 spades has been doubled.

[iviehoff]

Depending upon more details of these players' bidding methods, 5C could be legal or illegal.

 

Without knowing what the bid actually meant (and what South seems to think it means seems very implausible to me as an actual agreement - though you may now tell me it was the actual agreement), and without knowing whether 4S might be a splinter/control bid in support of clubs if 2S did actually mean clubs, I find this rather complicated.

 

North mustn't take advantage of the lack of alert to conclude that there has been a convention mistake. In some circumstances (partner doesn't use control bids), as North, I would conclude a material possibility my partner held a fistful of spades and had bit 1N for his own perverted reasons, and I would pass.

 

In other circumstances, 4S might be a plausible bid in response to 2S meaning clubs, agreeing clubs and inviting slam, so I must carry on under that misperception. What is the range of 2S meaning clubs? If this is a minimum, then I would bid 5C, and contend there was no alternative, because partner will have to bid slam on his own given my absence of any first round controls, and lack of room over 4S to explore. But if slam is plausible on this holding, then I should go beyond 5C, because 5C caters for the possibility of convention mistake. But in such a case there is no damage to bidding 5C, because in fact 6C makes.

[iviehoff]

There is an additional possibility that South's final pass is fielded misbid, but I'm not inclined to that interpretation. 4S was doubled, so 5S doesn't look like the right bid in this situation! I think South can reasonably pass and wait to see what North wants if 5C is doubled, especially at this vulnerability.

[hotShot]

What is the claim?

 

South raised the 2♠ bid, he believed to be natural to 4♠. That contract was dbled for penalty, so 5♣ is unlikely to be a slam try in ♠ (North could score big with redbled overtricks), so why should South bid 5♠?

 

I don't see where South got any UI.

 

Does North have to alert South 4♠ bid?

Would be interesting to know if this bid has an agreed meaning in North view.

 

After a 1NT opening 4♠ can hardly be a Splinter and if it should show a control, does it deny first round controls in cheaper suits?

The NT opening makes it unlikely that South has a long ♠ suit, at least long enough have a fit opposite North single.

 

North has UI that South did not alert 2♠, but it is AI that South opened 1NT and that West dbled.

 

So I don't think there is a LA to 5♣.

[Chris3875]

The N/S players are both inexperienced - on the day they finished last ! They play transfers to majors and with another partner, North also transfers to the minors via 2S forcing 3C, leave or correct. They don't play splinters or cue bids. South wondered why North hadn't simply transferred to spades via 2H, but thought he must have forgotten about transfers and took his bid as being 5+ spades and weak.

 

Because the 2S was not alerted, and also because of the 4S response, North realised that his bid had been misinterpreted - but especially after the double by West did he have any LA to the 5C bid? Was the failure to alert UI? On the day I allowed the result to stand, but I had my doubts.

[blackshoe]

Failure to alert when your partner expects an alert always gives UI to your partner. Nonetheless, he is not constrained by it if he has no LA to his chosen call. And I don't think he has an LA to 5♣ in this auction, either. However, before ruling in such cases, the TD should consult with some of the player's peers to see what they would do.

[iviehoff]

The N/S players are both inexperienced - on the day they finished last ! They play transfers to majors and with another partner, North also transfers to the minors via 2S forcing 3C, leave or correct. They don't play splinters or cue bids. South wondered why North hadn't simply transferred to spades via 2H, but thought he must have forgotten about transfers and took his bid as being 5+ spades and weak.

 

Because the 2S was not alerted, and also because of the 4S response, North realised that his bid had been misinterpreted - but especially after the double by West did he have any LA to the 5C bid? Was the failure to alert UI? On the day I allowed the result to stand, but I had my doubts.

In those circumstances, yes he did have a LA, which is Pass. As Bluejak says, "impossible" bids occur frequently without there having been any convention mess-up. People have to improvise from time to time; bidding systems are not complete; there are more possibilities for misbids than the one the UI tells us of. The alternative inpretation of 4S is that S for his own peculiar reasons opened 1N with a fistful of spades. That's exactly what North would have thought if South had alerted the bid and abused that UI. S could have pulled out the 1N by mistake because it was next to the 1S and failed to act without pause for thought so that he could no longer change it. S could have split his spades in two and thought half of them were clubs. Or simply made an eccentric 1N opening.

 

Also the fact of the double means that North can pass and South gets another go if it was not 4S S wants to be in - he can correct to clubs if he prefers them. Of course North is constrained to continue thinking that South is aware that North has clubs. I think that makes the case overwhelming that Pass is a LA.

 

But even without a double, consider the situation where South alerts 2S and then bids 4S. What would be North's ethical actions in that case? Would we say that behind screens North would be so overwhelmingly likely to conclude this must be a convention mess-up he is constrained to act as if it is one? I suspect not.

[mjj29]

Also the fact of the double means that North can pass and South gets another go if it was not 4S S wants to be in - he can correct to clubs if he prefers them. Of course North is constrained to continue thinking that South is aware that North has clubs. I think that makes the case overwhelming that Pass is a LA.

Would pass there by North (particularly with the double) not show some tolerance for spades in addition to his clubs? Something like 4xx5 or 3xx6? I would agree that pass is an LA if he had more spades, but with a singleton I don't think many people would pass... Of course, the TD should take a poll to determine this, but I would be at least slightly surprised if pass came back as an LA.

[mgoetze]

Sorry for this possibly stupid question, as I know very little about Bridge Laws, but... isn't the director first supposed to try and establish whether N/S actually have an agreed meaning for 2♠? And if they don't actually have an agreement, does the auction not provide sufficient AI to both of them that there has been a misunderstanding?

[blackshoe]

According to the OP, North thought they had the agreement that 2♠ is a transfer to ♣, which would require an alert. They did not have that agreement, says the OP, so North didn't get the alert he expected. This conveys UI to North regardless what the actual agreement is.

[mgoetze]

The OP just said "which was not their system". So what was their system? If they really had no agreement, is it fair to assume natural, as some posters have done, when they also had a transfer to spades available?

[Chris3875]

I did question both North and South about they system and their bidding. As explained in an earlier reply they are both very new players and South simply assumed that North had forgotten their system about transferring to spades, so she took the bid as natural. North plays transfers to minors with another partner and simply got confused.

[bluejak]

This sounds like a nothing hand to me, and one where if I had been East or West, no TD would have been called. This is just two poor players who are confused.

[wank]

south has opened 1NT and raised 2S to 4. of course north can work out what's happened. yes he has UI. but he has so much AI that passing 4S is not in the same universe as logic.

 

is anyone seriously going to try and say that north must believe south psyched 1NT with a 4 spade opener?

[nige1]

south has opened 1NT and raised 2S to 4. of course north can work out what's happened. yes he has UI. but he has so much AI that passing 4S is not in the same universe as logic. is anyone seriously going to try and say that north must believe south psyched 1NT with a 4 spade opener?

A strange and rare unanimity. I may have got the law wrong again. Hitherto, I believed that the director must consider the possibility of a less favourable outcome if...

1. South alerted 2♠ and
2. Explained it as long ♣ then
3. Bid a deliberate 4♠.

Is it really so unlikely that North would pass 4♠X -- to show second round control, say -- or just passing the buck?

 

We poor players rely on good directors :)