What does this auction show?

[jules101]

[hv=pc=n&w=sajt95h63dq75cj76&e=s74hkq875dak4caq8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1cd1hp2hp2sp2np3sp3n]266|200[/hv]

 

EW are playing some strong ♣ system.

 

X showed majors (no doubles are alerted in SCOTLAND), and neither E or W asked the meaning of X at any point.

 

NS advise that they usually play transfers after 1♣ opener.

 

After the double West thought transfers were still on, while East thought that 1♥ would be natural.

 

West was alerted to his partner's misinterpretation given (i) 1♥ wasn't alerted as transfer, and (ii) East raised ♥.

 

[Maybe this could have been a transfer break, but this wasn't asked of EW at the table.]

 

All passed after 3N.

 

NS queried the auction prior to the lead and were told West was now showing 6 card ♠, and that he probably didn't have ♥ now after all.

 

West said 1♥ was meant to be transfer. East said he thought 1♥ was natural after the double, but as his partner had now shown ♠ twice then he must have 6♠, and not ♥ and had been correcting earlier bidding confusion.

 

What does auction show given that East initially considered his partner to have ♥.

 

East/West did not have a convention card between them so it was impossible to know whether transfers should have been on or off after the double.

 

 

WHAT SHOULD THE CONTRACT BE AFTER THIS AUCTION?

 

Should East be bidding 4♥ here?

 

OR should auction be corrected to 4♥?

 

OR may EW play in 3N?

 

OR what?

[Zelandakh]

What would the sequence 1C - 1H - 2H have shown without the intervening double? It seems like West should continue to bid as if system is on since that was their initial assumption. It is unlikely in a strong club context that 2H would be an impossible call here.

[iviehoff]

WHAT SHOULD THE CONTRACT BE AFTER THIS AUCTION?

After this auction, the contract should be 3N by E, as that was the final call before three passes. The TD does not change the contract actually bid in case of possible abuse of unauthorised information.

 

Then once it has been played out, NS can ask the TD to examine whether they have been damaged by any abuse of unauthorised information in the auction, in which case an adjusted score may be awarded.

 

I don't have enough information to compute the possible outcomes if W had carefully avoided the use of the UI available to him. Zelandakh asks the most important relevant question. It is possible that 4H would be the likely outcome. In that case, we would have to estimate the likely result in that contract, which involves seeing the other hands.

[paulg]

Was the 1♥ intended to show 4+ or 5+ spades?

 

If West thinks he has shown 5+ spades, then I'd expect that a poll would show that most would rebid 2NT over 2♥ and this would lead to a final contract of 4♥ and only the fact that West is a passed hand saves them from some weighting that includes slams.

 

If West thinks he has shown 4+ spades, then the 2♠ bid is reasonable. I'd would like to ask East why he bid 2NT, but there are many reasons that I would find acceptable.

 

Whichever, bidding 3♠ in this auction seems a blatant use of UI and West will have to work hard to convince me otherwise - I'd expect to give an experienced player a PP for that call.

 

I presume that lack of convention cards is tolerated. To be fair, unless using a very complete WBF card, I would not expect to find this on the CC anyhow.

[bluejak]

[hv=pc=n&w=sajt95h63dq75cj76&e=s74hkq875dak4caq8&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1cd1hp2hp2sp2np3sp3n]266|200[/hv]

What does auction show given that East initially considered his partner to have ♥.

The auction shows that West is either highly unethical or totally and completely ignorant of Unauthorised Information rules.

 

I presume that West is not a top player: this would be grounds for a very serious penalty if he was.

 

His 1♥ bid showed five spades. His 2♠ bid showed at least six spades. His 3♠ bid showed at least seven spades and a suit that is playable opposite small singleton or even void. His only reason for bidding this way is his partner's failure to alert 1♥.

 

So I start off with a lengthy explanation of the UI Laws and explain that in future any repeat of an auction of this sort will be dealt with by a penalty of at least 50% of a top and an adjustment as well.

 

Ok, ok, if West is very inexperienced I tone this down, but really it is the sort of sequence that is just cheating for a knowledgeable player and it is far too easy to let players get away with this.

 

As for an adjustment, obviously we disallow the 2♠ bid, but it is difficult to see any sequence finishing in anything but 4♥ or 4♥ doubled so we adjust accordingly.

 

:ph34r:

 

Someone has suggested 1♥ might show four spades, so 2♠ is acceptable. No, it isn't. 2NT is still the obvious call, and we still disallow 2♠.

[mycroft]

Well, we use a standard ACBL card (but minors section is cut and replaced, not very well, mind you), and our auction might have been the same - and it *is* noted on the card. It definitely would have been:

 

1C-(X)-1H: "Big; (majors); spades (anyway)"

2H-2S "hearts; bad hearts, bad controls"

2NT "right-siding the NT"

 

I think West would raise to 3NT rather than trying for the "known" 7-card spade fit (we tend to choose responder's major with a fit, unless opener's suit is much better, *especially* when we've wrong-sided opener's suit, so I can pretty much guarantee two cards (more likely one than three) in East's hand, equally especially given the "known" 4-x or 5-x break.

 

I don't know the system, but 3S looks like unauthorized panic to me; but unless West has said anything (or unless "playing natural", 2H would be TAB/CAB/otherwise Alertable), East has no UI. Should we disallow the 3NT bid, and assign based on 4H as an LA? Well, again, what UI? 4S, on the other hand, that one I can see.

 

If East, without UI, is going to gamble on "system misunderstanding", fine. If any implicit or explicit agreement or partnership experience is involved in that decision, then N/S need to know, and if 3NT could have been defended better with that information, then we have to look at that as well.

 

I notice that I am thinking completely differently from David, but I'm just showing that 2S may not be as bad (in fact, it would be "play with screens" systemic) as it looks. 3S is egregious, no matter what, and I am pretty sure that there *is* some partnership experience with "forgotten system".

 

Also, Strong club pair that doesn't have an agreement over 1C-X? Guaranteed inexperienced - anybody who is willing to go to the trouble of discussing transfer positive responses that doesn't know enough to realize they need a rock-solid agreement about a Mathe double is guaranteed inexperienced. 1NT-2D transfer-(X); "don't know what 2H means" inexperienced.