A ruling when one partner forgot agreement

[sathyab]

This took place in a GNT game earlier in the day. I held

 

♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x

 

RHO opened 1♥, opponents Red, pass, pass and partner balanced with 1nt. Over which I bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive, but forgot that with this partner I was playing "systems ON". He alerted it and bid 3♣, over which I bid 3nt. RHO led a 4th best ♥ and partner made the contract. The opponents contended that my 3nt was influenced by partner's alert. 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that I should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. My contention is that even if I never heard partner alert my bid, i.e, if we were using screens for instance, I'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ could be very wrong as a result of forgetfulness and I'd try to recover from my error.

 

Do you agree with the ruling ?

 

P.S. Hand-dealt deals, so I don't have the hand record; I'll post it later if I can find it.

[awm]

I agree with the ruling.

 

You definitely have UI (your partner's alert/explanation). This UI implies that partner is just bidding 3♣ because he thinks it's forced, and therefore makes it more appealing to remove 3♣ to another contract. So the UI makes 3NT more appealing.

 

Is passing 3♣ a logical alternative? Since you cannot be woken up to a forget by partner's alert, you have to assume that 2NT was described as natural invite (how you intended it) and partner bid 3♣ anyway. This should show a five or six-card club suit and imply doubt about 3NT. You have no help for partner in spades and a pretty light invite, so passing 3♣ would certainly be a logical action.

[nigel_k]

It isn't logical that partner would bid 1NT with a hand that doesn't want to play NT if partner raises. He would overcall 2♣ with that. So a system problem is the only logical possibility and I would allow the conversion to 3NT.

[barmar]

It would probably be better to ask this in the Simple Rulings forum down below. That's where all the legal eagles hang out.

[sathyab]

It would probably be better to ask this in the Simple Rulings forum down below. That's where all the legal eagles hang out.

 

I just did. I didn't know there was a separate discussion group for such topics. Thanks.

[Free]

I agree with Adam and the ruling. You abused UI imo. Without alerts the auction means (imo) that partner has a minimum hand (or weaker) with long ♣, and there's absolutely no reason to bid 3NT now.

[ArtK78]

I suspect that the ruling would be that the 2NT bidder must pass 3♣ based on the UI conveyed by the alert and the explanation.

 

But that ruling makes no sense.

 

If 2NT was intended (incorrectly) as natural, partner's 3♣ bid, NOT THE ALERT AND EXPLANATION, is what alerted the 2NT bidder to the correct partnership agreement. 3♣ is impossible over a natural invitational 2NT bid.

 

After partner's 3♣ bid wakes up the 2NT bidder to his error, he should be permitted to take a shot with 3NT.

 

There has to be a point when common sense must overtake the compulsion to punish players who make mistakes in the bidding. This is a hand where the UI is not relevant.

[blackshoe]

UI is always relevant, and the compulsion to which you refer does not exist.

 

You could argue that there is no LA to 3NT, but whether there is does not depend on what you would do, but on what the peers of the player who held the hand (and received the UI) would do. That's why TDs take polls.