jcrosa Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sakth7daj32ckq863&w=s97654hkqj64dqt7c&n=sj82hat5d965cjt94&e=sq3h9832dk84ca752&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c2dpp2n(%5B1%5D)p3nppp]399|300|(1) S asked the meaning of 2♦ (given as "natural, weak") before bidding 2NT[/hv] This one is from a club MP tournament last night. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. They play a modified Michaels where 2♦ over 1♣ shows the majors (2♣ being natural), but E (the most inexperienced of the two players) forgot the system and took 2♦ as natural, preemptive. TD was called by S at the end of the play. The table result was 1 down in 3NT. S claimed that he wouldn't have bid 2NT with the singleton ♥7 if given the correct explanation. Your ruling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sakth7daj32ckq863&w=s97654hkqj64dqt7c&n=sj82hat5d965cjt94&e=sq3h9832dk84ca752&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c2dpp2n(%5B1%5D)p3nppp]399|300|(1) S asked the meaning of 2♦ (given as "natural, weak") before bidding 2NT[/hv] This one is from a club MP tournament last night. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. They play a modified Michaels where 2♦ over 1♣ shows the majors (2♣ being natural), but E (the most inexperienced of the two players) forgot the system and took 2♦ as natural, preemptive. TD was called by S at the end of the play. The table result was 1 down in 3NT. S claimed that he wouldn't have bid 2NT with the singleton ♥7 if given the correct explanation. Your ruling?Well firstly hasn't E shown some sort of 1165/1174 by passing W's Michaels, so shouldn't he avoid using the UI and lead a ♦ rather than a heart. Bidding 3♦ over 2N is not out of the question either. If 2♦ is correctly explained, this is a nasty problem at this vul, as from S's point of view taking 250 may well be insufficient so I'm not sure what S will do, but I suspect the answer is X to show clubs the unbid suit and they'll play 3♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy4hoop Posted June 18, 2011 Report Share Posted June 18, 2011 I agree that west has abused the alert procedure, in this case probably a lack of an alert by east or NS asking and east offering the wrong explanation. If west operates under the assumption that his partner knew what 2♦ was and chose to pass anyway, then that would indeed suggest long diamonds and west should be considering attacking his side's "known" 9-card suit. I would probably adjust to 3NT making 3 on a diamond lead. I'm not sure if west should get an ethics lecture if s/he is really inexperienced but ought to be given some education on what the ethical thing to do might be. Or with that heart sequence does everyone think gotta lead a heart, wtp? Tough one. :) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 So, try two polls: first, what will South call after 1♣ 2♦ p p and the correct explanation? Two, what will West lead after the given sequence if East has described the 2♦ bid as majors? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.