Incorrectly announced transfer

[keledor]

Playin in the EBU Spring sim pairs (board 9) we had the following hand and bidding

 

 

hv=pc=n&s=sj7h643dq6ckj9432&w=sa54hkq5dkjt985cq&n=skq93ha972d74cat7&e=st862hjt8da32c865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1np2np3cpp3dp3sppp]399|300|2NT announced as transfer to minors*[/hv]

 

The 2NT bid was not alerted but as West was about to bid - North announced it as transfer to minors.

 

3 Clubs not alerted as relay and pass or correct.

 

North / South are a genuinely inexperienced pair and when East queried the 2NT bid a little more was told it was both minors. I as west knew it was only Clubs but I can't say anything.

 

East thought 3 Diamonds as a result was a cue (ie that the 2NT was both minors...) and so ended up in 3 Spades.

 

If North didnt announce and just alert I'd just bid 3Ds anyway.

 

How do you get out of this mess as a TD!

[RMB1]

 

hv=pc=n&s=sj7h643dq6ckj9432&w=sa54hkq5dkjt985cq&n=skq93ha972d74cat7&e=st862hjt8da32c865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1np2np3cpp3dp3sppp]399|300|2NT announced as transfer to minors*[/hv]

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7h643dq6ckj9432&w=sa54hkq5dkjt985cq&n=skq93ha972d74cat7&e=st862hjt8da32c865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1np2np3cpp3dp3sppp]399|300|2NT announced as transfer to minors*[/hv]

 

It looks as if E/W were entitled to the explanation that 2NT showed 1 minor and 3C was to play opposite clubs. It appears that West would still bid 3D and East would Pass, so an adjustment to EW +110 looks appropriate.

 

A gentle reminder to NS to alert minor suit transfers and rebids (and to agree what 2NT is).

[Cyberyeti]

It looks as if E/W were entitled to the explanation that 2NT showed 1 minor and 3C was to play opposite clubs. It appears that West would still bid 3D and East would Pass, so an adjustment to EW +110 looks appropriate.

 

A gentle reminder to NS to alert minor suit transfers and rebids (and to agree what 2NT is).

Are EW automatically deemed to get the diamonds right ? Isn't N 2:1 or more to hold Q♦ so should there be some split between 3♦= and -1 ?

[RMB1]

Are EW automatically deemed to get the diamonds right ? Isn't N 2:1 or more to hold Q♦ so should there be some split between 3♦= and -1 ?

Yes. Good point.

 

I could claim that the commentary says "is difficult see how he can make anything other than nine tricks" and as the commentator is another EBU TD, I have some backing for my ruling. But I suspect that at least one of us did not give the matter enough thought. :)

[campboy]

Are EW automatically deemed to get the diamonds right ? Isn't N 2:1 or more to hold Q♦ so should there be some split between 3♦= and -1 ?

Depends how much you can find out about opener's hand. The play might easily reveal he has 13 HCP outside trumps. But yes, some weighted score between the two possibilities.

[Trinidad]

I agree with the weighted AS of 3♦ making and down 1, but don't we think that bidding 3♦ with the West hand -knowing that East will think it shows both majors- is a SEWoG?

 

Rik

[VixTD]

I agree with the weighted AS of 3♦ making and down 1, but don't we think that bidding 3♦ with the West hand -knowing that East will think it shows both majors- is a SEWoG?

EW are entitled to a correct explanation of NS's agreements. If the correct agreement of 2NT is "takeout into a long minor" then that is the explanation EW are presumed to get and West can bid a natural 3♦ with impunity. If the actual agreement is "both minors" then again that is the explanation EW are presumed to get and, despite what he claims, I don't think West would now bid 3♦ if there was any chance that partner might interpret this as a cue-bid.

 

EW have to steer clear of (unwittingly, I'm sure), varying their defence so that 3♦ means one thing when West has first asked for an explanation of an alerted 2NT, and quite another when no explanation is asked for.

[Trinidad]

Oh wait... I assumed for my reaction that West had the information that 2NT showed both minors before he bid 3♦. In that case, I think 3♦ is a SEWoG.

 

But upon rereading, it may be so that West bid 3♦ with the information "transfer to the minors" and that East got the explanation "both minors" right before he bid 3♠. If that is the case then obviously 3♦ was not even close to a SEWoG.

 

Maybe the OP can clarify what information West had when he bid 3♦?

 

Rik

[bluejak]

I could claim that the commentary says "is difficult see how he can make anything other than nine tricks" and as the commentator is another EBU TD, I have some backing for my ruling. But I suspect that at least one of us did not give the matter enough thought. :)

Having played in Sim Pairs with booklets for forty years I cannot tell you how often I have been annoyed by statements as to the number of tricks, sometimes by commentators who are extremely good players. I remember Brian Senior writing "4♥ cannot be made" and a beginner in my club didn't like to draw trumps so he ruffed everything in sight, including some winners he did not know were winners, executing a perfect trump coup on his way to ten tricks. Grrrrr. If that Brian Senior ever comes near me ......