Unclear auction

[CamHenry]

[hv=pc=n&w=saq2h73dk76cakt95&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nd2h(Transfer)3hp]133|200[/hv]

 

None vulnerable, N deals; matchpoints. 2♥ is alerted; partner asks and is told it's a transfer, and then bids 3♥. You have no agreement about what a double would mean here, and therefore you can't deduce what 3♥ shows in any detail.

 

Do you bid 3NT, pass, or find some other call?

[Trinidad]

It obviously depends on the agreements. To me 3♥ would be game forcing (since this would be a good/bad auction and partner has shown "good"). I would bid 3NT.

 

But with different agreements, 3♥ may well be a sign off and pass would be obvious.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

It obviously depends on the agreements. To me 3♥ would be game forcing (since this would be a good/bad auction and partner has shown "good"). I would bid 3NT.

 

But with different agreements, 3♥ may well be a sign off and pass would be obvious.

 

Rik

Basically agree with this. If no agreements, I probably bid 3N.

[campboy]

Absent other agreements I would expect 3♥ to be forcing and weaker hands with hearts to pass hoping to bid 3♥ next round, so I'm bidding 3NT too.

[gnasher]

I'd assume it was non-forcing. He had an easy 2♠ bid if he wanted to set up a force.

[ahydra]

3NT

 

ahydra

[Trinidad]

I'd assume it was non-forcing. He had an easy 2♠ bid if he wanted to set up a force.

Good point. I must have been asleep. (Good/Bad obviously doesn't apply if you can force "naturally" below 2NT.)

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

I'd assume it was non-forcing. He had an easy 2♠ bid if he wanted to set up a force.

Would assume the reverse, the non forcing hand can X (no agreement, we normally assume it's what the unalerted bid means which in the UK is hearts).

[CamHenry]

OK, there's no clear consensus on the bid at this stage. The actual ruling is on a misinformation case. The auction had run:

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nd2hp2sppp]133|100[/hv]

 

2♥ was not alerted. I was called at the end of the auction, when S said "I should have alerted 2♥ as a transfer". E said that, with correct information, she'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥; since this was before she had any idea of the full layout I see no reason to doubt the statement.

 

Obviously the correct ruling is that she can take back her final pass, and then she probably balances with 3♥. Unfortunately I'm rusty, and denied her this option, so now I have to make a ruling. 3♥ goes either 1 or 2 off, while 2♠ made 140 at the table. 3NT goes badly enough that, if it had been a clear-cut bid on the W hand, I'd have ruled "no damage".

 

Is this ruling correct (modulo my failure to get it right first time!)?

 

Thanks

[Cyberyeti]

OK, there's no clear consensus on the bid at this stage. The actual ruling is on a misinformation case. The auction had run:

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nd2hp2sppp]133|100[/hv]

 

2♥ was not alerted. I was called at the end of the auction, when S said "I should have alerted 2♥ as a transfer". E said that, with correct information, she'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥; since this was before she had any idea of the full layout I see no reason to doubt the statement.

 

Obviously the correct ruling is that she can take back her final pass, and then she probably balances with 3♥. Unfortunately I'm rusty, and denied her this option, so now I have to make a ruling. 3♥ goes either 1 or 2 off, while 2♠ made 140 at the table. 3NT goes badly enough that, if it had been a clear-cut bid on the W hand, I'd have ruled "no damage".

 

Is this ruling correct (modulo my failure to get it right first time!)?

 

Thanks

While I would bid 3N I don't think it's obvious so 3♥ is in the frame. Is there any chance NS will compete to 3♠ or double 3♥ ?

 

Do you have to rule director error about the final pass and give the affected side an artificial good score ?

[CamHenry]

While I would bid 3N I don't think it's obvious so 3♥ is in the frame. Is there any chance NS will compete to 3♠ or double 3♥ ?

 

Do you have to rule director error about the final pass and give the affected side an artificial good score ?

 

S has limited her hand and they have an agreement not to pull the double on decent hands. N is maximum for his pull, with KJxxx/ATx/xx/xxx, so might find a double of 3♥. I play with the N in question at times, and he's not prone to making penalty doubles of anything other than 1NT and game contracts. It is plausible N will compete to 3♠, but unlikely - he's already demonstrated that he has doubts about the strength of the hand, and on the sequence likely to have arisen (where E bids 3♥ over 2♥) S will never reveal the 4-card spade support (would you, when partner's weak and you have KQ9 of hearts over the bid?).

 

As for the director error - I am attempting to follow "resolving doubtful points in favour of the NoS", and whether NS would compete to 3S or EW bid 3NT are both doubtful points.

[lalldonn]

I'd assume it's forcing since he could have doubled 2♥ just to show hearts without implying particular strength, same as without my initial double. I don't think it's practical to use 2♠ for lots of forcing hands with different shapes since either opponent might bid 3♠ before you get a chance to clarify.

[Cyberyeti]

As for the director error - I am attempting to follow "resolving doubtful points in favour of the NoS", and whether NS would compete to 3S or EW bid 3NT are both doubtful points.

Well you've made an error, but it sounds like you're going to rule the same thing that would have happened without the error by a different route, so you've not damaged them.

[lamford]

Would assume the reverse, the non forcing hand can X (no agreement, we normally assume it's what the unalerted bid means which in the UK is hearts).

It seems East has four ways to bid hearts. 2S and then 3H over whatever partner or the opponents bid. Double then 3H over the oppo 2S, 2NT (perhaps pick a minor) then 3H when partner picks, and the immediate 3H. On PFA principles, I agree with gnasher that 3H is non-forcing, and would routinely pass it. I would always bid game if partner started with 2S, as that should be the strongest option. Perhaps we have to plug the hand into the Rigaliser to find out which of 2NT followed by 3H and double followed by 3H is the stronger, and we might get an intelligent response.

 

But back to the MI case. We don't have the East hand, but it sounds from his later silence that he had a 3H bid over an alerted 2H. You then have to decide how often NS get to 3S. A bit of work to remove your rustiness. Actually, all you need to do is poll ten people for East and the same ten for South. And there is a way to get a complete hand diagram, by the way, if you read the instructions carefully.

[aguahombre]

I'd assume it's forcing since he could have doubled 2♥ just to show hearts without implying particular strength, same as without my initial double. I don't think it's practical to use 2♠ for lots of forcing hands with different shapes since either opponent might bid 3♠ before you get a chance to clarify.

Exactly. Furthermore, East (who did not mention he would have done that) most likely has a hand which should have doubled 2H, rather than taking any other action on the first or last round. It seems that the failure to alert has gained the NOS, not damaged it. They were protected from themselves. NEXT.

[Cyberyeti]

It seems East has four ways to bid hearts. 2S and then 3H over whatever partner or the opponents bid. Double then 3H over the oppo 2S, 2NT (perhaps pick a minor) then 3H when partner picks, and the immediate 3H. On PFA principles, I agree with gnasher that 3H is non-forcing, and would routinely pass it. I would always bid game if partner started with 2S, as that should be the strongest option. Perhaps we have to plug the hand into the Rigaliser to find out which of 2NT followed by 3H and double followed by 3H is the stronger, and we might get an intelligent response.

 

But back to the MI case. We don't have the East hand, but it sounds from his later silence that he had a 3H bid over an alerted 2H. You then have to decide how often NS get to 3S. A bit of work to remove your rustiness. Actually, all you need to do is poll ten people for East and the same ten for South. And there is a way to get a complete hand diagram, by the way, if you read the instructions carefully.

Many people will not bid 2♠ with a single suited hand on principle in case opps raise their suit and you're forced into a really awkward decision. This is not desperately likely in this particular auction, but certainly for us general meta agreements cover it and we won't be single suited.

[CamHenry]

Exactly. Furthermore, East (who did not mention he would have done that) most likely has a hand which should have doubled 2H, rather than taking any other action on the first or last round. It seems that the failure to alert has gained the NOS, not damaged it. They were protected from themselves. NEXT.

 

I think you're giving too much credit to the players in question: it is not a strong club. E told me at the time that she'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥, and reaffirmed this afterwards. The score after the infraction was NS +140, rather than NS +50 or +100; I do not see how this is a gain to EW.

[aguahombre]

I think you're giving too much credit to the players in question: it is not a strong club. E told me at the time that she'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥, and reaffirmed this afterwards. The score after the infraction was NS +140, rather than NS +50 or +100; I do not see how this is a gain to EW.

That is exactly my point. This player would have bid 3♥, and if we read this thread, then they would be playing 3NT, most likely doubled. Your math is for an unlikely continuance. The NOS gained by being oblivious to the meaning of 2H because they are oblivious to what they should have done if they knew it was a transfer.

[CamHenry]

That is exactly my point. This player would have bid 3♥, and if we read this thread, then they would be playing 3NT, most likely doubled. Your math is for an unlikely continuance. The NOS gained by being oblivious to the meaning of 2H because they are oblivious to what they should have done if they knew it was a transfer.

 

I'm not convinced they would play 3NT - the auction would likely end with 3♥, and the post-mortem would contain West saying "I couldn't bid 3NT, I only had a minimum, and the hand with spades was sitting over my AQx so I've only got one stop". Never mind that E is showing a decent hand, you can't double for penalties any more, and the lead's coming up to you, and that the hand showing spades is the weak one. These are not the sort of concern I see raised at this club.

 

My view was that 3NT was not considered automatic on the west cards, even by players here who have more understanding of the fact that the 3♥ bid (as opposed to a pass, or a double of 2♥) shows some values. That's why I didn't rule "no damage".

[aguahombre]

3H is forcing to the posters who chose 3NT. It is forcing to most of the Bridge World. You must have some very low opinions of this E/W ---anything we post here doesn't matter to your decision if we don't have that same insight.

[Finch]

I don't think 3H is forcing to most the 'bridge world'. Some of the posters on this thread who think 3H is forcing have got complicated agreements about this auction which include artificial meanings for double, 2S, 2NT and possibly some other calls.

I admit I do too, and with my regular partners 3H is forcing (2S is a 3-suiter with 0 or 1 spade, 2NT lebensohl, double usually balanced sets up a forcing pass may have a penalty double of spades). So for me, I wouldn't pass 3H.

 

But the real majority of the 'bridge world' don't have these discussions. 2NT is natural showing NT. double shows high cards, maybe 3-4 hearts. 3H shows long hearts. With a better hand with hearts they either bid 4H, or they play in 3H+2 (and I've seen quite a few of the latter).

[bluejak]

None vulnerable, N deals; matchpoints. 2♥ is alerted; partner asks and is told it's a transfer, and then bids 3♥. You have no agreement about what a double would mean here, and therefore you can't deduce what 3♥ shows in any detail.

 

Do you bid 3NT, pass, or find some other call?

Pass. Not even close. What extra values do you have?

 

2♥ was not alerted. I was called at the end of the auction, when S said "I should have alerted 2♥ as a transfer". E said that, with correct information, she'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥; since this was before she had any idea of the full layout I see no reason to doubt the statement.

 

Obviously the correct ruling is that she can take back her final pass, and then she probably balances with 3♥. Unfortunately I'm rusty, and denied her this option, so now I have to make a ruling. 3♥ goes either 1 or 2 off, while 2♠ made 140 at the table. 3NT goes badly enough that, if it had been a clear-cut bid on the W hand, I'd have ruled "no damage".

Obviously we have TD error, so we must factor that into the equation. If you had given East the chance to take the final pass back I think there is little doubt that she would, and this sequence is definitely going to be passed. But you have not given us the full hand, and N/S might compete to 3♠.

 

Since we do not know what would have happened without TD error, and we are told to treat each side as non-offending in this case, and assuming that N/S are somewhat likely but not very to compete [a guess without seeing the hands] a reasonable ruling seems to be:

 

For N/S:

.. 40% of 3♠ =, NS +140

+ 35% of 3♥ -2, NS +100

+ 25% of 3♥ -1, NS +50

 

For E/W:

.. 25% of 3♠ =, NS +140

+ 35% of 3♥ -2, NS +100

+ 40% of 3♥ -1, NS +50

 

This is interesting, because with the correct ruling the possibility of East bidding 3♥ on the second round and West doing something injudicious is actually irrelevant. Strange, but I think I have got it right.

 

Do you have to rule director error about the final pass and give the affected side an artificial good score ?

It is certainly TD error, but where do oyu get "artificial good score" from? You adjust by assigned scores, but give each side the benefit of the doubt. No artificial scores are given.

 

3H is forcing to the posters who chose 3NT. It is forcing to most of the Bridge World. You must have some very low opinions of this E/W ---anything we post here doesn't matter to your decision if we don't have that same insight.

It is not forcing to most of the Bridge World. Good players may or may not think it forcing, but no average or below player is going to treat it as forcing - why should they? When I play on a Tuesday night, there are about 33 pairs, of whom about 31 will not see the problem and see no reason why it is forcing. As for the other 2, I am one of them and I certainly do not play it as forcing.