Two lowest or two lowest unbid

[McBruce]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt3hqt3daqj9ca85&w=sqj98642h2dt5c964&n=sa75hkj4dk87632c7&e=sha98765d4ckqjt32&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d2n(hearts%20and%20clubs)3npp4hd5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Matchpoints.

 

Before bidding 3NT, South asked West to explain the 2NT overcall; West said it showed clubs and diamonds. The auction continued as shown.

 

At the end of the play, with North having led face down, East called the TD (me) and noted that the explanation was not accurate. A correct explanation was given, East agreed that this indeed was the partnership agreement, and North declined the chance to change his final pass. The contract went one down.

 

East had UI from West's mistaken explanation when he chose to bid 4♥. With 6-6 in his suits I have no doubt that he meant to show extra shape by this, but unconsciously he may have realized that 4♥ would help wake partner up. Thus, I thought 4♥ was a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the infraction.

 

A quick poll found that pass was dangerously close to a logical alternative, but perhaps not quite. Suggestions included 4♣, doubling 3NT (to ask partner to pick a suit), and a very few did admit to considering passing, but most were adamant (not given the infraction) that bidding on was correct. A considerable number felt they would not have bid 2NT and would never face this problem, but that appears to be the trendy thing to say these days when I present players with a written problem and a request for an opinion. :)

 

How do you rule?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt3hqt3daqj9ca85&w=sqj98642h2dt5c964&n=sa75hkj4dk87632c7&e=sha98765d4ckqjt32&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1d2n(hearts%20and%20clubs)3npp4hd5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Matchpoints.

 

Before bidding 3NT, South asked West to explain the 2NT overcall; West said it showed clubs and diamonds. The auction continued as shown.

 

At the end of the play, with North having led face down, East called the TD (me) and noted that the explanation was not accurate. A correct explanation was given, East agreed that this indeed was the partnership agreement, and North declined the chance to change his final pass. The contract went one down.

 

East had UI from West's mistaken explanation when he chose to bid 4♥. With 6-6 in his suits I have no doubt that he meant to show extra shape by this, but unconsciously he may have realized that 4♥ would help wake partner up. Thus, I thought 4♥ was a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the infraction.

 

A quick poll found that pass was dangerously close to a logical alternative, but perhaps not quite. Suggestions included 4♣, doubling 3NT (to ask partner to pick a suit), and a very few did admit to considering passing, but most were adamant (not given the infraction) that bidding on was correct. A considerable number felt they would not have bid 2NT and would never face this problem, but that appears to be the trendy thing to say these days when I present players with a written problem and a request for an opinion. :)

 

How do you rule?

 

Adjust contract to 3NT with number of tricks won (In order of preference (depending on availability):

 

Law 12C1{c}: 50% 9 and 50% 11

 

Law 12C1{e}: 11

[campboy]

I don't think pass is an LA with 6-6. It is not clear how the auction would have gone after a 4♣ bid by East, but without the initial MI it is likely NS will reach 5♦= so I would adjust to that.

[pran]

I don't think pass is an LA with 6-6. It is not clear how the auction would have gone after a 4♣ bid by East, but without the initial MI it is likely NS will reach 5♦= so I would adjust to that.

OK.

Same as 3NT= then

[McBruce]

OK.

Same as 3NT= then

 

Are we sure about this? If West explains correctly, I think South is still likely to bid 3NT. This gets passed around to West who will probably make another call with the 6-6 hand, perhaps 4C, and N-S is at this point going to suddenly assume 5D is better than defending? Why exactly? The non-offenders get the "most favorable result that was likely," not the most favorable result possible.

[gnasher]

Are we sure about this? If West explains correctly, I think South is still likely to bid 3NT. This gets passed around to West who will probably make another call with the 6-6 hand, perhaps 4C, and N-S is at this point going to suddenly assume 5D is better than defending? Why exactly?

Because South has undisclosed 4-card support, and North has a reasonably offensive hand with six diamonds.

 

If we accept your premise that South would bid 3NT (which isn't clear in my opinion), a likely auction is

1♦ 2NT 3NT p

p    p    4♣ 4♦

p    5♦

 

I've assumed West would pass throughout, but I don't think it affects the final contract. I'm not sure what West would do with the unexpected news that the opponents want to play in a suit where they have only six trumps, but I don't think we can make him double.

[RMB1]

-    1♦ 2NT 3NT

p    p    4♣  4♦

p    5♦

 

Fixed your post/auction.

[campboy]

Are we sure about this? If West explains correctly, I think South is still likely to bid 3NT.

Really? To me it is obvious to show support, and the only reason not to do so on the actual auction is the MI.