Brighton 14 (EBU)

[VixTD]

This was from the Mixed Pairs:

[hv=pc=n&s=sjh98dt8752ct7643&w=s8542ha7652dakcq8&n=skq9763hkdq964ckj&e=sathqjt43dj3ca952&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1h1s2n(Intended%20as%20Jacoby)p3np4hppp]399|300[/hv]

EW play 5cM and a 15-17 NT. They have an agreement (on the convention card) to play Jacoby raises, but no agreement after an overcall. 2NT was not alerted. A 3NT rebid after a Jacoby response is a suggestion to play there.

 

Result: 4♥(W)+1, NS -650 (21 / 124 MPs)

 

North called the director at the end of play and said he might have bid 4♠ over 3NT had 2NT been alerted. How would you rule?

[TylerE]

Result stands.

 

E tried something, it doesn't sound like they have an agreement. I don't know about EBU territory, this agreement would be highly unusual so would never assume it if undiscussed.

 

W wasn't on the same wavelength, and can hardly alert something he doesn't believe they are playing. That's not illegal.

 

I don't have a problem with E"s 4♥ bid holding the 5th trump, two doubletons, and a suit oriented hand.

 

I don't find N's claim very convincing - he knows that EW are on a GF (and in most jacoby variants 3N would show moderate extras, which makes 4♠ even less likely to not get hammered), so his partner his broke, and given his singleton ♥ how many ♥ E has isn't likely to be that relevant to how well 4♠ does. He's going to have to come up with something about 1000x more compelling than a "might have" after the hand has been scored up.

[billw55]

North called the director at the end of play and said he might have bid 4♠ over 3NT had 2NT been alerted. How would you rule?

I rule that north is full of it.

[Trinidad]

Working as a TD is a very good way to train your poker face.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

After E's 4♥ bid it is clear to North how 2NT was intended.

[PhilKing]

I'm prepared to allow North to score -800 or -1100 in 4♠. B-)

[RMB1]

E tried something, it doesn't sound like they have an agreement. I don't know about EBU territory, this agreement would be highly unusual so would never assume it if undiscussed.

 

I don't think the agreement is that unusual in England. Robson & Segal's book (Partnership Bidding at Bridge: the Contested Auction) has 2NT as a good (4+ card) raise by responder after an overcall.

[RMB1]

After E's 4♥ bid it is clear to North how 2NT was intended.

 

I am not saying North has a case, but his contention was that he would bid 4♠ over 3NT not over 4♥.

[TylerE]

Surely his failing to bid 4♠ over 4♥ puts paid to that statement though?

[ggwhiz]

North called the director at the end of play

 

After failing to bid 4♠ at any point and after knowing from the lay of the cards that it would have been a good dive and using the word "might"

 

Can I issue a penalty for this call? A round of drinks for the table and the Director seems about right but north should go on the wagon.

[campboy]

I don't think we need to quibble about North. It seems there was no MI: 2NT was undiscussed and that's not alertable. There was UI, but passing is not an LA.

[helene_t]

2NT was undiscussed and that's not alertable.

Not necesarily. In EBU you alert undiscussed calls if you base your own action on the assumption that they have an alertable meaning. (In this case that is probably not the case).

[VixTD]

I'm prepared to allow North to score -800 or -1100 in 4♠.

The board was played in a spade contract nine times out of a total of sixty-one.

 

North played in spades six times. Results were 1♠=, 4♠-2, 4♠X-2 (twice), 4♠X-3 and 4♠X-5, so it's certainly possible to get a better score playing in 4♠.

 

Interestingly West did rather better when allowed to play in the spade game, making on the three occasions ten, eleven and twelve tricks. One of these was on off-duty director. (I suspect these were errors in score input.)

[VixTD]

In EBU you alert undiscussed calls if you base your own action on the assumption that they have an alertable meaning. (In this case that is probably not the case).

There's been a slight change to the regulation. It now reads:

[bB2D2]Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert.

The bit about alerting if you're unsure but are going to act as if it had an alertable meaning has gone. I agree with Robin that it is quite common to play Jacoby (albeit maybe not game forcing) over an overcall. So if there's any doubt in West's mind that they are playing Jacoby over an overcall they should alert.

 

I'm suspicious of North's claim that he would have bid 4♠. I agree that East has no alternative to removing 3NT to 4♥, but playing a different system in which West could have a four-card suit and a strong NT shape this would have been a difficult decision.

 

Ruling: score stands.

[paulg]

I agree that East has no alternative to removing 3NT to 4♥, but playing a different system in which West could have a four-card suit and a strong NT shape this would have been an difficult easy decision.

fyp :)

[Cyberyeti]

North called the director at the end of play and said he might have bid 4♠ over 3NT had 2NT been alerted. How would you rule?

 

I enquire whether the men in the white coats are available at the moment for N. If he'd said 4♦ I might have (not much) more sympathy. Score stands, he was never bidding (unless he's already gone for 1100 3 or 4 times in the session in which case I might believe him).

[Lord Molyb]

I'm prepared to allow North to score -800 or -1100 in 4♠. B-)

-300 as the cards lie unfortunately :(

[PhilKing]

-300 as the cards lie unfortunately :(

 

Depends which of us is defending. :P

[Cyberyeti]

-300 as the cards lie unfortunately :(

See what happens if you play hearts twice, then A♠ and more hearts if declarer plays diamonds.

[lamford]

See what happens if you play hearts twice, then A♠ and more hearts if declarer plays diamonds.

Yes, that is but one defence for +800. And I agree that if North would have bid 4S over 3NT, he is more likely to bid it over 4H. Score stands.

[nige1]

The board was played in a spade contract nine times out of a total of sixty-one.

 

North played in spades six times. Results were 1♠=, 4♠-2, 4♠X-2 (twice), 4♠X-3 and 4♠X-5, so it's certainly possible to get a better score playing in 4♠.

 

Interestingly West did rather better when allowed to play in the spade game, making on the three occasions ten, eleven and twelve tricks. One of these was on off-duty director. (I suspect these were errors in score input.)

Thank you vixtd. Again I maintain that evidence from actual results at other tables is likely to be relevant (e.g. when weighting scores) and should be investigated if conveniently available.