(Un)specified minor

[VixTD]

I was asked to rule on the following case at the club last night:

[hv=pc=n&s=skj764haq53dakqc5&w=saq853h7dt9542cj2&n=s92h862dj863cak43&e=sthkjt94d7cqt9876&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1sp1n2s(alerted)d3cd(penalties)pp(questions)p]399|300[/hv]

2♠ was intended to show hearts and clubs (the meaning it would have had if North had passed), but EW had not discussed this situation. When asked before South's final pass, West said it showed hearts and an unspecified minor. He had intended 3♣ as "pass or correct".

 

EW are a long-established strong partnership. They play a version of Ghestem that uses a direct cue-bid, 2NT and 3♣ over one-of-a-suit opening suit bids to show different two-suited hands. In situations where a jump to 3♣ is not available their agreements are similar to Michaels, e.g. (1♥) - pass - (2♥) - 3♥ would show spades and a minor.

 

West reasoned that this was one such situation as East might need 3♣ to show a weak hand with long clubs (a sort of "post-empt"?) Their 2♣ opener is Precision-style, and their 3♣ opener shows an opening hand.

 

Result: 3♣X(W)+1, NS-570

 

South claims that if he had known that 2♠ showed hearts and clubs specifically he would have bid 3NT (which he admits is unlikely to make).

 

Does South have a case?

[PhilKing]

From South's point of view, there was a very high chance the second suit would be clubs even if the bid showed either minor. He basically instigated an auction that said he was interested in a penalty, and stood pards double when he expressed an opinion, yet when it makes he wants his bid back!

 

I can see no case whatsoever for an adjustment, even if we assume misinformation (which I would), and even overlooking the fact that defending 3♣ doubled was the correct thing to do. Letting it through is pretty bad - North should lead a top club, but even after a spade lead it can go off.

[RMB1]

West reasoned that this was one such situation as East might need 3♣ to show a weak hand with long clubs (a sort of "post-empt"?) Their 2♣ opener is Precision-style, and their 3♣ opener shows an opening hand.

 

But surely this also applies equally to an immediate overcall, overcaller might need 3♣ to show a weak hand with long clubs (a sort of pre-empt?) but they nevertheless play 3♣ here as two-suited.

 

I think it is clear to rule on the basis that the intended meaning is the correct explanation.

 

South claims that if he had known that 2♠ showed hearts and clubs specifically he would have bid 3NT (which he admits is unlikely to make).

 

Presumably South would bid 3NT instead of Pass, not his earlier Double. What did Double show?

[the_clown]

So south thought East passed 3♣X although he had ♥ and ♦. You cant be serious.

 

Furthermore NS made the right decision in the bidding. I cant see how this made an overtrick. After the normal lead of a top club this will be at least 1 down, more likely 2.

[aguahombre]

Phil and the clown (other clown?) cover the ruling issue thoroughly, IMO.

 

I challenge the contention that there was an agreement in place, but that shouldn't matter here.

[paulg]

I can understand that South may have been damaged on his second turn by not knowing that East had hearts and clubs, but it seems he did not ask about the alert at this point so there was no misinformation.

 

I don't understand the difference, from South's perspective, between being told that the bid showed hearts and clubs and being told that the bid showed an unspecified minor that is then shown to be clubs in the auction.

 

Result stands.

[ggwhiz]

Result stands is in serious contention to be unanimous.

[VixTD]

Presumably South would bid 3NT instead of Pass, not his earlier Double. What did Double show?

I don't know if it was just to hear the sound of his own voice (lots of club players do this when they know it can't be the final contract) or showing extra values.

[VixTD]

So south thought East passed 3♣X although he had ♥ and ♦. You cant be serious.

I agree this is a weak point in South's argument (to say the least). If the explanation had been correct, 3♣ should have been alerted if it was "pass or correct". I doubt whether South knew this, but there's a chance that if it had been alerted he would have asked and (given the correct explanation he was entitled to, not the one he was going to get from East) bid 3NT as he says. The logical connections in his argument are tenuous at best, I know. As you say, the auction should have told him that East had clubs.

 

Furthermore NS made the right decision in the bidding. I cant see how this made an overtrick. After the normal lead of a top club this will be at least 1 down, more likely 2.

North led ♠9. Presumably South failed to switch to a trump on winning the first heart.

[dburn]

Does South have a case?

 

I hope so, for he will need it to pack his belongings before his removal to the State Home for the Bewildered.

[VixTD]

Result stands is in serious contention to be unanimous.

You can include me in that. Even though I thought it was a fairly easy ruling, by the time I came to give it everyone else had gone home so I had no one to consult with. I offered to delay the ruling until I'd discussed it with someone, but they were all happy. I said I'd post it here anyway.