Do you agree with the ruling?

[grishav]

[hv=pc=n&s=s876h97532d63ck97&w=sk9hq84dkj87ca632&n=sqt32hakjda9cqj54&e=saj54ht6dqt542ct8&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(12-14)dp(Forcing%20xx%3A%20any%20strong%20hand%20or%20weak%202-suiter)2h(alerted%20and%20explained%20as%20transfer%20to%20!S)p2sppp]399|300[/hv]

A club game.

IMP scoring.

NS are average players and play together rarely.

EW are well-established partnership who won the tourney eventually.

 

After hearing his partner's alert and explanation, S said that he needs to talk to director, came from the table and told TD that he doesn't play transfers over X. Of course, it was absolutely clear to all players that he doesn't have ♠.

TD came to the table and informed N that all of his partner's actions are UI to him and he must continue to bid according to his own explanation.

Table result: 2S -2, -200.

After the board W called the director and argued that S must assume that his partner has some strong GF hand with spades and bid 3!s accordingly, so the result should be adjusted to 3♠X or 4♠X. TD reasoned that S had enough AI to judge that pass is correct action with his 3 HCP.

 

How do you rule?

Edited November 6, 2014 by barmar
Fix suit symbols - forum doesn't use !S

[helene_t]

Pass is normal and even if 3s is a LA it is not clear if pass is suggested by the UI. So result stands.

[gordontd]

After the board W called the director and argued that S must assume that his partner has some strong GF hand with spades and bid 3!s accordingly, so the result should be adjusted to 3!SX or 4!SX.

Doubling a NT then bidding a new suit doesn't show a GF.

[Vampyr]

Pass is normal and even if 3s is a LA it is not clear if pass is suggested by the UI. So result stands.

 

Of course pass is suggested -- it doesn't make sense, with the UI, to bid on. After all, you don't have the spades partner thinks you have! So if 3♠ is a LA then it must be chosen. I am torn on whether it is a LA though. I don't think so, even with 3-card support. The hand is otherwise barren.

[helene_t]

For this class of player I think bidding on makes a lot of sense, given the UI. I see it happening all the time: One p makes a weak takeout, partner accepts the transfer, the first player repeats his suit, second player gets the message and passes.

[lamford]

I agree with gordontd and vampyr. The AI is that North has a good hand with spades, but South has a bad hand. If North wanted to be in game opposite this dross, he would have bid 3S not 2S. North might have bid 3S anyway but he has no UI, so you can't make him do that. I would 'force' South to raise 3S to 4S.

[blackshoe]

[After the board W called the director and argued that S must assume that his partner has some strong GF hand with spades and bid 3!s accordingly…

How do you rule?

I rule that this argument is nonsense. Result stands.

[ggwhiz]

I rule that this argument is nonsense. Result stands.

 

Double that. If e/w appealed I'm keeping the deposit in about 10 seconds.

[Bbradley62]

Table result: 2S -2, -200.

This is not consistent with NS being non-vul.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=s876h97532d63ck97&w=sk9hq84dkj87ca632&n=sqt32hakjda9cqj54&e=saj54ht6dqt542ct8&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(12-14)dp(Forcing%20xx%3A%20any%20strong%20hand%20or%20weak%202-suiter)2h(alerted%20and%20explained%20as%20transfer%20to%20!S)p2sppp]399|300| A club game.IMP scoring. NS are average players and play together rarely. EW are well-established partnership who won the tourney eventually. After hearing his partner's alert and explanation, S said that he needs to talk to director, came from the table and told TD that he doesn't play transfers over X. Of course, it was absolutely clear to all players that he doesn't have ♠. TD came to the table and informed N that all of his partner's actions are UI to him and he must continue to bid according to his own explanation.Table result: 2S -2, -200. After the board W called the director and argued that S must assume that his partner has some strong GF hand with spades and bid 3♠ accordingly, so the result should be adjusted to 3♠X or 4♠X. TD reasoned that S had enough AI to judge that pass is correct action with his 3 HCP. How do you rule?[/hv]

EW might have been victims of what Bobby Wolff calls "Convention Disruption" but the law provides no redress. Partnerships gain from forgetting agreements surprisingly often, but the law treats such successes as rub of the green. Here, however, EW cannot complain much because they gained from NS's confusion - 2♥ is only one down. And South seems to have no LA to passing 2♠.

[Vampyr]

For this class of player I think bidding on makes a lot of sense, given the UI. I see it happening all the time: One p makes a weak takeout, partner accepts the transfer, the first player repeats his suit, second player gets the message and passes.

 

Yes, I meant bidding on in spades. Of course the UI suggests bidding hearts over passing, but I didn't think bidding hearts was included in the discussion.

[helene_t]

You are right, the choice is between pass and 3s. My bad

[gordontd]

EW might have been victims of what Bobby Wolff calls "Convention Disruption" but the law provides no redress. Partnerships sometimes gain from forgetting agreements surprisingly often, but the law treats such successes as rub of the green. Here, however, EW cannot complain much because they gained from NS's confusion - 2♥ is only one down. And South seems to have no LA to passing 2♠.

FYP

[Bbradley62]

If East's first pass specifically says he has either a strong hand or a weak 2-suiter, does his second pass clarify?

[aguahombre]

If East's first pass specifically says he has either a strong hand or a weak 2-suiter, does his second pass clarify?

I would say yes; but, it certainly doesn't clarify his holding in this case. A double of 2S would seem about right, here. Better question: was East's second pass a double shot? If so, he didn't succeed with the BBF gang.

[mycroft]

Gordon: 'surprisingly often' means either 'more than 0%' or 'against me'. I'm sure you know that already, though.

 

In general: I had this exact situation, and a hand very similar to this (but with ♥QJxxx and a minor jack) bid 3♥ which we, of course, took away when it went -1 given the UI instead of passing 2♠ with three card support, -3 on the hand. I didn't even dream of forcing them to raise with that dreck.

 

The hand I came up with was the one that got +400 against me into 1NT-X-XX (to play)-AP; ♠AKQJxxx and out. Opposite that hand, which is a totally reasonable penalty double of 1NT, neither the hand in my game nor this one has any interest in going to game. Even opposite ♠AKQJxx and another card or two, it has no interest in going to game. Of course, the opponents at my table said "our doubles show a strong NT. We'd never double for penalty with that hand." (you know, the one where 1NT goes down?)

 

"*Your* system may say that double-and-new-suit if pulled is a GF; it is not required that everyone play your system." I might just add "What do you do with 7-solid spades and a card after 1NT if you can't penalty double white on red - or do you sit for 2 of partner's suit when he pulls it?"

 

Give South 7, 8 or so high, and I'll mandate the raise. But sometimes, you just can't make game after the opponents show strength.

 

Frankly, E-W just know that their +100 on this lie of the cards scores badly against the +120 the field are likely to make, or the +1160 they might have got if South had passed (twice), and they guessed wrong on what to do with 2♠, and now want the good score they're entitled to after confusing the opponents into a system mistake.

[sanst]

he

NS are average players and play together rarely.

...

After hearing his partner's alert and explanation, S said that he needs to talk to director, came from the table and told TD that he doesn't play transfers over X.

To me, it's obvious that NS don't have an agreement over this situation, so there is a misexplanation. Are EW damaged with "only" +200? I don't think so. But if you want to make sure, you have to organise a poll and not start speculating about possible LA's.

[VixTD]

Gordon: 'surprisingly often' means either 'more than 0%' or 'against me'. I'm sure you know that already, though.

............

 

"*Your* system may say that double-and-new-suit if pulled is a GF; it is not required that everyone play your system." I might just add "What do you do with 7-solid spades and a card after 1NT if you can't penalty double white on red - or do you sit for 2 of partner's suit when he pulls it?"

It's not clear to me to whom your later comments are addressed. It's presumably not still to Gordon, as he said that a double of 1NT followed by a suit bid does not establish a game force.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that "double and pull implies a hand too strong to overcall" applies to situations where the double is takeout, not those where it's penalty. A penalty double of 1NT implies a hand with a long suit, or a balanced hand at least as strong as the opener's. So logically when they run, a suit bid shows the long suit, a NT bid shows the balanced hand, and a double is penalty. Bidding should not be game forcing - how can it be? If you think you can make a game with no help from partner after 1NT on your right would you not just bid it? Okay, perhaps you might start with a penalty double, if you think that would be worth more than your game, but you'd still just bid the game, or double, if they run. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

[barmar]

It seems to me that "double and pull implies a hand too strong to overcall" applies to situations where the double is takeout, not those where it's penalty. A penalty double of 1NT implies a hand with a long suit, or a balanced hand at least as strong as the opener's. So logically when they run, a suit bid shows the long suit, a NT bid shows the balanced hand, and a double is penalty. Bidding should not be game forcing - how can it be? If you think you can make a game with no help from partner after 1NT on your right would you not just bid it? Okay, perhaps you might start with a penalty double, if you think that would be worth more than your game, but you'd still just bid the game, or double, if they run. Or so it seems to me, anyway.

Even if you know you want to be in game, you may not know what strain. You'd need a self-sufficient suit to "just bid the game".

[nige1]

Gordon: 'surprisingly often' means either 'more than 0%' or 'against me'. SNIP

Mycroft speaks for himself; not for me.

 

When it's unclear whether opponents have committed an infraction, and you are about to take the action that would be normal for your partnership, be wary of being seduced by the song of the siren SEWOG. In previously discussed cases, members argued that such an action was bad enough to reduce redress. Sometimes conversely, your normal action would have worked well but the director decides no infraction has occurred :(

[mycroft]

Sorry if I were unclear.

 

My first comment was aimed specifically at Gordon's #13 "FYP". I assumed, given the key words "surprisingly often" and the nature of his FYP, that everyone realized I was making yet another smart (potentially insert word here) comment.

 

When I then stated "In general", I meant "I'm done snarking at/with Gordon specifically, and am now talking to the main point".

 

When I "talked to people", I was, of course, "talking" to E/W, assuming they had the bright idea of raising the argument in the OP with me. It's a standard "not everyone plays the same system as you do, and that's not a problem legally or ethically" statement to a standard "but that sequence means..." (to you, sure; to most people/experts/whatever, yeah; not necessarily to this pair). The "added" bit was "if I believe they're trying one on, I might point out, with an example, that I wasn't born yesterday; 'good try, though' ".

 

My belief, from the OP description, was that the opponents had a misunderstanding, and that did not result in a good score to E/W, so their story is an attempt to get what they deserve from the TD. Obviously, were I at the table, table feel, tone, and potentially lack of reporting bias may convince me otherwise - in which case I'll explain. But if I really am getting the "they had a bidding misunderstanding (that isn't unexpected because we're playing an anti-field system (*)), and didn't get a bad score" vibe from them at the table, the "come on, even *you* don't believe the line you're giving me" subtext would come out.

 

Again my apologies for being unclear. I've been working 14-hour days this past two weeks, and my "restful weekend" was directing 4 sessions...

 

(*) We don't know where this club is. *If* it's ACBL, then it's very likely that weak NTs and runouts are very uncommon. I know that *I* get a lot of good scores from unfamiliarity of my opponents vs a weak NT or our runouts; while I'm not going to give them back, I do believe that if you play fundamentally unfamiliar methods, that there's going to be more UI-that-means-nothing (or simply "I've never seen this before") or misunderstandings than normal, and if they rub-of-the-green against me, I should eat it just as I would if my system, all on its own, led to a zero-MP +200. The confusion of a fundamentally unfamiliar system (whether I play it because it's unfamiliar or because I think it's better or I enjoy it more) is a part of the system and its wins and losses are system wins and losses.

 

If the OP is from an area where weak NTs are common, then by all means delete the parenthetical comment.

[blackshoe]

Even if you know you want to be in game, you may not know what strain. You'd need a self-sufficient suit to "just bid the game".

In such a case, would you not double and then cue bid?

[helene_t]

Yes but in this case there is no cuebid as opps just bid no trumps .

 

Anyway I don't remember the last time I hold a gf flexible hand and opps opened a strong nt. It could probably happen if you play against Fred/Brad though :)

[aguahombre]

In such a case, would you not double and then cue bid?

I didn't think the 2NT artificial cuebid was a tool used by the person who had made a strong double. I thought it was only used by advancer after an overcall.