[Chris3875]

Scoring: MP

---

Bidding went -

W N E S
p 1D P 1S
1NT* X 2S* P
2NT X 3C P
P P

Director called at the end of auction.

When West bid the 1NT after initially passing, ops asked East what the re-opening 1NT point count was. WEST replied "I made a mistake when I passed".

After East bid 2S, South asked West what it meant and was told, "she is showing a stopper in spades". West then bid 2NT, North doubled, and East bid 3C.

After three passes, the director was called and East said that her partner had made a mistake (another one !) giving information about the 2S bid, which was actually a transfer to the minors - forcing 3C, leave or correct.

They played the hand and made 9 tricks in clubs.

This is the area of directing I find the most difficult (because I am not that good a player) - but I took the bid back to 2NT X and making 5 tricks. My feeling was that after East bid 2S and West went to 2NT, that East should not have bid again.

A secondary question that I was asked was what, if anything, could the director do if West had called as soon as she realised that she should have made an opening bid. I asked her when she woke up, and she said not until it came back to her after the 1S bid by South. I felt that if she had realised before her partner had called, that there MAY have been a case for unintentional pass - however, I feel that she always meant to pass, just hadn't counted her cards properly.

Help !

[pran]

To be honest I feel that you found the best possible solution with your ruling for which you have a sound reasoning!

West has not received or used any extraneous information, only provided East with lots of it. Therefore the calls made by West are not subject to discussion.

To East it must seem as if West prefers to play in NT even with the knowledge that East has a long minor suit. She may or may not understand that a wheel has come off the cart, but IMHO is now barred from pulling to 3C.

Happy new year!

regards Sven

[StevenG]

I cannot agree with Sven. East has a lot of UI. West's bidding 1NT after initially passing has presumably shown a balanced hand, almost, but not quite, good enogh to open a weak NT (although, as this is 5cM territory and I suppose they are playing a strong NT, the inferences may be slightly different, but not a lot so). The partnership probably has no more than 15 HCP or so.

So East commits to playing in 3♣ . Then comes a nonsensical 2NT opposite, and more UI. How on earth can passing 2NT be a LA? It can only make sense if you use the UI that West has a full opener and misbid. No, East committed to 3♣ BEFORE the UI that West had misunderstood the 2♠ bid. It seems to me that bidding 3♣ is the only rational bid. As it is clearly what East would have bid without the second bit of UI, it is also an entirely ethical bid. I can see no reason to disallow the bid.

[pran]

StevenG, on Jan 2 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

So East commits to playing in 3♣ . Then comes a nonsensical 2NT opposite, and more UI. How on earth can passing 2NT be a LA? It can only make sense if you use the UI that West has a full opener and misbid. No, East committed to 3♣ BEFORE the UI that West had misunderstood the 2♠ bid. It seems to me that bidding 3♣ is the only rational bid. As it is clearly what East would have bid without the second bit of UI, it is also an entirely ethical bid. I can see no reason to disallow the bid.

If your partner overrules your transfer bid and just repeats his NT choice: Do you still insist on bidding your own suit rather than respecting partner's decision if you trust your partner to having correctly understood your transfer bid?

Isn't East's choice of pulling to 3C quite likely suggested by the unauthorized information that partner believes East has "stopper in spades", stopper that East himself knows he does not have?

[StevenG]

pran, on Jan 2 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

If your partner overrules your transfer bid and just repeats his NT choice: Do you still insist on bidding your own suit rather than respecting partner's decision if you trust your partner to having correctly understood your transfer bid?

My partners don't do that sort of thing! So I have no experience of it happening. For me, it would be a demonstration that the wheels have fallen off. Perhaps for others that wouldn't be the case.

pran, on Jan 2 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

Isn't East's choice of pulling to 3C quite likely suggested by the unauthorized information that partner believes East has "stopper in spades", stopper that East himself knows he does not have?

Can you please construct a set of hands consistent with the bidding where there is play for 2NT. I can't. Anyway, in my view, the FIRST piece of UI suggests that passing 2NT could be the right thing to do - for that reason, I would disallow a pass, not a 3♣ bid

[mjj29]

pran, on Jan 2 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

If your partner overrules your transfer bid and just repeats his NT choice: Do you still insist on bidding your own suit rather than respecting partner's decision if you trust your partner to having correctly understood your transfer bid?

Actually In my partnerships (and a lot of partnerships I know) the 2NT call would show some sort of feature in the/a minor and suggest going on with a hand better than minimum with East. Since East has K to six and out, I would always expect a correction to 3C

pran, on Jan 2 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

Isn't East's choice of pulling to 3C quite likely suggested by the unauthorized information that partner believes East has "stopper in spades", stopper that East himself knows he does not have?

It is certainly suggested, but I would be expecting a poll to reveal no LA to 3C. As a previous poster said, partner must have a fairly weak hand to have reopened, so how can 2N have play? Maybe if it had not been doubled you might have a case for leaving it, but after the penalty double? Surely not

[Mbodell]

mjj29, on Jan 2 2010, 04:28 AM, said:

pran, on Jan 2 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

If your partner overrules your transfer bid and just repeats his NT choice: Do you still insist on bidding your own suit rather than respecting partner's decision if you trust your partner to having correctly understood your transfer bid?

Actually In my partnerships (and a lot of partnerships I know) the 2NT call would show some sort of feature in the/a minor and suggest going on with a hand better than minimum with East. Since East has K to six and out, I would always expect a correction to 3C

pran, on Jan 2 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

Isn't East's choice of pulling to 3C quite likely suggested by the unauthorized information that partner believes East has "stopper in spades", stopper that East himself knows he does not have?

It is certainly suggested, but I would be expecting a poll to reveal no LA to 3C. As a previous poster said, partner must have a fairly weak hand to have reopened, so how can 2N have play? Maybe if it had not been doubled you might have a case for leaving it, but after the penalty double? Surely not

I think that's not correct reasoning. If you play 2nt as a super accept and all you have is K to six and out then of course you should pass 2nt X! You have no lead values, a miserable hand, and partner knows about the clubs. Most likely partner will bid 3♣ and get to declare with the known hand with 6 clubs to the K and out being dummy. That seems like a logical alternative to me. So I think you have it backwards, if partner had announced the 2♠ bid as "transfer to clubs" I think you'd expect 2nt to be some sort of super accept and maybe you could correct to 3♣ if you weren't doubled. But once 2nt is doubled you can pass it back to partner. So it is only the fact that you know that partner doesn't think you have clubs and thinks you have spades stopped that makes you want to pull. So I'd rule 2ntx as the right contract.

[hotShot]

East received the following legal information from his partner:
pass (I don't have opening strength!)
1NT ( I have a balanced hand!)
2NT (?,something is wrong ) Or was there any reason to believe that East forgot to alert some conventional agreement?

Knowing of 14-15 HCP combined points and an almost sure ♣ fit. Knowing that 2NT can't have any play with his unbalanced hand without enough entries to develop the ♣ and knowing that something is wrong (partner seems to be on a strange trek), I can't think of any other bid than 3♣.

[bluejak]

First things first. First you tell West not to communicate with partner in this way, that he has told his partner what he has got, that this is illegal, and if he does it again you will penalise him. Yes, I have gathered the level of players you deal with, Chris, and quite likely I will not penalise him next time he makes an injudicious comment, but even if you are not going to, you must say that you are.

East has UI from the injudicious comment, and from the description of his 2♠ bid. Thus he cannot choose, blah, blah, blah. Is pass of 2NT an LA? No, certainly not. Opposite a weak balanced hand he is not going to play in no-trumps. So the result stands.

Quote

I felt that if she had realised before her partner had called, that there MAY have been a case for unintentional pass ...

Law 25A requires not only an unintentional call but also a correction, or an attempted correction. Where there is no correction nor attempted correction you should not consider Law 25A.

Quote

To East it must seem as if West prefers to play in NT even with the knowledge that East has a long minor suit. She may or may not understand that a wheel has come off the cart, but IMHO is now barred from pulling to 3C.

You cannot bar someone from bidding 3♣ when passing is not an LA. Bridge is a partnership game, and the apparent fact that West wants to play no-trumps is not enough to make pass an LA: East has to have a suitable hand as well, and he has not.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Jan 2 2010, 12:22 PM, said:

First things first. First you tell West not to communicate with partner in this way, that he has told his partner what he has got, that this is illegal, and if he does it again you will penalise him. Yes, I have gathered the level of players you deal with, Chris, and quite likely I will not penalise him next time he makes an injudicious comment, but even if you are not going to, you must say that you are.

I don't like this. If you're not going to penalize next time, you shouldn't say that you are. Perhaps you should say something like "if you continue to do this, you will eventually be penalized". I certainly don't agree with telling players you'll penalize them for doing something if you never intend to penalize them. Okay, you didn't say that explicitly, David, but it seems a possible outcome.

[bluejak]

I will certainly penalise them eventually, but it is unlikely to be the second time.

[mjj29]

Mbodell, on Jan 2 2010, 07:45 AM, said:

I think that's not correct reasoning. If you play 2nt as a super accept and all you have is K to six and out then of course you should pass 2nt X!

Surely passing 2NX is "I have got the values / shape for 3NT, so lets play 2NX instead, it scores better" and hence with crap you bid 3C? That's what I would expect, certainly.

[jallerton]

mjj29, on Jan 2 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

Actually In my partnerships (and a lot of partnerships I know) the 2NT call would show some sort of feature in the/a minor and suggest going on with a hand better than minimum with East. Since East has K to six and out, I would always expect a correction to 3C

But in your partnerships (and the partnerships you know) would 1NT be natural after Pass-1♦-Pass-1♠-?

As it makes little sense to bid in this position on a balanced 11-count, 1NT is normally played as a 2-suiter (specifically the other two suits when Opener's and Responder's bids were natural).

If I were East I would deduce the following from the authorised auction:

1. from the passed hand 1NT that my partner had 5/5 in hearts and clubs.

2. that the meanings of my continuations are natural, not my normal system of transfers over a natural 1NT.

3. that the opponents are cold for at least 4♠

4. that my logical alternatives now are 4♣ and 5♣.

As the UI suggests that (i) the opponents may not be making 4♠ after all; and (ii) our side is unlikely to make game in clubs, I consider the UI to suggest lower club bids over higher club bids and I deduce 5♣ to be the only legal logical alternative for East.

It looks as though North will double and the contract will still make 9 tricks, so as TD I adjust to 5♣x-2 by East, N/S +300 for both sides.

Hence the discussion about whether East might pass 2NT is not relevant!

[aguahombre]

Well done, jallerton. Others won't like forcing 5CX on the offenders. I do.

[Chris3875]

West certainly DID get a stern warning about speaking out during the auction - the fact that she had "made a mistake" with her opening pass !

I was working on the theory of
1. Was there misinformation? YES and plenty of it
2. Was there damage to N/S? I felt there was because they could have made 3S

I also was thinking that from East's point of view, West had decided to bid 2NT despite the attempted transfer to clubs. Maybe West has clubs too, as well as the stoppers in the other suits and believes that 2NT will play and score better than 3C.

I also discussed this situation with 2 other senior players.

It would be so much easier if all 12 replies to this thread all said "Chris you are an idiot - you should have left the contract in 3C making !"

[bluejak]

We don't think you are an idiot, Chris, well I don't and I do not get the impression that others do, but you have gone wrong here.

Quote

I was working on the theory of
1. Was there misinformation? YES and plenty of it
2. Was there damage to N/S? I felt there was because they could have made 3S

That is not enough to adjust: the damage must be caused by the infraction before you adjust. Now the UI [you do mean UI not MI, do you not?] means you have to look at LAs and things. The trouble is that my view and a majority though not all the other posters feel that there was no real alternative to 3♣ and you do not adjust just because someone gets a bad board - well, you should not, anyway!



Jeffrey: we are dealing with average club players here: Chris has made clear in earlier posts that they are all he deals with. Now it is all very well adjusting to 5♣ doubled if you believe they might have got there if they do not use UI, but it is not credible. For a start, you may play 1NT as 5-5 [wimp: why not bid 2NT?: 1NT is for lesser distribution ] but I bet these players do not. Even if they do I do not believe this player - or his peers, to be fair - would ever bid 5♣ for the reasons you give. No player at this level ever jumps with six card support for one of the two suits shown and a weak hand!

And, aquahombre, I am perfectly willing to give vicious rulings when they are correct. I recollect once when a room full of budding TDs was wondering whether to adjust 3NT back to 3♦ [a transfer, for goodness' sake] or leave it, and I was in a minority of one and being shouted at by the whole room for the obvious [to me] 6♣ doubled minus 5!

The reason I do not give 5♣ doubled here is because I think it is wrong, not because I am a wimp!

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jan 2 2010, 10:39 PM, said:

Jeffrey: we are dealing with average club players here: Chris has made clear in earlier posts that they are all he deals with.  Now it is all very well adjusting to 5♣ doubled if you believe they might have got there if they do not use UI, but it is not credible.  For a start, you may play 1NT as 5-5 [wimp: why not bid 2NT?: 1NT is for lesser distribution  ] but I bet these players do not.  Even if they do I do not believe this player - or his peers, to be fair - would ever bid 5♣ for the reasons you give. No player at this level ever jumps with six card support for one of the two suits shown and a weak hand! 

Well, what the TD should do in this situation is to establish what a passed hand live 1NT overcall would mean to East. I'm certain it does not mean: I have a balanced hand and a maximum pass. When "average club players" have made this bid against me they have had a 2-suiter. [They normally have 5-5 because for a passed hand 1NT because with lesser distribution a take-out double is available; and there is no point is risking going for a penalty with an unnecessary 2NT overcall just for the sake of it.]

If the concept of overcalling in NT to show a 2-suiter is completely alien to East, then maybe you could argue that the delayed 1NT simply conveys the message that West miscounted her points, in which case the UI provides the same information as the AI. But I don't think many TDs would buy this argument.

I agree that some club players might be less inclined than I to jump to 5♣ on a weak hand with 6-card support for partner. What the TD should try to do is to poll peers of East (other players in the club of similar standard) to see what they would bid in this auction [without the comment from West]. I'd be very surprised if any of them bid 2♠. Let's say that you are right and none of them jump, making 2♣ the only logical alternative for East. If East bids 2♣, West will presumably interpret this as Stayman (or Keri, if that's what they play). Now we have to work out how the auction will go with West thinking the auction means one thing and East another. If they play Stayman followed by 3 of a minor as forcing, then they are likely to end up in 3NT.

[Chris3875]

If my partner ever bid 1NT after initially passing in this sequence, I would probably think she had the bid suits covered (spades and diamonds), but certainly no more than 11 pts. Although I might be concerned about the hearts with my hand (East) I would have been more inclined to pass as I would not consider systems to be "on" regarding a transfer to the minors (clubs).

However, in this instance, West made it abundantly clear to the whole table that she had a full 1NT opening hand.

After East has bid 2S, if West had alerted that as a transfer to the minors (forcing 3C, leave or correct) and then bid 2NT, does East still take the contract out to 3C or does she then think partner knows I have a weak hand, long in clubs, but still wants to bid 2NT so I leave it there? That was my thinking anyway.

Christine

[bluejak]

Quote

When "average club players" have made this bid against me they have had a 2-suiter.

You probably play against better average club players! Most of the average club players I know will take it as a balanced hand because they cannot think of anything else.

Quote

After East has bid 2S, if West had alerted that as a transfer to the minors (forcing 3C, leave or correct) and then bid 2NT, does East still take the contract out to 3C or does she then think partner knows I have a weak hand, long in clubs, but still wants to bid 2NT so I leave it there? That was my thinking anyway.

She may be showing a suitable hand for no-trumps by bidding 2NT, but bridge is a partnership game and such a bid is not a command to pass. With the actual hand I would always bid 3♣ if partner has shown a suitable hand for no-trumps, unless I felt I was strong enough for game.

[nige1]

My sympathies are with Christine, Sven and Jeffrey. Players are meant to describe their hands by appropriate calls. Had EW relied solely on that means of communication, then who knows what might have happened? Manifestly, the unauthorised information made it easier to reach a playable contract.