[flametree]

At a club game against fairly competent opponents, the auction proceeded :

1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - pass
3♦ - pass - 3NT* - pass
4♥ - all pass

I was the diamond overcaller. The 3NT bid took at least two minutes to hit the table. Before leading my partner asked declarer what 3♦ showed, and was told "I don't know, sorry. I think it means he has diamonds."

Dummy tabled three small hearts, and Kx of diamonds. Declarer had no diamond cover, and 4♥ made 10 simple tricks while 3NT played from his hand would have lost the first five tricks (I held AQJxx).

Are we right to expect this contract to be changed to 3NT going light? At what point should I have called the director?


For what it's worth, with the director busy elsewhere, we then asked the 3♦ bidder what he meant by the bid and got the following conversation.

"I wanted him to bid 3NT if he had a diamond stop."
"But he did bid 3NT."
"Yeah, true."
"Would you have passed 3NT if your partner had bid 3NT in 2 seconds rather than 2 minutes?"
"Um, probably."

[campboy]

 flametree, on 2012-January-31, 04:49, said:

Are we right to expect this contract to be changed to 3NT going light? At what point should I have called the director?

Yes. You would normally call the TD at the end of play (law 16B3) unless you are in a country with a different regulation or the hesitation is disputed (16B2). Was 3♦ alerted? There may be additional UI there.

[mrdct]

The "Um, probably" is fairly convincing evidence that the slow 3NT suggested the action of 4♥ and with the admission that he probably would've passed a fast 3NT, pass of the 3NT is clearly within his contemplations and is a logical alternative. The adjustment to 3NT going down look right to me. The 4♥ bidder also needs a bit of a lesson on what to do when in possession of UI.

[gordontd]

How many hearts did opener have? How many hearts did the 1♥ bid show?

[phil_20686]

 gordontd, on 2012-January-31, 06:01, said:

How many hearts did opener have? How many hearts did the 1♥ bid show?

How many diamonds did he have? I am amazed that a "competent pair" can agree that this is a stop ask. Is it not a splinter for roughly 99% of non expert pairs? You can just bid 2d first with basically any other strong hand. If he has four hearts and one diamond I would not think passing 3N was a LA.

[Vampyr]

This sounds to me like a slam try with short diamonds. How does 6♥X fare?

EDIT: crossed the immediately preceding post.

[StevenG]

 phil_20686, on 2012-January-31, 06:39, said:

Is it not a splinter for roughly 99% of non expert pairs?

No. I doubt it is even anywhere near 9.9%.

[Vampyr]

 StevenG, on 2012-January-31, 06:53, said:

No. I doubt it is even anywhere near 9.9%.

However if it was originally a "stopper-ask" it is not one anymore, not after the 4♥ bid. It did not actually show interest in playing in 3NT; it has to mean something.

[StevenG]

 Vampyr, on 2012-January-31, 07:10, said:

However if it was originally a "stopper-ask" it is not one anymore, not after the 4♥ bid. It did not actually show interest in playing in 3NT; it has to mean something.

I don't think that follows. 4♥ was admitted to be blatant UI use, logic falls apart after that.

FWIW, as a non-expert, I'd play 3♦ as a stopper ask and 4♦ as the splinter. No amount of "logic" could make 3♦ into a slam try, whatever happened afterwards.

[billw55]

 flametree, on 2012-January-31, 04:49, said:

... against fairly competent opponents

... "Would you have passed 3NT if your partner had bid 3NT in 2 seconds rather than 2 minutes?"
"Um, probably."

Definitely high time for an education. Also this sounds like a good time to call the director.

[Vampyr]

 StevenG, on 2012-January-31, 07:21, said:

4♥ was admitted to be blatant UI use, logic falls apart after that.

True, but when this happens, partner is obliged to attempt to work out the meaning of the "legal" auction. If you thought partner wanted you to bid 3NT and it turns out that this is not the case, partner must have had a plan in mind. Maybe he was making a slam try. Maybe he was checking for diamond wastage in order to avoid a slam. Maybe he wanted find out whether you had club support or a fifth heart. Et cetera.

[palabreur]

 flametree, on 2012-January-31, 04:49, said:

"I wanted him to bid 3NT if he had a diamond stop."
"But he did bid 3NT."
"Yeah, true."
"Would you have passed 3NT if your partner had bid 3NT in 2 seconds rather than 2 minutes?"
"Um, probably."

You already know the answer. You should call the director, the director should adjust the result (either to 3NT-1, or to some higher number of hearts, possibly doubled, down however many is appropriate, or some weighted combination if NZ uses that approach) and, assuming NZ assesses procedural penalties like they do in the US, assign a whopping procedural penalty on the 4♥ bidder for blatant use of UI. Would the director assign the PP? Probably not, in a club game, but they absolutely should.

[campboy]

We were told that 3♦ bidder had three hearts.

It doesn't matter how many players play it as a splinter since one of this pair thought it was asking for a stop and the other thought it was showing diamonds (perhaps he meant showing a stop).

I also don't see why the player who passed out 3NT had any obligations at all; his partner was the one with UI.

[blackshoe]

Which player passed out 3NT?

[campboy]

Sorry, meant to write "passed out 4♥".

[flametree]

 palabreur, on 2012-January-31, 08:26, said:

You already know the answer. You should call the director, the director should adjust the result (either to 3NT-1, or to some higher number of hearts, possibly doubled, down however many is appropriate, or some weighted combination if NZ uses that approach) and, assuming NZ assesses procedural penalties like they do in the US, assign a whopping procedural penalty on the 4♥ bidder for blatant use of UI. Would the director assign the PP? Probably not, in a club game, but they absolutely should.

Yes, in our club games I'm not sure what crime short of murder at the table would earn anyone a procedural penalty....

The post-hand conversation certainly made it clear what had happened, I was interested in whether I should have called the director after the auction, rather than after the play of the hand. I can just about see how the 3D bidder could say something like "I was control-bidding diamonds, I wanted to hear partner control-bid spades to go to slam - when he failed to do so I bailed in 4H." Though that explanation wouldn't have fitted the cards he held in this instance.


PS - I think at my level opposite a reasonable but non-expert partner I'd assume :
- a cue-bid here would be a general force, probably asking for a hold or looking for a 5-3 fit in partner's major;
- a jump-cue was asking partner to right-side a 3NT contract, probably showing a long minor suit;
- a double-jump-cue was a splinter. Though half the room wouldn't know what a splinter was so I wouldn't make one if playing with them...