[Cyberyeti]

---

The auction is pure Norfolk comedy gold

2♣ big
2♦ negative, not waiting
3♦ W is unsure whether he should alert or not (he should, it shows hearts, but E has made the bid he would make directly over 2♣ rather than over 2♣-P-2♦ and actually has diamonds).

Before bidding 5♥ the nonagenarian N says to her not much younger partner "It was a transfer damn it" which has the desired effect and S passes 5♥.

You are called at the end of the auction and come back at the end of play by EW who think S should be visualising something like xxx, x, Axxxxxx, xx and bidding some more diamonds, take it from here

[gordontd]

I expect we should start with the first infraction, which appears to be West's failure to alert the 3♦ bid. Since that would be likely to change all the rest of the auction, we'll probably just give a PP (warning or fine) to NS for the comment and pass of 5♥.

It's hard to see the auction proceeding past 3NT with a correct alert of 3♦, although no doubt North would have contributed a surprised question along the lines of "did you really say that he has hearts?" before passing.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-August-02, 02:34, said:

It's hard to see the auction proceeding past 3NT with a correct alert of 3♦, although no doubt North would have contributed a surprised question along the lines of "did you really say that he has hearts?" before passing.

I would have thought it would have been better for North to say something along the lines of 'how often does your partner forget this method?' before bidding 4H, to make it clear she has hearts. If East really does have hearts, then 3NT will not be likely to make.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2012-August-02, 02:34, said:

I expect we should start with the first infraction, which appears to be West's failure to alert the 3♦ bid. Since that would be likely to change all the rest of the auction, we'll probably just give a PP (warning or fine) to NS for the comment and pass of 5♥.

It's hard to see the auction proceeding past 3NT with a correct alert of 3♦, although no doubt North would have contributed a surprised question along the lines of "did you really say that he has hearts?" before passing.

W did alert, but it was clear from the delay (after S had bid) and the body language that he was unsure, S repeated his 3N. NS never enquired what it meant, probably because they could see he wasn't sure.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-01, 16:42, said:

You are called at the end of the auction and come back at the end of play by EW who think S should be visualising something like xxx, x, Axxxxxx, xx and bidding some more diamonds, take it from here.

EW might think that, but it remains to be verified whether in fact NS use control bids. Quite a few players of this description, including those who use transfers, never call a suit at the 5 level unless they want to play in it, except as a response to Blackwood.

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-02, 07:38, said:

EW might think that, but it remains to be verified whether in fact NS use control bids. Quite a few players of this description, including those who use transfers, never call a suit at the 5 level unless they want to play in it, except as a response to Blackwood.

I refuse to believe that this can ever be to play, it just might be 2461/1561/1570 as a suggestion to play hearts but partner surely bids 6 of something.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

we'll probably just give a PP (warning or fine) to NS for the comment and pass of 5♥.

The nonagenarian has had in excess of 90 years to learn that this comment is grossly inappropriate so the PP should not be a warning but a chunky fine coupled with the directors sternest finger wagging.

[Fluffy]

gordontd, on 2012-August-02, 02:34, said:

I expect we should start with the first infraction, which appears to be West's failure to alert the 3♦ bid. Since that would be likely to change all the rest of the auction, we'll probably just give a PP (warning or fine) to NS for the comment and pass of 5♥.

I don´t understand this, efore OP clarified the alert, either west alerted 3♦ wich is correct, or west didn´t and east has diamonds wich cannot change NS´s bidding, so it is hard to see how can you blame west regardless.


Now it has been cleared by OP that 3♦ was indeed alerted, it can be a missexplanation or a missbid, if its a missbid there is no infraction on EW side, but we should tend to rule missexplanation unless EW clearly proof that the alert was correct. The OP assumes EW have that agreement, I´ll follow assuming that.


North gets a PP just for talking during the bidding, this has nothing to do with table result.

It is impossible to know where the auction would end if north didn´t give UI to his partner, but at least it would end up in 6♥, so I would give the result for 6♥ if it is better than the one in 5♥

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2012-August-05, 04:06, said:

Now it has been cleared by OP that 3♦ was indeed alerted, it can be a missexplanation or a missbid, if its a missbid there is no infraction on EW side, but we should tend to rule missexplanation unless EW clearly proof that the alert was correct. The OP assumes EW have that agreement, I´ll follow assuming that.

I thought I did clarify this, 3♦ was alerted although not with any degree of confidence, the agreement is that over 2♣ and 2♣-P-2♦ the cheapest bid in each suit is artificial. It was a misbid caused by 3♦ being natural over 2♣ but not over 2♣-P-2♦.

Quote

It is impossible to know where the auction would end if north didn´t give UI to his partner, but at least it would end up in 6♥, so I would give the result for 6♥ if it is better than the one in 5♥

This was my thought, 6♥ loses the A♦ and as ♥KQ are in the same hand, the defence can't even crash them if they want to.

[Fluffy]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-05, 04:26, said:

I thought I did clarify this, 3♦ was alerted although not with any degree of confidence, the agreement is that over 2♣ and 2♣-P-2♦ the cheapest bid in each suit is artificial. It was a misbid caused by 3♦ being natural over 2♣ but not over 2♣-P-2♦.

you were at the table or in direct contact to people involved so I trust you, I was just saying that in other cases, in my experince, some wests might just announce that there is that agreement, and some east who just don't remember if there was such agreement agree on that, the fact east doesn't have storng conviction doesn't neccesarilly mean that west is right and east isn't.

[Cyberyeti]

It was me that misbid and I still thought I was right until after the end of the round when I had the "oh yeah, 3♦ is the cheapest way of bidding diamonds over 2♦" moment after gentle prodding from partner. Nobody said anything at the table. The agreement is very simple, over 2♣ and 2♣-P-2♦, x/2N are 2 suiters with/without the suit doubled and the cheapest bid in each suit is the suit above or 3 suited without the suit above.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-02, 07:50, said:

I refuse to believe that this can ever be to play, it just might be 2461/1561/1570 as a suggestion to play hearts but partner surely bids 6 of something.

You are making the mistake of attributing to the category of players I am talking about a degree of sentience they do not possess. For the class of player I'm talking about, it is a call they only ever make if they have only recently discovered a pressing need to play in hearts, such as noticing that several of their diamonds are in fact hearts. For such players, the only bids they have to explore slam are raising the agreed suit and Blackwood/Gerber: anything else can only be to play, however unlikely that seems to the thinking player.

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-06, 03:13, said:

You are making the mistake of attributing to the category of players I am talking about a degree of sentience they do not possess. For the class of player I'm talking about, it is a call they only ever make if they have only recently discovered a pressing need to play in hearts, such as noticing that several of their diamonds are in fact hearts. For such players, the only bids they have to explore slam are raising the agreed suit and Blackwood/Gerber: anything else can only be to play, however unlikely that seems to the thinking player.

OK, you didn't know this, but the nonagenarian in her day was I believe a decent player and her late husband who I never met apparently a pretty useful one, so the phrase little old lady may only apply literally rather than figuratively.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-06, 05:43, said:

...so the phrase little old lady may only apply literally rather than figuratively.

I enjoyed that wonderfully accurate turn of phrase, precisely because it is just the opposite of what many people mean when they say "literally".

[CamHenry]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-06, 06:29, said:

I enjoyed that wonderfully accurate turn of phrase, precisely because it is just the opposite of what many people mean when they say "literally".

Such as people saying "that misuse of the word literally gets my goat"?