[lmilne]

---

At the table, after the 2♥ bid, East said something like "should I alert that?" to the table (not directed at her partner so much). East also made a comment about 2♥ possibly being a transfer. West didn't say anything.

Players of a poor standard all round - the usual club duplicate stuff.

As far as can be ascertained, EW do not have an agreement about the 2♥ bid.

Can West bid 2NT? What of East's pass of 2NT?

Edit: table result was -2 (I believe on a heart lead) for NS +100, beating all the +140s from spade partscores.

[mink]

East does not have any UI, and therefore nothing what he did is possibly an infraction.

West knows from the bidding that South must have the ♠, and therefore a 2 ♠ contract is the worst that can happen. So pass is not a LA.

Karl

[sfi]

Even though pass is not an LA, the 2NT bid still should be scrutinised. 3H at least is an LA in this auction, which could lead to real problems for E-W that are more likely to be avoided by bidding 2NT.

N-S have misinformation, and this needs to be considered as well.

[blackshoe]

mink, on 2013-June-26, 06:17, said:

East does not have any UI, and therefore nothing what he did is possibly an infraction.

This is not entirely true. East may have violated the Proprieties.

[VixTD]

mink, on 2013-June-26, 06:17, said:

East does not have any UI, and therefore nothing what he did is possibly an infraction.

West knows from the bidding that South must have the ♠, and therefore a 2 ♠ contract is the worst that can happen. So pass is not a LA.

East has conveyed to West that they are unsure of their agreements, so knows that West could think that a wheel has come off. It's OK for each member of a partnership to use the information that they don't have a firm agreement here, but they mustn't use any unauthorized information that's been passed back and forth across the table that this is the case. It's not impossible from the auction that South has spades, although I admit it's unlikely, from West's point of view.

I don't like East's pass of 2NT. If West thought they were playing natural responses they had an obligation to call the director at the end of the auction, whereupon South would be allowed to, and probably would, bid 2♠. I'd probably award an adjusted score on that basis, unless I really thought their agreement was to play transfers.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2013-June-26, 06:24, said:

Even though pass is not an LA, the 2NT bid still should be scrutinised. 3H at least is an LA in this auction, which could lead to real problems for E-W that are more likely to be avoided by bidding 2NT.

N-S have misinformation, and this needs to be considered as well.

Absent the UI, 3♥ is mandatory, if 2♥ was a WTO as W intended, 2♠ would normally be the equivalent of a 1N-2♦-2♠ long suit transfer break showing hearts. I suspect E got wind through some body language what was going on as he has an absolute max and the equivalent auction of 1N-2♥-2♠-2N to bid over and a double stop in S's suit.

Also have NS been misinformed ? I don't believe they lead a heart against 2N if they know what's happening and then it's going flying off.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-June-26, 08:08, said:

Absent the UI, 3♥ is mandatory, if 2♥ was a WTO as W intended, 2♠ would normally be the equivalent of a 1N-2♦-2♠ long suit transfer break showing hearts.

Players of this calibre very probably don't play fancy transfer breaks; at best they play a jump response in the suit being transferred to as a super-accept. So if 2♥ was intended as a natural drop bid, 2♠ simply doesn't exist, and is evidence on its own that the bid was misunderstood. While the UI supports this, I don't think they're forced to come up with improbable interpretations of the impossible bid to avoid taking advantage of it.

[RMB1]

Some of us think that it is general bridge knowledge that
1NT (not Pass) 2D/2H (Pass) 2H/2S
means that partner thinks 2D/2H was a transfer.

We would rule that the UI does not suggest anything and allow any call by responder.

[lamford]

Doesn't everyone play that 2NT here is good/bad, releasing 3H by West to be intermediate? 2NT looks impeccable, and West was lucky that East misunderstood it.

[blackshoe]

Not everyone.

[nigel_k]

I am going to assume that West imparted no UI of any kind, though bad players often do in these situations. So East can do as they please.

From West's point of view, even without the UI, the most likely reason partner bid 2♠ is that they think 2♥ is a transfer. But surely 2♠ being a super accept is still a logical alternative, even if not the most likely one. Hence 3♥ instead of 2NT is a logical alternative by West, and is the only one not suggested by the UI.

Given that East passed 2NT, they had clearly realized their mistake without any benefit of UI. I see no reason they would not realize their mistake in the same way if West had bid 3♥ and pass that. If anything it would be easier. So I would assign a weighted score, probably based on some proportion of 3♠=,3♥-3 and 3♥-2. I wouldn't expect N/S to double.

[wank]

eh, a super accept? a super hand for hearts raises hearts.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2013-June-26, 06:24, said:

Even though pass is not an LA, the 2NT bid still should be scrutinised. 3H at least is an LA in this auction,

Is it? What does 2♠ over a terminal 2♥ bid mean? Is it a good hand for hearts wanting a spade lead, or is it a 5-card suit in a hand holding only a doubleton heart? If this is undefined I think that the UI requires the latter interpretation, in which case there is no LA to pass.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-27, 04:34, said:

Is it? What does 2♠ over a terminal 2♥ bid mean? Is it a good hand for hearts wanting a spade lead, or is it a 5-card suit in a hand holding only a doubleton heart? If this is undefined I think that the UI requires the latter interpretation, in which case there is no LA to pass.

It is a good hand for hearts. All other hands pass.

It cannot be a five card spade suit with a doubleton heart. If you bid 2♠ with that, you are converting a 2 + 5+ fit (i.e. at least 7 together) to a 5 + ?? fit (i.e. could be 5-0). That is a serious violation of Burn's Law.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 05:06, said:

It is a good hand for hearts. All other hands pass.

One would think so, but the OP said that these were players of a poor standard. It is likely that their agreements are poor (or absent) as well.

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 05:06, said:

It is a good hand for hearts. All other hands pass.

In truth I do not think I have seen this happen outside of an auction imposed in a UI ruling. This is not to say that it hasn't, nor that it's not the right agreement, but in practice players usually pass or occasionally raise - especially when they aren't sure of their agreements.

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 05:06, said:

It cannot be a five card spade suit with a doubleton heart. If you bid 2♠ with that, you are converting a 2 + 5+ fit (i.e. at least 7 together) to a 5 + ?? fit (i.e. could be 5-0). That is a serious violation of Burn's Law.

Again I agree with your argument, but now I have seen players bid like this, foolish though it may be.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2013-June-27, 05:48, said:

In truth I do not think I have seen this happen outside of an auction imposed in a UI ruling. This is not to say that it hasn't, nor that it's not the right agreement, but in practice players usually pass or occasionally raise - especially when they aren't sure of their agreements.

That's certainly true, but that is not the relevant question. The relevant question is: "What does 2♠ mean when -absent agreement- partner bids it?". The only explanation (other than "partner forgot" or "he is nuts") is "good hearts and something in spades". And absent agreements "something in spades" means values or length.

And -just for the record- you do not need to have agreements on everything. Some things just follow from bridge logic. This is one of them. If I would play natural sign-offs with a good partner without further agreements, I would bid 2♠ with a hand with good hearts and secondary spades. And I would expect a good partner to understand that.

gordontd, on 2013-June-27, 05:48, said:

Again I agree with your argument, but now I have seen players bid like this (bid 2♠ with 5 spades and 2 hearts), foolish though it may be.

I have seen players bid like that too, but only while they were still in the bridge course. I have never seen anyone do that at the club level or higher.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 09:04, said:

(Referring to bidding 2S with 5 spades and two hearts if 2H were natural)
I have seen players bid like that too, but only while they were still in the bridge course. I have never seen anyone do that at the club level or higher.

Apparently jurisdiction is significant to this thread.

--I have seen bad players do that many times here in the U.S.
--I would consider a possible adjustment to 2S-4.
--If somewhere there is weighting, I would consider 2s-4 in the mix.

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2013-June-27, 09:04, said:

The only explanation (other than "partner forgot" or "he is nuts") is "good hearts and something in spades".

I think that depends on the player. For some there is no explanation other than "partner forgot".

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2013-June-27, 12:43, said:

I think that depends on the player. For some there is no explanation other than "partner forgot".

No, I think 1N-2♥(announced as WTO or no alert)-2♠ then the next hand will definitely assume real spades whatever else is going on (could conceivably be a "natural, found an ace" or missort type bid, spades without hearts or spades and hearts) because they have the confirmation that partner understood 2♥, there should be no advantage to having had the alert/misannounce. Whether you pass or bid 3♥, 2N shouldn't be in the frame.