[VixTD]

In the Midlands County teams-of-eight league yesterday I was asked for a ruling on the following hand between the county third teams:

---

1♣ was announced as "could be two" (i.e. it's natural, non-forcing but could be a weak NT hand with only two clubs).
2NT was alerted. North asked and was told by East "both minors".
When West bid 3♥ East corrected her earlier explanation to "both majors".

Result: 4♥(W)=, lead ♣3, NS -420.

EW were a new partnership and had agreed to play "CRO", a variant of Ghestem in which 2NT shows both majors over a minor suit opener and both minors over a major. It seems they got their wires crossed when a possibly short club was opened.

What do you think the ruling should be? Should it be any different if East had not assumed it was the minors but admitted her uncertainty when first asked and said something like: "we play 2NT as both minors over a major and both majors over a minor, we haven't discussed if this applies over short minors"?

[RMB1]

West has unauthorised information whatever explanation is given.
Passing 3♦ looks like a logical alternative.
Any explanation that West might have the minors suggests bidding to show the majors.
I adjust to 3♦

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2015-March-30, 06:51, said:

In the Midlands County teams-of-eight league yesterday I was asked for a ruling on the following hand between the county third teams: 1♣ was announced as "could be two" (i.e. it's natural, non-forcing but could be a weak NT hand with only two clubs). 2NT was alerted. North asked and was told by East "both minors". When West bid 3♥ East corrected her earlier explanation to "both majors". Result: 4♥(W)=, lead ♣3, NS -420. EW were a new partnership and had agreed to play "CRO", a variant of Ghestem in which 2NT shows both majors over a minor suit opener and both minors over a major. It seems they got their wires crossed when a possibly short club was opened. What do you think the ruling should be? Should it be any different if East had not assumed it was the minors but admitted her uncertainty when first asked and said something like: "we play 2NT as both minors over a major and both majors over a minor, we haven't discussed if this applies over short minors"?

---

IMO, in either case,

• West has UI from East's explanation.
• A poll is likely to show that, for West, an LA is Pass of East's 3♦.
• Hence the director might rule 3♦-4 (Perhaps even 3♦X-4).
• In theory, a PP might be also be appropriate but, in practice, PPs are rarely imposed.

Directors seem to be lenient to offenders. Without UI, after West's 3♥, the auction might well spiral out of control. so I wonder if an adjustment to e.g. 7♦XX-8 could ever be legal, nowadays?

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-March-30, 07:13, said:

Hence the director might rule 3♦-4 (Perhaps even 3♦X-4).

I agree with 3♦, but if there's an X by North I think West would be permitted to pull despite the UI.

BTW, would you rule the same way if East were a passed hand? For 3♦ to be right, wouldn't East have to have a hand that could have opened with some number of diamonds? Although if EW are playing an artificial 2♦ opening, that might have kept him silent.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2015-March-30, 07:13, said:

Hence the director might rule 3♦-4 (Perhaps even 3♦X-4). In theory, a PP might be also be appropriate but, in practice, PPs are rarely imposed. Directors seem to be lenient to offenders.

I discussed it with the opposing captain, and we agreed on an adjustment to 3♦-4. (I thought -5 was a possible outcome, but didn't want the hassle of cross-IMPing a weighted score.)

It's the sort of ruling where I would want to penalise first team players, have stern words with second team players and try to educate the third team. East couldn't understand why the score was being adjusted, so I asked her what she would do with the West hand over 3♦ if 2NT had been alerted and explained as the minors. "I'd bid 3♥!" she said. Now what would you do if 2NT had been alerted and explained as the majors? "I'd pass" was her reply.

So your action varies with the explanation your partner gives of your call? That can't be right, surely?

I think I might have got through to her.

[paulg]

barmar, on 2015-March-30, 09:34, said:

I agree with 3♦, but if there's an X by North I think West would be permitted to pull despite the UI.

BTW, would you rule the same way if East were a passed hand? For 3♦ to be right, wouldn't East have to have a hand that could have opened with some number of diamonds? Although if EW are playing an artificial 2♦ opening, that might have kept him silent.

I don't see why West would pull 3♦-X with no extra distributional values when he's shown his hand and has two tricks for his partner. Even as a passed hand, couldn't East have seven small diamonds?

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2015-March-30, 12:30, said:

I don't see why West would pull 3♦-X with no extra distributional values when he's shown his hand and has two tricks for his partner. Even as a passed hand, couldn't East have seven small diamonds?

Is X of 3♦ penalties anyway ? Many people play that X of 2N would show an interest in penalising one/both so after a pass, anybody's guess what S does next

[paulg]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-30, 12:37, said:

Is X of 3♦ penalties anyway ? Many people play that X of 2N would show an interest in penalising one/both so after a pass, anybody's guess what S does next

I think it depends how many double cards are used. But I intended to make a general point rather than implying it was likely here.

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2015-March-30, 12:46, said:

I think it depends how many double cards are used. But I intended to make a general point rather than implying it was likely here.

Or whether it's preceded by an insufficient bid ...

3♦ undoubled for me.

BTW, over a takeout double WTH do you do with the South hand ? You probably do pass it as partner is likely 4432 with a 5-0 club break, but unfortunately partner can't make that double.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-30, 12:37, said:

Is X of 3♦ penalties anyway ? Many people play that X of 2N would show an interest in penalising one/both so after a pass, anybody's guess what S does next

paulg, on 2015-March-30, 12:46, said:

I think it depends how many double cards are used. But I intended to make a general point rather than implying it was likely here.

Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-30, 12:53, said:

... Or whether it's preceded by an insufficient bid ...

In assessing an adjusted score, the director might cancel West's 3♥ bid if he deems it might be based on UI.
Over an artificial 2-suited overcall, a popular alternative treatment is to double with high-card values, so that pass followed by double is just penalty.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-March-30, 12:37, said:

Is X of 3♦ penalties anyway ? Many people play that X of 2N would show an interest in penalising one/both so after a pass, anybody's guess what S does next

If it goes (X) Pass (Pass), it's been converted to penalties.

I think West could make a case for running.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2015-March-31, 10:53, said:

If it goes (X) Pass (Pass), it's been converted to penalties.

I think West could make a case for running.

Missing some of the point I was making, N may not have a penalty double available, and I sure as hell don't want to make a takeout double on that hand as I can't rely on partner passing it.