[ahydra]

---

Cross-IMPs, nobody vul. NS play 4cM with a weak NT. The range of the 1NT bid was not asked, but is presumably 15-16 or 15-17.

EW called TD after the auction. There was an agreed BIT before South's bid of 2H. North then raised to 3H and South to 4H. West led ♣5 and declarer made ten tricks. After the hand, EW call TD to question whether the 3H bid was influenced by the UI. TD advised that as the "room" contract was reached there was no damage so result stands. EW then requested a review of the ruling and apparently, on polling, passing 2H was deemed not to be an LA so result stands again. What do you think?

Thanks,

ahydra

[pran]

ahydra, on 2018-June-06, 05:26, said:

---

Cross-IMPs, nobody vul. NS play 4cM with a weak NT. The range of the 1NT bid was not asked, but is presumably 15-16 or 15-17.

EW called TD after the auction. There was an agreed BIT before South's bid of 2H. North then raised to 3H and South to 4H. West led ♣5 and declarer made ten tricks. After the hand, EW call TD to question whether the 3H bid was influenced by the UI. TD advised that as the "room" contract was reached there was no damage so result stands. EW then requested a review of the ruling and apparently, on polling, passing 2H was deemed not to be an LA so result stands again. What do you think?

Thanks,

ahydra

In my book 1NT here shows a 12-14 NT-type hand with Diamonds and not more than 3 cards in either major.
My obvious second call as North would be 1S (which is forcing for a round, showing spades in addition to Diamonds and 12-15 HCP).

N/S should now end up in 4S (which I consider a better contract than 4H).

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2018-June-06, 05:55, said:

In my book 1NT here shows a 12-14 NT-type hand with Diamonds and not more than 3 cards in either major.
My obvious second call as North would be 1S (which is forcing for a round and shows spades and 12-15 HCP).

N/S should now end up in 4S (which I consider a better contract than 4H).

What planet are you on, nobody here puts your restrictions on 1N, they're playing a weak NT, 1N rebid contains 15-16 for 99% of people playing this in the UK, and you'd really downgrade this 16 count to 15 ? You'd be going against the room massively.

It is also VERY common to bypass the major in this way and rebid 1N, but normal to play checkback if this is the case.

2♥ will thus be either 6♥ or 5♥/4♠ not fancying 1N, I don't understand why N bid 3♥ rather than 2♠

[weejonnie]

The fact that the room contract was 4H is totally irrelevant. OF COURSE EW have been damaged since the UI has prevented them from profitting from South's 2♥ call.

Nothing more to be said: (So I'll say it)

In my book (as a weak NT bidder, who plays checkback)

1D : 1H
1N : 2H is not forcing. it shows typically 6-7 points and a 5-card heart suit (a hand that would transfer over a strong 1NT opening bid, and then pass the response).

South's pause (as is usual) is showing extra values but is unsure how to legally tell North - so he illegally tells North. North is clearly in breach of 16B and 73C.

[Cyberyeti]

weejonnie, on 2018-June-06, 06:43, said:

The fact that the room contract was 4H is totally irrelevant. OF COURSE EW have been damaged since the UI has prevented them from profitting from South's 2♥ call.

Nothing more to be said: (So I'll say it)

In my book (as a weak NT bidder, who plays checkback)

1D : 1H
1N : 2H is not forcing. it shows typically 6-7 points and a 5-card heart suit (a hand that would transfer over a strong 1NT opening bid, and then pass the response).

South's pause (as is usual) is showing extra values but is unsure how to legally tell North - so he illegally tells North. North is clearly in breach of 16B and 73C.

I'm guessing they DON'T play checkback or S would have had no problem.

Most of the time he has 6-8 with 6 hearts, I also play checkback, and would NEVER bid this with only 5 hearts. And opposite 6-8 with 6 3♥ is pretty safe and 4 may make.

Without checkback, it's a touch more awkward.

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-06, 06:06, said:

What planet are you on, nobody here puts your restrictions on 1N, they're playing a weak NT, 1N rebid contains 15-16 for 99% of people playing this in the UK, and you'd really downgrade this 16 count to 15 ? You'd be going against the room massively.

It is also VERY common to bypass the major in this way and rebid 1N, but normal to play checkback if this is the case.

2♥ will thus be either 6♥ or 5♥/4♠ not fancying 1N, I don't understand why N bid 3♥ rather than 2♠

Well, I believe I wouldn't have any problem with these hands, but then I play a very simple system:
4-card suits bottom-up, 1NT is 15-17 so 1NT rebid is 12-14, and so on (no checkback).
And I never bypass any 4 card suit below 1NT in an undisturbed auction.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2018-June-06, 07:45, said:

Well, I believe I wouldn't have any problem with these hands, but then I play a very simple system:
4-card suits bottom-up, 1NT is 15-17 so 1NT rebid is 12-14, and so on (no checkback).
And I never bypass any 4 card suit below 1NT in an undisturbed auction.

We'd bid 1♦-1♥-1N(15-bad 19)-2♣(checkback)-2♥(15-16, 3♥)-2♠(LSGT)-3♠-4♠

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-June-06, 07:45, said:

Well, I believe I wouldn't have any problem with these hands, but then I play a very simple system:
4-card suits bottom-up, 1NT is 15-17 so 1NT rebid is 12-14, and so on (no checkback).
And I never bypass any 4 card suit below 1NT in an undisturbed auction.

Logical Alternatives are based on players playing the same methods as the player in question. Since this pair is playing weak NT, what you would do when playing strong NT is irrelevant.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-June-06, 09:02, said:

Logical Alternatives are based on players playing the same methods as the player in question. Since this pair is playing weak NT, what you would do when playing strong NT is irrelevant.

Of course.

But I am very surprised if playing weak or strong NT should mean the difference between finding and not finding the ideal contract of 4S here?
(Accepted that 4H is as good in this case, but generally I prefer trumps hold of 4-4 better than 5-3.)

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2018-June-06, 10:05, said:

(Accepted that 4H is as good in this case, but generally I prefer trumps hold of 4-4 better than 5-3.)

It isn't, I'm leading a trump, and will keep doing so, you need to guess the diamonds to make 4♥ on best defence as you can't guarantee to ruff a club, but 4♠ doesn't have that issue.

[ahydra]

Apologies, but Pran, Cyber, could we get back on topic please?

ahydra

[sanst]

If the polling was properly done, then there’s no discussion. Otherwise, I would say that both have given all the information they could give about their hands, given their agreements, and pass would be a logical alternative.
I agree with everyone who thinks that the NS methods have room for improvement and also with those that state that the TD made a mistake when looking at the result of the other tables.

[Cyberyeti]

You haven't given us the information to be able to solve this. We need to know what 2♥ actually showed in their system and the exact range for 1N, are they playing checkback etc ? Also it's an obvious polling situation with the knowledge of what 2♥ showed.

I thought initially it was a no brainer that you rolled it back, but as I said, further thought said to me that this could well show 6-8 with 6 or 7 hearts, at which point it seems reasonable to invite.

Also if 1N was 15-16, I feel your hand could easily be worth more than 16 in the knowledge of the heart fit, if it was 15-17(18) then less so.

Also do they ever bid 1N with a stiff heart ? looks like not, but I'd ask.

[ahydra]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-07, 02:56, said:

You haven't given us the information to be able to solve this. We need to know what 2♥ actually showed in their system and the exact range for 1N, are they playing checkback etc ? Also it's an obvious polling situation with the knowledge of what 2♥ showed.

I thought initially it was a no brainer that you rolled it back, but as I said, further thought said to me that this could well show 6-8 with 6 or 7 hearts, at which point it seems reasonable to invite.

Also if 1N was 15-16, I feel your hand could easily be worth more than 16 in the knowledge of the heart fit, if it was 15-17(18) then less so.

Also do they ever bid 1N with a stiff heart ? looks like not, but I'd ask.

Indeed, it would be useful to know. TD never asked these kinds of questions and NS had no CC. Given they were not high-standard players I suspect they would not play checkback, but what might be of relevance is that WJS is very popular here in NZ so 2H, if it were to have 6 cards, is likely to be constructive. I doubt they would rebid 1NT with a singleton heart. They did say that in their system North should have rebid 1S, not 1NT.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2018-June-07, 03:33, said:

Indeed, it would be useful to know. TD never asked these kinds of questions and NS had no CC. Given they were not high-standard players I suspect they would not play checkback, but what might be of relevance is that WJS is very popular here in NZ so 2H, if it were to have 6 cards, is likely to be constructive. I doubt they would rebid 1NT with a singleton heart. They did say that in their system North should have rebid 1S, not 1NT.

ahydra

Didn't realise you were in NZ, thought you were in the UK.

In that case did anybody definitively say 2♥ WAS a signoff ?

[Vampyr]

The “room contract” is pretty funny, even apart from ithere being no law mentioning it. I’ll bet the other pairs didn’t reach game with that start!

Repair must have some way to invite, e.g. 2NT. Or to show game values, which is what the player arguably had.

[pran]

ahydra, on 2018-June-07, 03:33, said:

Indeed, it would be useful to know. TD never asked these kinds of questions and NS had no CC. Given they were not high-standard players I suspect they would not play checkback, but what might be of relevance is that WJS is very popular here in NZ so 2H, if it were to have 6 cards, is likely to be constructive. I doubt they would rebid 1NT with a singleton heart. They did say that in their system North should have rebid 1S, not 1NT.

ahydra

Glad to hear that, because it was (IMHO) the 1NT bid by North that really "destroyed" the auction for N/S.

It is only reasonable that South had a big problem with what to bid next, and if North realized his mistake with 1NT the only real UI he had from the BIT is that he had created a big problem for South.

So the key information for TD is the exact interpretation of the 2H bid (without any BIT).

[StevenG]

pran, on 2018-June-07, 04:54, said:

Glad to hear that, because it was (IMHO) the 1NT bid by North that really "destroyed" the auction for N/S.

Total nonsense.

[Cyberyeti]

StevenG, on 2018-June-07, 10:29, said:

Total nonsense.

It kinda did in the context of their system, you have an easy 2♣ playing checkback, but what do you do if you're not playing it ?

[StevenG]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-07, 10:40, said:

It kinda did in the context of their system, you have an easy 2♣ playing checkback, but what do you do if you're not playing it ?

Given that's how most of the older moderate players around here play (minor on 4432, no checkback), I think almost all of them would invite with 3♥, because there's no other sensible option. If you do play checkback, then pass is pretty automatic - oddly enough a strong tournament partnership had an almost identical sequence at the club on Tuesday evening, and missed game because responder bid 2♥ rather than 2♣ checkback.