[CSGibson]

Scoring: MP

1♣*-(1♥)**-P-(P),
3N All Pass.

---

North-South play precision. 1♣ was 16+ HCP, any shape, and the pass over 1 ♥ was a penalty pass, waiting for the reopening double.

East-West play transfers over big clubs, but W forgot and did not alert E's transfer.

North-South play 3 level transfers showing invitational+ hands over interference, so N would have likely bid 3♦ showing 5+ hearts and invitational+ values if E's bid had been alerted.

Edit: Table result was 3N + 3

What adjustments would you make to the scoring?

[pran]

CSGibson, on Aug 13 2010, 06:55 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♣*-(1♥)**-P-(P),
3N All Pass.

---

North-South play precision. 1♣ was 16+ HCP, any shape, and the pass over 1 ♥ was a penalty pass, waiting for the reopening double.

East-West play transfers over big clubs, but W forgot and did not alert E's transfer.

North-South play 3 level transfers showing invitational+ hands over interference, so N would have likely bid 3♦ showing 5+ hearts and invitational values if E's bid had been alerted.

What adjustments would you make to the scoring?

You don't tell the table result, but assuming this was 3NT + 3 I would in conference with my co-directors suggest 6♥=

[jdonn]

Or, oh what the heck, give him all 13 of his tricks in hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

Difficult to know how the auction would go as there are several methods, but N might well not be passing if 1♥ was correctly alerted, and a slam should be reached. They'd have to convince me that they have the methods to establish that 7♥ is good, otherwise 6♥+1.

[Mbodell]

Can you do 6♥+1 for N/S and 7♥= to E/W? That seems to reflect "likely" and "at all probable" scores.

[helene_t]

Sounds weird to me to play 3-level transfers as inv+ with a 5-card suit, but maybe it is invitational+ with 6 or GF with 5, and would N treat his hand as GF because of the shortness in the enemy suit?

[bluejak]

Mbodell, on Aug 13 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

Can you do 6♥+1 for N/S and 7♥= to E/W?  That seems to reflect "likely" and "at all probable" scores.

Certainly. This is normal in Law 12C1E jurisdicrtions, which this is.

[PrinceNep]

jdonn, on Aug 13 2010, 02:33 AM, said:

Or, oh what the heck, give him all 13 of his tricks in hearts.

I lol'd

[CSGibson]

Cyberyeti, on Aug 13 2010, 12:36 AM, said:

They'd have to convince me that they have the methods to establish that 7♥ is good, otherwise 6♥+1.

They do not, be assured.

[PrinceNep]

CSGibson, on Aug 13 2010, 09:52 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 13 2010, 12:36 AM, said:

They'd have to convince me that they have the methods to establish that 7♥ is good, otherwise 6♥+1.

They do not, be assured.

Really?

What I find interesting is that if North shows a decent hand with 5+ Hearts, won't South Keycard? Won't he find out that his partner has both missing keycards?

It is only at this point that I would expect BETTER players to try to count out 13 tricks to determine the best spot (5NT to follow of course). Some b/i players might be scared to bid 7, but others may bid it because they have all of the keycards and "a really good hand".

6♥+1 may be justifiable, but I wouldn't base it on the logic that "they don't have the methods to get to 7".

Would you still assign this score if you found the traveler to have most pairs getting to 7♥ and thus give this pair an Avg-?

Just food for thought.

[jdonn]

I would do 6♥+1 for both sides. I don't see how NS are going to virtually ever get to 7 after N starts 3♦ invitational with hearts. South pretty much has to bid blackwood at that point and won't find out enough (why can't north have TWO spades?) Even if he bids 3♠, north bids 4♦ and now what? 3♠ could surely have been a probe for 3NT so it's not even clear 4♥ by south at this point would be a slam try rather than a preference. And even if it were a slam try north would have to know to bid on, and they would still have to find the grand. Just too many difficulties I think.

The only way I see changing the score for either side to 7♥ is if north can start with a lower action at his first turn.

[Cyberyeti]

jdonn, on Aug 13 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

The only way I see changing the score for either side to 7♥ is if north can start with a lower action at his first turn.

I know nobody plays this any more, but having no fancy agreements works really well here, double of an artificial bid showing the suit (whether positive or semi positive).

1♣-(1♥)-X-then unopposed-1♠-2♦-2♠-3♦ and you've got the 5-5 shape off your chest, now A♦/K♥ and stiff spade is all you have to find out about.

[peachy]

CSGibson, on Aug 13 2010, 09:52 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Aug 13 2010, 12:36 AM, said:

They'd have to convince me that they have the methods to establish that 7♥ is good, otherwise 6♥+1.

They do not, be assured.

Even if they do not have "methods" they might gamble on it or otherwise stumble on it. It is not out of the question for them to get there. Which is why I would have no problem assigning EW 7H= and NS 6H+1

[zenko]

CSGibson, on Aug 13 2010, 12:55 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♣*-(1♥)**-P-(P),
3N All Pass.

---

North-South play precision. 1♣ was 16+ HCP, any shape, and the pass over 1 ♥ was a penalty pass, waiting for the reopening double.

East-West play transfers over big clubs, but W forgot and did not alert E's transfer.

North-South play 3 level transfers showing invitational+ hands over interference, so N would have likely bid 3♦ showing 5+ hearts and invitational+ values if E's bid had been alerted.

Edit: Table result was 3N + 3

What adjustments would you make to the scoring?

Why on earth would he bid 3H invitational with such a shabby 5-card suit and 5 cards in the other suit? To preempt his side out of diamonds? He might end up playing 3N (or even 3H!) when 6D (or even7D!) is laydown!

If the ovrecall was 1S that makes it somewhat tricky to get to 7, but now when responder can "show" H on level 1, grand it is at least "logical alternative" contract, probably even 50%+ reachable . My ruling is 7 made for both sides.

[jdonn]

zenko, on Aug 16 2010, 11:59 PM, said:

If the ovrecall was 1S that makes it somewhat tricky to get to 7, but now when responder can "show" H on level 1, grand it is at least "logical alternative" contract, probably even 50%+ reachable . My ruling is 7 made for both sides.

The original post told us what north would have done, so you have no reason to judge otherwise.

[zenko]

jdonn, on Aug 17 2010, 12:47 AM, said:

zenko, on Aug 16 2010, 11:59 PM, said:

If the ovrecall was 1S that makes it somewhat tricky to get to 7, but now when responder can "show" H on level 1, grand  it is at least "logical alternative" contract, probably even 50%+ reachable . My ruling is 7 made for both sides.

The original post told us what north would have done, so you have no reason to judge otherwise.

Not quite. The original post said: North-South play 3 level transfers showing invitational+ hands over interference, so N would have likely bid 3♦ showing 5+ hearts and invitational+ values if E's bid had been alerted.

I do not see anything definitive in this statement, "would have likely" does not mean anything really, nor should be basis on any ruling, especially since we have no idea how did the poster came up with it.

[jdonn]

Lol he was giving us the parameters of the problem. Who cares where he came up with it, it's his problem. He could have said "north plays double shows hearts, 3♦ shows invitational+ with hearts, I don't know what he would have done" but he didn't.

"Would have likely" means "would have likely", it doesn't mean nothing at all. I thought that didn't need to be said.

[zenko]

jdonn, on Aug 17 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

Lol he was giving us the parameters of the problem. Who cares where he came up with it, it's his problem. He could have said "north plays double shows hearts, 3♦ shows invitational+ with hearts, I don't know what he would have done" but he didn't.

"Would have likely" means "would have likely", it doesn't mean nothing at all. I thought that didn't need to be said.

"Would have likely" in this context means close enough to nothing that is should be disregarded. "Would have likely" simply can not be grounds for denying non-offending side a shot and grand.

And even if they make that bid, who is to say that would make the grand slam out of reach for them. 7 bid and made on both sides is the only fair verdict.

[CSGibson]

zenko, on Aug 18 2010, 07:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 17 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

Lol he was giving us the parameters of the problem. Who cares where he came up with it, it's his problem. He could have said "north plays double shows hearts, 3♦ shows invitational+ with hearts, I don't know what he would have done" but he didn't.

"Would have likely" means "would have likely", it doesn't mean nothing at all. I thought that didn't need to be said.

"Would have likely" in this context means close enough to nothing that is should be disregarded. "Would have likely" simply can not be grounds for denying non-offending side a shot and grand.

And even if they make that bid, who is to say that would make the grand slam out of reach for them. 7 bid and made on both sides is the only fair verdict.

Dude, I was saying it because I was one of the N-S people. I know our methods (for better or worse), and I asked partner what he would have done. I put "would have likely" because there's some chance partner's answer is biased by his knowledge of the hand. And we would not have gotten to the grand - which we told the director.

[Cascade]

CSGibson, on Aug 13 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

East-West play transfers over big clubs, but W forgot and did not alert E's transfer.

This is wrong isn't it. West bid 1♥ east must have forgotten.

Anyway I am not convinced that NS are entitled to full redress here.

North asked South to hit 1♥.

South decided not to cooperate with ♥ AQJ9. South knew either:

1. 1♥ was not bid with hearts

2. partner did not have a penalty pass

I think there is a significant chance that if south had hit 1♥ that they could later have a sensible auction to 6♥ or 7♥.

"Law12C1B If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the
adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending
side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the
consequence of its infraction only."

I would class 3NT as a "wild or gambling action". "Wild or gambling" because south had the opportunity to carve up 1♥ for 1700 or have a semi-sensible auction to a more normal contract. 3NT by taking away nearly three-levels of bidding pre-empts the auction and gambles that 3NT is the right spot.

In this case the failure to alert did not damage NS it was the subsequent pre-emptive 3NT that caused the damage.