[lamford]

---

This was an interesting hand from a teams match last night, and the match was in the balance until a ruling on the above board. North's 3♦ bid was painfully slow, and South 'found' some extras with his 3NT shot. West led the king of clubs, and continued clubs. Declarer crossed to a top spade and led the jack of diamonds on which East played the ten very smoothly. After an anguished think, declarer ran it, and notched up an unexpected overtrick.

East-West called for a ruling, as it was felt the 3NT bid might have been influenced by the BIT. If you impose a Pass on South, then East-West wins the match by 2 IMPs. Another point made by South was that failing to cover with Q109 was a classic example of a "serious error" unrelated to the original infraction, as dummy's card was surrounded. Indeed it was given as such by a TD seminar in San Remo. East was indignant, and indicated that playing low was the only chance to beat the contract. If you deny East-West redress, then North-South win the match.

So two issues to rule on. The 3NT bid, and the serious error.

[ArtK78]

First of all, the duck of the ♦J is not relevant, as on this lie of the cards it mattered for only an overtrick. So we can ignore that issue.

In my opinion, passing 3♦ is a logical alternative to bidding 3NT. In fact, I think that passing 3♦ is clear. One cannot expect that partner has the perfect minimum to produce 9 tricks. To have 9 tricks, partner must have three tricks plus 3 diamonds, and you have to find diamonds 2-2 or not lose 5 tricks before you take your 9; OR partner has to have the two major suit aces and Qxx of diamonds. Are these holdings out of the question? No. But they are certainly both maximum holdings on the auction. And the likelihood that partner holds one of these hands is significantly increased by the BIT.

Yes, there are other hands on which 3NT would be a lucky make. For example, partner could have AJx Kxx Qxx Jxxx and the ♥A could be onside, with the opponents unable to take 5 tricks.

Still, the BIT eliminates many possible hands on which 3NT would have no play, and makes the 3NT bid much more likely to succeed.

I would adjust the score to 3♦ +110.

By the way, I am ignoring the possibility that the BIT is caused by a decision whether to pass or bid 3♦. I am assuming that the 2♣ bid promises a rebid, so the BIT strongly suggests that North was trying to choose between 3♦ and some stronger action.

One other point - I assume that the 2♣ response was not game forcing. Quite frankly, this hand doesn't look like a 2♣ response. Not being familiar with the NS system, I can't say if this hand is a minimum or more than a minimum for this sequence. If this hand is a dead minimum for the sequence 2♣ followed by 3♦, then I have a little more sympathy for the 3NT call.

[mrdct]

It would be kind of handy to know what system NS are playing, but I guess if 2♣ was GF we probably wouldn't even be discussing the hand.

Assuming 2♦ is NF, the slow 3♦ either means North was contemplating passing or was thinking about making some other onward looking bid such as 2M, 2NT or 3NT. Exactly which is by no means clear to South so you can't really get over the hurdle of the UI suggesting some alternative action such as pass, so I'm going to let NS keep their 3NT contract. At the end of the day, after the ♦ raise South can just about count on 7 tricks in his own hand and just needs to find a couple from partner's 10+ 2♣ response. At IMPs I think 3NT is an obvious bid.

Turning to the "serious error", the main error I can see is west not switching to ♥ at trick 2 with his entryless hand. I think east was on the right track with the smooth falsecard, as we can clearly see the hand plays itself if east covers. South did well to read that his RHO found the ♦10 from Q10x; but I guess he might have just been trying to cut his losses in the event that it was stiff 10 to at least secure 5 ♦ tricks.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-March-09, 08:05, said:

It would be kind of handy to know what system NS are playing, but I guess if 2♣ was GF we probably wouldn't even be discussing the hand.

5-card majors, weak NT, 2♦ can be passed in this auction, as could 2NT by North over it.

[ArtK78]

lamford, on 2011-March-09, 08:16, said:

5-card majors, weak NT, 2♦ can be passed in this auction, as could 2NT by North over it.

Whoa! 2♦ can be passed on this auction? In that case, the BIT might suggest that North was considering passing the 2♦ call.

Now it is far from clear that the BIT made the 3NT call more likely to be correct. I am still very concerned about the BIT influencing the action. But now it could be argued that 3NT is more likely than not to be right and that pass is a logical alternative to 3NT. I am not going to go so far as to say that the BIT creates a lose-lose situation for South (if 3NT is makes the opps can complain if South bids 3NT, and if 3NT doesn't make the opps can complain if South does not bid 3NT).

I will let the result stand. EW was just somewhat unlucky.

[mjj29]

lamford, on 2011-March-09, 07:17, said:

East-West called for a ruling, as it was felt the 3NT bid might have been influenced by the BIT. If you impose a Pass on South, then East-West wins the match by 2 IMPs. Another point made by South was that failing to cover with Q109 was a classic example of a "serious error" unrelated to the original infraction, as dummy's card was surrounded. Indeed it was given as such by a TD seminar in San Remo. East was indignant, and indicated that playing low was the only chance to beat the contract. If you deny East-West redress, then North-South win the match.

Except, you don't deny redress, you deny such part of the redress as was caused by the error. In this case, one overtrick => at most one IMP.

In that case, E/W would win the match by just 1 IMP.

[lamford]

mjj29, on 2011-March-09, 11:04, said:

Except, you don't deny redress, you deny such part of the redress as was caused by the error. In this case, one overtrick => at most one IMP.

In that case, E/W would win the match by just 1 IMP.

Yes, I agree with that, but in this league 0-1 IMP is a draw, but East-West did not think that was a fair outcome.

[ahydra]

lamford, on 2011-March-09, 14:00, said:

Yes, I agree with that, but in this league 0-1 IMP is a draw, but East-West did not think that was a fair outcome.

Tough! The VP scale is what it is.

ahydra

[mycroft]

Okay, so E-W wins the match 15-14. WTP? (Assuming you are going to consider it a serious error, to which I would disagree, despite the TD training example, because I bet the training example duck allowed the contract to make, not to make an overtrick. East's argument that at IMPs, he's trying to beat 3, not 4, (and can't beat 3 by playing normally) holds. At MPs, maybe not so much).

(unpacking my statement a little, the SE,WoG adjustment doesn't apply to the offending side (L12C1b))

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-March-09, 15:42, said:

Assuming you are going to consider it a serious error, to which I would disagree, despite the TD training example, because I bet the training example duck allowed the contract to make, not to make an overtrick. (unpacking my statement a little, the SE,WoG adjustment doesn't apply to the offending side (L12C1b))

No, of course I don't think ducking is a serious error at all; I think that every play - and whether it is a serious error - should be judged in the context both of the hand as a whole and the standard of the players; this hand shows that exceptions will always disprove the rule. The correct decision on this board is solely based on whether bidding 3NT conforms with 16b AND with 73C. My guess is that it only fails on the latter. I can't imagine passing at IMPs.