[Trinidad]

The following deal occured at our club last week (MP pairs):

---

Before North doubled, the following conversation takes place between North and East:
N: "This is just old fashioned..?"
E: "Well err yeah, nothing special."
N: "It denies a four card major?"
E: "I would certainly think so."
And North doubles.
After the 3♦ bid, North states: "This I don't get." and looks at East for an explanation. East replies: "I think I get it, but we don't have an understanding and in the 6 years that we have been playing together an auction like this has not come up."
West declares and North leads. When the dummy comes down, North takes exception to Easts 3♣ bid: "You must know something more about West's hand, otherwise you would never bid 3♣ on a four card suit."
NS reserve their rights and at the end of the evening ask for a ruling from the TD. Now suddenly West's 1NT bid (skipping the 6 (six!) card diamond suit is the subject of their dismay.

How would you rule if you were asked for a ruling?

Rik

[barmar]

It's not that dangerous a bid. Assuming they play inverted minors, 1♣-1NT often has club support, or it's 3=3=5=2 so they have safety in diamonds. I think most would probably balance with a double rather than 3♣, but I don't think you can penalize for poor bidding.

I'd take East at his word that this hasn't come up before and hasn't been discussed, so there's no MI.

[hrothgar]

I'd tell North to grow up...

East decided to balance over 2♠
It happens. Get used to it.

Moreover, where is the damage...

Lets assume that that 3♣ was explained to be "scrambling" or some such.
How would this change the board result?

[aguahombre]

We might have some issues with North, but not with E/W. His questioning method emphasizing majors before making what is presumably a takeout double of clubs and holding only one diamond is approaching uncool.

[mgoetze]

Trinidad, on 2011-August-28, 08:40, said:

How would you rule if you were asked for a ruling?

20% of a top.

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-28, 09:04, said:

Lets assume that that 3♣ was explained to be "scrambling" or some such.
How would this change the board result?

North didn't have any problems with the explanation of 3♣. (No explanation was asked.) He meant that the mere fact that East would bid 3♣ on a hand like that was proof that the explanation of 1NT was wrong.

East's reasoning was something like: "West has at most 3 spades, therefore NS have at least 8. Letting them play in 2♠ won't make us rich. I expect West to have 4 clubs, though he could have 3 clubs and 4 diamonds that he didn't want to show. Odds are that playing 3♣ is going to be better than defending 2♠."

West's reasoning for his 1NT bid was: "I have tenaces in the majors. If partner has his 12-14 NT that he will have most of the time, I don't mind being declarer. My diamond suit is not worth mentioning for a suit contract at pairs. If it turns out we should have played in diamonds anyway, I will apologize to partner."

West's reasoning for the 3♦ bid was: "I expect East to have a balanced hand for his pass of 1NT or something close to it. With a very unbalanced hand he would have pulled the 1NT to 2♣, since I am implying club support or tolerance. It is likely that we will have more diamonds together than clubs."

Rik

[BunnyGo]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-28, 09:39, said:

20% of a top.

Against E/W, N/S, or both?

[mgoetze]

Trinidad, on 2011-August-28, 09:44, said:

North didn't have any problems with the explanation of 3♣. (No explanation was asked.) He meant that the mere fact that East would bid 3♣ on a hand like that was proof that the explanation of 1NT was wrong.

Nonsense. The truly "old fashioned" 1NT actually pretty much promises 4 clubs. Why should East not balance himself into an 8-card fit?

BunnyGo, on 2011-August-28, 10:01, said:

Against E/W, N/S, or both?

I thought it was obvious. :-) Against North/South of course.

[mich-b]

I don't know if EW bidding was good bridge or not , but I fail to see any legal\ethical problem with it.
West "improvised" a "creative" 1NT response, East took him seriously and balanced with 3♣. If anything , I think East's balance proves he was not aware of West's occasional creativeness.

[helene_t]

The disclosure was adequate and there was no damage.

North needs to be told not to waste the TD's time with complaint about opps who make different judgment calls than he would have made himself. Also, his way of asking is not quite kosher.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-August-28, 08:40, said:

Before North doubled, the following conversation takes place between North and East:
N: "This is just old fashioned..?"
E: "Well err yeah, nothing special."
N: "It denies a four card major?"
E: "I would certainly think so."
And North doubles.

Correct procedure would be:

N: "Please explain your auction"
W: "Normal opening values, could have as few as two clubs, no 5 card major" (or whatever else completely discloses their agreement about 1C). BTW, why is East answering questions about his own bid?
E: "1NT shows a balanced hand, 6-10 points, and no 4 card major" (again, whatever completely describes their agreement — note that West is permitted to deviate from that agreement, e.g., to bid 1NT with a six card suit, provided they do not have sufficient partnership experience of that call with that hand to establish an implicit partnership understanding).

That eliminates about 99% of the UI the actual conversation generated.

Trinidad, on 2011-August-28, 08:40, said:

After the 3♦ bid, North states: "This I don't get." and looks at East for an explanation. East replies: "I think I get it, but we don't have an understanding and in the 6 years that we have been playing together an auction like this has not come up."
West declares and North leads. When the dummy comes down, North takes exception to Easts 3♣ bid: "You must know something more about West's hand, otherwise you would never bid 3♣ on a four card suit."
NS reserve their rights and at the end of the evening ask for a ruling from the TD. Now suddenly West's 1NT bid (skipping the 6 (six!) card diamond suit is the subject of their dismay.

How would you rule if you were asked for a ruling?

I would investigate first by asking NS what rights they think they were reserving and what infraction(s) they think have been made.

Is it common in this club for people to wait to ask for a ruling until the TD is trying to get the final results out? Were EW available to give evidence at this point?

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-August-28, 16:30
Reason for edit: correct my note about implicit understanding.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-28, 11:45, said:

Correct procedure would be:

E: "1NT shows a balanced hand, 6-10 points, and no 4 card major" (again, whatever completely describes their agreement — note that West is permitted to deviate from that agreement, e.g., to bid 1NT with a six card suit, provided they have sufficient partnership experience of that call with that hand to establish an implicit partnership understanding).

Following "note that.." Is there a negative missing from what you are trying to say, such as "insufficent"? That doesn't mean I would agree if there were; West would still be permitted to do so, but it might affect the disclosure of 1NT.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-28, 11:45, said:

Correct procedure would be:

N: "Please explain your auction"
W: "Normal opening values, could have as few as two clubs, no 5 card major" (or whatever else completely discloses their agreement about 1C). BTW, why is East answering questions about his own bid?
E: "1NT shows a balanced hand, 6-10 points, and no 4 card major" (again, whatever completely describes their agreement — note that West is permitted to deviate from that agreement, e.g., to bid 1NT with a six card suit, provided they have sufficient partnership experience of that call with that hand to establish an implicit partnership understanding).
That eliminates about 99% of the UI the actual conversation generated.

Some clarification:
North didnot ask about the 1♣ opening. North only asked about the 1NT response. This is not that surprising since half of the club plays that a 1♣ opening promises only 2 clubs (5 card Majors, 4 Diamonds, 1♣ opening could be 4432). These players alert the 1♣ opening. It is the only alertable meaning for a 1♣ opening that is played in this club. In essence the alert of 1♣ already did all the explaining.

blackshoe, on 2011-August-28, 11:45, said:

I would investigate first by asking NS what rights they think they were reserving and what infraction(s) they think have been made.

Is it common in this club for people to wait to ask for a ruling until the TD is trying to get the final results out? Were EW available to give evidence at this point?

There is a playing TD. It is fairly common that players agree that the TD will rule on non technical issues at the end of the evening. The scoring is automated, so the TD is not frantically typing in results at that moment.

Rik

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-28, 09:23, said:

We might have some issues with North, but not with E/W. His questioning method emphasizing majors before making what is presumably a takeout double of clubs and holding only one diamond is approaching uncool.

I was sitting West. I was somewhat surprised when North led a small trump and South(!) pulled my trumps, leaving me with 2 spade losers, 2 trump losers and a club loser for a quick down 1. And yes, I did have an opinion on North's takeout double, but first of all I decided to keep it to myself and second that he could probably always convert the expected 2♦ to 2♥ to make partner pick a major. So, IMO, the double is relatively risk free.

But if your point is that the double is riskier than the 3♣ bid (e.g. since South might bid 3♦, or even 5♦) then I fully agree with you.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Yeh, somewhat...about pard bidding a bunch of diamonds, and maybe the conversation by North might reduce that chance. But, as most agreed on other threads, equal-level conversion does not normally apply to anything other than diamonds after a club advance to a 1M double.

If he doubled, without all the questioning and pulled 2D to 2H he should be expected to have a biggie with more than 4 Hearts. Anyway, North's verbage and his hand combine to make me not like him much.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-28, 11:57, said:

Following "note that.." Is there a negative missing from what you are trying to say, such as "insufficent"? That doesn't mean I would agree if there were; West would still be permitted to do so, but it might affect the disclosure of 1NT.

"do not have sufficient..."

I'll fix the post. Thanks for catching it.

[blackshoe]

I like Helene's ruling.

[bluejak]

There is something about North's attitude that makes me feel we need a DP, but I am not sure. There is always a problem with the large number of people who expect everyone to bid the way they do, but they are usually a bit less assertive than North. I cannot make my mind up between giving North 20% of a top DP and merely telling him to grow up.

If North is merely an eternal novice I tell him to grow up, explaining that the E/W bidding is certainly no stranger than his double. If he is an experienced player I give him a DP. In between ......