[mjj29]

Suffolk vs Cambridge University teams of 8 (total score => IMPs => VPs) last Sunday.

---

1H was alerted and described as a transfer to spades. It's unclear what 1S was - other than forcing. The double of 1S was 'three card support' - either of spades if 1H was a transfer or hearts if it wasn't. I can't remember the rest of the auction from that point (I seem to have misplaced by notes), but it ended up with NS playing 2H-2 for -200 (2H was bid because NS weren't sure what was going on, but noone had bid hearts naturally). After the play, East admitted that 1H had be misexplained and that it was systemically natural. South says that with the correct information (that 1H was natural) she might have passed or she might have bid 1NT.

Details of the ruling I gave will be posted later in the thread. I was a playing director for Cambridge University (although in the B team rather than the A team where this ruling came from). The Suffolk captain decided against appealing this ruling despite being unhappy with it - but is appealing another ruling which I might post after the appeal has been heard.

[MickyB]

I believe this was the full auction.

---

[FrancesHinden]

This is horrible

Quote

South says that with the correct information (that 1H was natural) she might have passed or she might have bid 1NT.

I don't really understand South's actions. Over a natural 1H she would either pass or bid 1NT. Over a 1H-transfer-to-spades, she could equally well pass or bid 1NT - her holdings in the majors opposite a take-out double are very similar. North/South appear to have orchestrated their own demise.

Devil's advocate: would this have happened had 1H been properly explained as natural? Probably not, so I suppose we are going to adjust for EW whatever happens... although goodness knows to what. Probably 1NT making 8 tricks.

[AlexJonson]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-March-01, 14:36, said:

This is horrible



I don't really understand South's actions. Over a natural 1H she would either pass or bid 1NT. Over a 1H-transfer-to-spades, she could equally well pass or bid 1NT - her holdings in the majors opposite a take-out double are very similar. North/South appear to have orchestrated their own demise.

Devil's advocate: would this have happened had 1H been properly explained as natural? Probably not, so I suppose we are going to adjust for EW whatever happens... although goodness knows to what. Probably 1NT making 8 tricks.

This seems a perfect analysis to me (whether or not inconclusive).

I will be interested to see if there is a different view of the whole thing based on the (unknown) agreements of the players.

[iviehoff]

The way I would describe it is that if 1H had been described as natural, S wouldn't have had the option available of making the mistake he actually made of bidding 1S as a cue bid.

But I think there should perhaps be a weighted score of some more outcomes. 1N isn't so nice for NS, because the diamonds are blocked and there is no outside entry to the S hand. But I imagine it will usually scrape home, if not always with an overtrick.

But South did say he might pass, (indicating he is aware his partner makes truly horrible take-out doubles?) If South passes, it might be EW who are playing 1N, which, with NS having no visibility of the diamond situation in defence, has a reasonable chance of making in that direction too.

[campboy]

I don't think E/W can play in 1NT, since if South passes West will bid 1♠. From East's perspective this is a new suit, so they have an 8-card spade fit.