[gnasher]

Quote

EW ... had lost the match by 3 IMPs
...
the score at the other table had been 4♠=
...
a member of the EW team ... thought I should not have allowed any contracts where NS stopped in a part-score ... And even if I had accepted this EW argument and awarded Game-1, they would still have lost the match by 1 IMP.

If the table result was EW+140 or EW+170, that was 7 or 6 IMPs to NS.

If you'd changed the result to EW-50, that would have been 10 IMPs to NS.

So it seems to me that an adjusted score of 4♠-1 would have led to either a tie or a win to EW. Have I misunderstood?

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-April-18, 04:28, said:

If the table result was EW+140 or EW+170, that was 7 or 6 IMPs to NS.

If you'd changed the result to EW-50, that would have been 10 IMPs to NS.

So it seems to me that an adjusted score of 4♠-1 would have led to either a tie or a win to EW. Have I misunderstood?

I see now that I had the vulnerability wrong in the original hand record - corrected now.

Table result: 620-140 = 480 = 10 IMP

Weighted ruling:
620-140 = 480 = 10 IMP
620-120 = 500 = 11 IMP
620-110 = 510 = 11 IMP
620+100 = 720 = 12 IMP
Average = 11 IMP

Ruling argued for by EW team:
620+100 = 720 = 12 IMP

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2011-April-18, 05:19

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2011-April-16, 02:27, said:

1♣=Weak NT, or clubs
1♠= no 4cM, not single-suited GF

(spot cards may differ from original - posted from memory)

You are in uncharted territory.
Your call now?

---

I agree with Gnasher: it depends on what agreements we have got about potentially analogous sequences.

What do we play after (1♣)[2+]-1NT-(P)-?
What do we play after (1suit)[natural]-P-(P)-1NT-(P)-?
What do we play after (1♣)[2+]-P-(P)-1NT-(P)-?

If, in the light of our actual agreements, I think that "natural, weak" and "clubs" are both significant possibilities, then I'll bid 2NT. If partner has clubs, he'll bid 3♣ or 3NT. If partner has spades, he might interpret 2NT a natural with a spade fit, but I don't mind that: opposite ♠AJ10xx and litle else, 3NT could easily make, whilst if he has a bad hand with spades, he can sign off in 3♠.

3♣ is another possible call to hedge my bets, although I prefer the more flexible 2NT.

gordontd, on 2011-April-18, 03:51, said:

South is a very experienced but elderly player who is not especially comfortable with complicated system. At the beginning of the match he remarked on the EW system, and said that he would ask a lot and that nothing should be read into it. They discussed how to defend against responses of 1♦ & 1♥, but not 1♠, and it was a point of uncertainty to both of them whether 1NT in the sandwich position should be natural or two-suited.

The 1♣ opening had come up several times already and he had asked about it, so he didn't ask again in this auction. The 1♠ bid (alerted) had not come up before and South asked whether it showed spades, before bidding 2♠ himself. Both he and North said that he was asking to try to work out whether the 1NT bid was strong balanced or two-suited, but it did have the unfortunate effect of removing any doubt that North might have had as to the nature of the 2♠ bid.

The uncertainty about the meaning of 1NT makes life more complicated. If I judge from my partner's question (UI to me, of course) that he might think my 1NT bid is a 2-suiter then perhaps a bid of 2NT now (which "confirms" the natural nature of the 1NT bid) is not permitted by Law 73C.

Therefore if I consider 3♣ to be a plausible action, that is the call I should make.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2011-April-18, 03:51, said:

I discussed the case with bluejak, and considered that the question about the 1♠ bid prior to bidding 2♠ provided unauthorised information, and that bidding on (with 2NT, which is what I was told is the system bid) was a logical alternative to passing. It was this question that led me to post the hand here, to see how many would bid on and how many would pass. My expectation was that most would pass, but that enough would bid on to make it an LA. From there I thought that there were various outcomes, bearing in mind that both players knew they were in uncharted territory. I gave a weighted ruling based on equal percentages of 3♠=, 3♦=, 2NT= and 3NT-1. This gave the EW team 1 more IMP (the score at the other table had been 4♠=).

Judgement of Solomon, as usual
Solomon invented weighted rulings

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-April-18, 03:51, said:

By the time I had finished all this, at a bit after 1.30am, only one player remained in the club - a member of the EW team. He thought I should not have allowed any contracts where NS stopped in a part-score. However, I believe that had they been playing with screens, and knowing of the uncertainty of their agreements, they might well have stopped (South held KJxxx, xx, Kxxx, xx). And even if I had accepted this EW argument and awarded Game-1, they would still have lost the match by 1 IMP.

Based on the facts as presented, I agree that asking and then bidding 2S conveys UI. And I agree with the member of the E/W team that there is no reason to allow North-South to stop below game. After North's 2NT, South will interpret this as a super-accept, and will surely jump to 4S. This will be a bit of a shock to North, as 2S showed clubs, and might be interpreted as a forward-going move for clubs, perhaps exclusion RKCB, or just a void (although in Surrey it might be interpreted as five spades and six clubs). North, visualising something like none xx Kx AQxxxxx opposite, will jump to 7C and someone might double this. East-West win the match, and everybody lives happily ever after. How North-South might bid with screens is not so relevant. When they have UI they have to carefully avoid ...

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-April-18, 09:03, said:

The uncertainty about the meaning of 1NT makes life more complicated. If I judge from my partner's question (UI to me, of course) that he might think my 1NT bid is a 2-suiter then perhaps a bid of 2NT now (which "confirms" the natural nature of the 1NT bid) is not permitted by Law 73C.

Therefore if I consider 3♣ to be a plausible action, that is the call I should make.

I agree with that argument, and that is also going to catapult North-South into the nether regions, as South will surely jump to 4S and North will press on.

[olegru]

gordontd, on 2011-April-18, 03:51, said:

South is a very experienced but elderly player who is not especially comfortable with complicated system. At the beginning of the match he remarked on the EW system, and said that he would ask a lot and that nothing should be read into it. ...
The 1♣ opening had come up several times already and he had asked about it ...
The 1♠ bid (alerted) had not come up before and South asked ...

This description of events looks for me like South asked about every alerted bid, until they repeated several times.
In this case absence of question about meaning of alerted bid would be more suspicious then question. Wording probably wrong, but I would like to know more about wording he choose to asked about other alerted bids.

[lamford]

olegru, on 2011-April-18, 15:06, said:

This description of events looks for me like South asked about every alerted bid, until they repeated several times.
In this case absence of question about meaning of alerted bid would be more suspicious then question. Wording probably wrong, but I would like to know more about wording he choose to asked about other alerted bids.

I think if South had said something like "would someone tell me what your auction means", then there would be no problem, but the pointed reference to the 1S bid is, as gordontd found, UI, and could be construed as a breach of 73B1.