[gwnn]

---

N calls you after the hand, saying that he thought they were playing 2C=weak with both majors or strong. The CC is unclear (2/1 is written in the front with some description on opening on the 1 level, 2D/H/S are all marked as weak twos, but nothing is written about 2C) - NS just completed it between round 1 and 2.

W says he would never have jumped to 5D if he had known that 2C can be weak. S passed first because he thought free bids should show 6 cards.

5Dx went 2 off. In a wonderful show of active ethics, W says that 4H actually makes so there was no damage and S says yes, if I stop below slam with 12 opposite a strong opener...

[ArtK78]

I don't understand West's argument. Why would he bid less if he knew North's hand could be weak, but if 2♣ were strong he bids 5♦ at equal nonvul on a balanced hand? If 2♣ were strong his side could easily go for 500 (or 1100 opposite a slam).

Also, I hear what South said but I just cannot fathom a pass on a 12 count facing a strong 2♣ opener. Yes, the hand will not be passed out in 2♦, but don't you think you should clue partner in on the fact that you have values? Assuming that South is not allowed to bid 3♣ (which seems perfectly normal) then at least a 3♦ call should be made?

South took quite a position with a penalty double of 5♦, but at least I can understand that he expected a large penalty. No doubt he was disappointed.

If North was mistaken about the partnership agreement (and the evidence points in that direction, although South's actions are strange) then I don't think there is anything that can be done. Quite frankly, West may be getting a good score anyway.

[jallerton]

 ArtK78, on 2012-June-04, 11:59, said:

I don't understand West's argument. Why would he bid less if he knew North's hand could be weak, but if 2♣ were strong he bids 5♦ at equal nonvul on a balanced hand? If 2♣ were strong his side could easily go for 500 (or 1100 opposite a slam).

If an opponent makes a 2-level opening bid which could be a weak 1-suiter or 2-suiter, it is normal to bid constructively in case your side has game on. [Even if there are strong options to the opening bid, the weak options are more frequent]. West would not expect to make 5♦ opposite (say) a minimum opening bid with 5♦ so would not raise to 5♦ constructively.

If an opponent opens an artificial 2♣ showing a (near) game forcing hand, it is normal for overcalls to be destructive as we are now probably not making game on high card power. Now with the opponents cold for game and perhaps having a slam available, it is not at all unreasonable for West to pre-emptively raise to 5♦, especially when neither opponent has yet shown any suit.

Quote

Also, I hear what South said but I just cannot fathom a pass on a 12 count facing a strong 2♣ opener. Yes, the hand will not be passed out in 2♦, but don't you think you should clue partner in on the fact that you have values? Assuming that South is not allowed to bid 3♣ (which seems perfectly normal) then at least a 3♦ call should be made?

If 2♣ is strong, South's Pass over 2♦ is forcing. Some play here than Pass shows values, as they use Double with a double negative type hand.

[barmar]

We need to know what the actual agreement is. If the agreement is strong, the alert was correct and North has misbid, so there's no adjustment (North has UI from the alert, but it doesn't seem like he's used it). If the agreement is weak majors or strong, EW have MI and I believe that it led to their poor result, so we should adjust.

In this case, with NS formulating their agreements at the last minute, it may be difficult to discern if they have any actual agreement about this. If they never specifically discussed this, you'd probably have to go by whatever is most "standard" among 2/1 players in the area.

[VixTD]

 barmar, on 2012-June-05, 10:34, said:

We need to know what the actual agreement is. If the agreement is strong, the alert was correct and North has misbid, so there's no adjustment (North has UI from the alert, but it doesn't seem like he's used it). If the agreement is weak majors or strong, EW have MI and I believe that it led to their poor result, so we should adjust.

In this case, with NS formulating their agreements at the last minute, it may be difficult to discern if they have any actual agreement about this. If they never specifically discussed this, you'd probably have to go by whatever is most "standard" among 2/1 players in the area.

No. North thinks they're playing 2♣ as weak with both majors, South thinks they're playing it as strong and artificial. The convention card is silent on the matter. Law 75 says:

Quote

the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

So the TD will rule as if North's opinion was correct, and South's incorrect. The TD needs to find out how EW would have bid differently had they been given a correct explanation, and what NS would have done if South had given a correct explanation but acted as if he thought it was artificial and strong, with North under ethical constraint not to take advantage of the UI that South has misunderstood.

East will still want to overcall, presumably. South will still pass. West may raise to only 3♦. North and East will pass, and what will South do? I find it difficult to imagine being in this position, as I would expect my partner to double with a balanced hand, or bid the suit they were intending to rebid when they opened. I expect I'd bid 4♦ and end up too high in hearts, but I would want to ask NS about what methods they have (if any) over interference to a strong artificial 2♣ opener.

[barmar]

Couldn't what's "standard" be considered "evidence to the contrary" when dealing with an undiscussed sequence by a pair who had agreed to play a named system? If you sit down as a last minute fill-in in the US, and the extent of your discussion were "2/1 Game Forcing", wouldn't you just assume things like 15-17 1NT and strong, artificial 2♣? Even if you had a couple of minutes to discuss, 2♣ might not come up, since there are other things with more variation that are more important -- what kinds of transfers over 1NT, defense to opponents' 1NT, Lebensohl, carding, etc. Although you might need to discuss 2♣ in the context of your response structure (i.e. how responder shows a bust).