[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-April-11, 09:49, said:

Which is it -- they have an agreement but one forgot, or they don't have an agreement?

I have no idea; it was not at a North London Club. The OP did not state which he had established. Maybe the CCs were silent on the subject. I refer you again to a definition of agreement:

agreement
əˈɡriːm(ə)nt/
noun
harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling

They are deemed to have an agreement rather than have misbid, under
21B(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

For the purpose of MI we deem them to have an "agreement", even though they did not "agree". For ruling on MI we assume they had an agreement. We know that they did not agree on the meaning of 2H, but even if West passes, North will takeout the takeout double.

[mycroft]

So, as West, I showed spades and partner bid hearts. I have no clue what that means (let's assume), and it got doubled. I actually have stuff for my disruption (I don't remember the last time I had an opening bid after p-p-2♣, assuming 2♣ wasn't "22 or 8.5 tricks, could be AKJT-ninth in a major"); and partner has a bid to clarify. Why am I not passing?

Oh yeah, partner didn't Alert. He thinks I have hearts. He's going to pass this, and it's going to go for its life. Better make the Unauthorized Panic call.

Sure, I'm assuming something like "bidding to forced level is the worst possible hand". But I can investigate that, too, right? I know if I poll this one out with my level of Flight Bs, I'm going to get lots and lots of "partner must have forgot. 3♠" and, if I make clear that it was alerted and asked, and partner told us all it showed spades, some of them will *still* bid 3♠. But I really hope that the poll will tell me that pass is a Logical Alternative.

Now, is North going to pass 3♥X? She's shown her game force, partner's suggested this is going down, and the colours are right. She has the minors, partner likely has the majors, and one only needs -2 for +500 into +460. I don't think she's going to do it 100% of the time, but it's not unreasonable. Remember, she's not entitled to the information they're having an accident, but she is entitled to their agreements which is that West showed spades, and East bid hearts - and I'm happy to sit for 3♠X too.
If 3♥X does get to East, it looks like an autopass.

If North pulls, South will then bid 4♥. Does that get the point across? Not sure, but I'll poll that one too. Let's assume so as they're the NOS.

So, unless I hear something with the questioning and polling, how about:

• 70% of 3♥x W N/S +2000 (♣K lead seems sane; 4 rounds of trump, North showing strength in both minors, and then a diamond. I'll let West cash out.)
  
• 30% of 4♥ S N/S +420

(or maybe 60-20-20 5♥S-1?)

Now, to the other questions in the OP.

• The fact that some Souths opened this 4♥ (or 4♣ for that matter) and got to 5 means nothing. This South didn't.
  
• Is 6♥ a doubleshot? The MI has denied me the chance to know there's a spade hole. 3♠ *should* show 7 spades or so as I know West doesn't have hearts despite the table auction. Do we play first or first-and-second cuebids by responder to 2♣? If first, partner could very easily have a stiff spade, stiff heart, and A of diamonds and a card and 6 is on; but it's putting partner on a magic hand. If first-and-second, then clearly either partner is running from 4♥ (which I hope she's not) or we're off two spades. 6 is a crazy bid. Frankly, in Flight B I can see 5♦ as "partner I heard you had hearts and hearts, my suit (that I didn't bother to bid the last two times) is better, because no suit plays well opposite a void." - and at that point, who knows what we can make? If, after several queries, we want to call it a Gambling Action, sure, give 'em a split score.
  
• misbid is an option for the TD, but we would have to have evidence that beats the presumption of Mistaken Explanation (over Mistaken Bid) that East was right, and they play natural. Having said that, the Unauthorized Panic call still needs to be justified or they're getting a big fraction of down 6.
  
• should you appeal it? I'd certainly ask the DIC to explain the ruling at least; after hearing what questioning and polling got done, perhaps I'd be convinced that I just got a bad, and not a wrong, ruling. I might also be so embarrassed about my bidding (from both sides) that I'll just let it slide. It might be a club game and I don't care. It might be that it was a split ruling - I don't think I'm appealing a Serious Error 5♦ or Gambling 6♥ ruling - and E/W aren't getting a good score either.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 10:28, said:

The OP did not state which he had established.

Which is why I suggested that the TD should investigate the matter. I still do not understand why you are against this.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-11, 10:53, said:

Which is why I suggested that the TD should investigate the matter. I still do not understand why you are against this.

I saw little point in it, as even if 3H was natural and non-forcing, despite the ability to pass 2H, and even if West were to pass this, North, who thinks double of 3H is takeout, would not pass.

Why not, while you are pursuing the wild-goose chase, ask EW if they have discussed 2NT, 3C and 3D or other non-completions of the transfer overcall of a strong 2C. Standard methods, for all the but the rabbits and zelandakhs of the world are to play that non-completion of a transfer shows a fit. Especially when the opponents have forced to game. But if you want to message pigpenz, you can find out if he or the TD asked.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2016-April-11, 10:32, said:

partner's suggested this is going down

Rubbish. Double of 3H was not alerted and therefore takeout in the UK.

[sanst]

I don't think that we have enough relevant information to give an opinion which isn't based on assumptions. We don't even know which jurisdiction is involved and what is usual there. Nevertheless I also will give my view.
It's clear that there is MI and thus an infraction. Is there damage? As far as I can make out, NS caim so, and the TD agrees. But is the damage caused by the infraction? Not in my opinion. Just forget for a moment the MI. N knows that S has a strong, maybe even a very strong, hand with hearts. Without knowing more than that N has shown values S bids 4♥. Nowhere in the OP is given a indication that N thought it was a cue, let alone a cue for what? From thereon things go wrong for NS, N bidding 5♦ based on what? S thinks it's a invitation for slam and pulls 6♥ from the box, but S can deduct from the bidding that W must have spades and values, bidding as he did vul vs nv. 6♥ is both wild and gambling in my book and I don't see any connection between this bid and the MI, so both sides should keep their score. And yes, based on the facts given I would say that NS could appeal.
Something else is the MI-case for EW. You could give them a PP or DP.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 11:21, said:

Rubbish. Double of 3H was not alerted and therefore takeout in the UK.

Why do you think this took place in any part of the UK?

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-11, 12:26, said:

Why do you think this took place in any part of the UK?

I thought I had seen posts from UK events by pigpenz before, but maybe I am confusing him with pigtrader. Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted? I know they don't generally alert doubles in Holland, and we should be told the jurisdiction in the OP.

And if you think 3H is natural and non-forcing, then I presume you play 1NT-(Pass)-2H*-(Pass)-3H to be natural and non-forcing! The default agreement for that, even among lower level club players who have not discussed transfer continuations, is a transfer break with four good hearts. West is completely unsuitable for a spade game, especially with a strong 2C on his right and a singleton opposite partner's values and rightly signs off in 3S.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 13:21, said:

Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted?

they are not alerted where I play for one. My guess is that would apply to several others.

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 13:21, said:

And if you think 3H is natural and non-forcing,

It is irrelevant what I would play just as it is irrelevant what you would choose. What either of us might do in a completely different auction is even less of interest and it boggles my mind why you are choosing to hijack this thread with such nonsense.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-11, 14:17, said:

It is irrelevant what I would play just as it is irrelevant what you would choose. What either of us might do in a completely different auction is even less of interest and it boggles my mind why you are choosing to hijack this thread with such nonsense.

It boggles my mind why you are choosing to suggest that a transfer break should be natural and non-forcing (from West's point of view using the authorised auction of course). That is the nonsense, and you are the one hijacking the thread. No doubt you think you are right just as with your comment on the Rabbit's Rithmetic where you thought the claim ruling was easy. Except that your ruling was just wrong:

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-05, 08:22, said:

The claim is easy - stated line is ♥A followed by 6 side suit winners, which results in 13 tricks. Dealing with the ethical side is another matter but there is no guarantee that that will even come to light.

Let us move on to the ruling here please. If you have something useful to contribute to that I am prepared to listen. But I don't want to have to respond to your suggestion that West should pass 3H any more. I disagree, and don't think Pass is in the ballpark.

And it seems that in the ACBL South's double is alertable if is penalties:

"1♥-Dbl or 1♦-P-1♠-Dbl
If either double is penalty or lead directing only, an Alert is required." are the only two examples given, but 2C*-(2H)-Pass-(3H)-Double where 2C is artificial must surely be similarly alertable as penalties would be a highly unusual treatment. The UK just makes it alertable in a blanket way. In Croatia, it would be alertable, and in Poznan (EBL) it would have been alertable too.

I do agree that it would be nice to state the jurisdiction in each post. I always post "North London club" to make it clear that it is the EBU!

This post has been edited by lamford: 2016-April-11, 15:21

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 13:21, said:

Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted?

There's Scotland, which is in fact part of the UK. Though it may not be for much longer if people keep annoying the Scots by conflating England with the UK.

I think it's normal for double to be penalty in this auction. With a "takeout" type, you make a forcing pass.

Furthermore, the auction auggests that Nroth thought it was for penalties. With xxx - Kxxxx KQxxx opposite a hand that was worth a 2♣ opening,a takeout double of hearts, and a 4♥ cue-bid, North has a grand-slam drive. The fact that he bid 5♦ suggests that he thought the auction meant something rather different.

Even furthermore, I don't understand why you assume that double wasn't alerted. The OP didn't indicate that the 2♣ opening was either alerted or announced. Should we therefore assume that North did neither, and hence that North interpreted 2♣ as some unalertable meaning (supposing that there is one in the is in the juristiction that you keep calling "the UK")?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2016-April-11, 17:21, said:

There's Scotland, which is in fact part of the UK. Though it may not be for much longer if people keep annoying the Scots by conflating England with the UK.

I think it's normal for double to be penalty in this auction. With a "takeout" type, you make a forcing pass.

Furthermore, the auction auggests that Nroth thought it was for penalties. With xxx - Kxxxx KQxxx opposite a hand that was worth a 2♣ opening,a takeout double of hearts, and a 4♥ cue-bid, North has a grand-slam drive. The fact that he bid 5♦ suggests that he thought the auction meant something rather different.

Even furthermore, I don't understand why you assume that double wasn't alerted. The OP didn't indicate that the 2♣ opening was either alerted or announced. Should we therefore assume that North did neither, and hence that North interpreted 2♣ as some unalertable meaning (supposing that there is one in the is in the juristiction that you keep calling "the UK")?

I assume that the OP gives alerts if there were any. I always try to when starting an OP. A strong 2C we can forgive, but not an unalerted double, if it was indeed alertable or alerted. You are right about Scotland, as I find:

"Do NOT alert the following:
1. All doubles."

However, it is alertable in many other jurisdictions. North's pass was shown to be "a positive" and that was the only alerted bid in the diagram. Perhaps we should wait for pigpenz to tidy up the pig's ear that he made of the OP, by including the jurisdiction, and clarifying what the actual EW agreement was, and whether any bids were alerted, alertable but not alerted, asked about, or explained at the time. And I think it is just as good to play double as takeout and pass to show a strong balanced hand. With one partner I play that double is the lower range of the Kokish balanced hands and pass is the higher range where both are available. I doubt whether pigpenz investigated that either.

I am glad that you have not resumed the argument that East's 3H was natural and non-forcing!

This post has been edited by lamford: 2016-April-11, 20:15

[Pig Trader]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 13:21, said:

.... but maybe I am confusing him with pigtrader.

I confuse you even when I don't post anything?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 19:32, said:

I am glad that you have not resumed the argument that East's 3H was natural and non-forcing!

Personally I don't think that internet discussions benefit from having someone repeatedly say the same thing. I realise that you may not agree with this approach.

But since you seem in some doubt as to my views, I still believe that it is a logical alternative to interpret 3♥ as natural and showing only hearts, and to pass 3♥x.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 13:21, said:

Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted? I know they don't generally alert doubles in Holland, and we should be told the jurisdiction in the OP.

Not just Holland, but all of the Netherlands . In fact the Dutch Bridge Union more or less follows the WBF Alerting Policy, which means no alertable doubles, but alerting when possibly an unexpected meaning.

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 11:13, said:

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts. Ask 100 club-level players about the auction (2♣) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥. How many do you think would say this was a FNJ?

I don't think that question really settles the matter. Obviously if 3♥ is your only way to show long hearts, it shows long hearts. But if you have another way to show long hearts (by passing partner's heart bid, as here), then maybe it doesn't any more.

Of course, the following is even less relevant:

lamford said:

And if you think 3H is natural and non-forcing, then I presume you play 1NT-(Pass)-2H*-(Pass)-3H to be natural and non-forcing!

At the risk of stating the obvious, if you've already shown a balanced hand you don't really need a bid to show lots of hearts. That's basically the reason transfer breaks show support after a no-trump opening: because the natural meaning doesn't make sense. If the natural meaning isn't impossible (eg after a balanced-or-natural 1♣ opening and a transfer response) then that's a completely different story.

Anyway, I suspect both interpretations are logical alternatives here. But the only reason a FNJ is even plausible is that partner could have passed if he wanted to play in hearts. It's nothing to do with being a "transfer break"; 3m would clearly be natural NF.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2016-April-12, 03:08, said:

3m would clearly be natural NF.

Here we disagree, and I gave the auction to a few top players, with 2H as a transfer. Given that NS have forced to game, effectively, they thought 2S would be normal, 2NT should be "I have a suit of my own", and 3C, 3D and 3H should be fit. Pass would, as you say, be just hearts, but maybe that is a bit avant garde for some.

[blackshoe]

I could be mistaken, but I believe Pigpenz is in the US.

"TD ruled that there was damage and rolled contract back to 4♥ making instead of 6♥ down two."

"There was damage" is of course only one of the several criteria for adjusting the score.

Without knowing what 3♥ means in this partnership, I don't think we can rule here, save in the sense of "do something to let play continue" which isn't necessary.

[pigpenz]

sorry for all the confusion, yes i am in usa and thought this was appeals and committe forums for all just not ebu!
how this all happened was previous table we ran into preciscion pair and i asked if we play anything. partner said lets play mathe and transfers against their big club.
so partner thought it was all forcing clubs and i assumed only big one club.

there was no alerts at to 3 ♥ x as penalties or take out. if south had passed west would have to pass i assume. there was no understanding on the 3♥ call, mostly at the table what occurred was some table talk by north as to what is going on here

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2016-April-12, 04:31, said:

Here we disagree, and I gave the auction to a few top players, with 2H as a transfer. Given that NS have forced to game, effectively, they thought 2S would be normal, 2NT should be "I have a suit of my own", and 3C, 3D and 3H should be fit. Pass would, as you say, be just hearts, but maybe that is a bit avant garde for some.

I gave the auction to some of the people I work with. They said they didn't know what it meant, or indeed what I was talking about. That's because none of them play bridge. Unless you have reason to think that West was in the same class as your "top players", the results of my poll are almost as irrelevant as the results of yours.

In any case, you didn't even ask your pollees the right question. The relevant question is not "What does 3♥ mean?", but "What would you do in this auction, facing an undiscussed 3♥, and what other actions would you seriously consider?"

Regardless of what you think 3♥ ought to mean, once South doubles it's obvious to pass 3♥. If he has a fit-bid he will bid 3♠; if he has a hand like xx KQ109xxx x xxx he will pass. He will know that his 3[he[ is undiscussed, and he's awae that he's just been penalty-doubled in 3[he], so there is no chance that he will interepet the pass of 3♥x as encouraging and bid 4♠.

Even if you don't accept that it's obviousl to pass 3♥x, it's surely a logical alternative.