[jallerton]

Scoring: IMP

1C(1)-P-1S-P-
2C-P-3H(2)-P-
4H-P-5C-P-
P-P

---

(1) Alerted, natural or balanced [playing 5-card majors]
(2) Not alerted

E/W were a new partnership and this sequence was undiscussed. West hoped/expected that her partner would interpret 3♥ as a splinter. East was aware of two possible meanings for 3♥ [splinter and natural] and says that she bid 4♥ "as 3♥ might have been intended as natural".

Table result: 5♣= by East, N/S -600 after opening lead of ♦Q

TD's Statement of Facts

The TD was called at the end of the hand by North. If 3♥ had been alerted, he would have doubled for a heart lead. Also, he stated surprise that E/W stopped in game after the cue bidding sequence.

West stated that she interpreted 4♥ as control showing. When asked why she had not bid 4♠ over 4♥, she replied: "My partner had not cue bid 3♠ or 4♦ so I felt we were likely to have 2 losers."

TD's Ruling

80% of 6♣-1 by E, N/S +100
+20% of 5♣= by E*, N/S -600

*by different route: 1♣-1♠-2♣-3♥-4♥-4♠-5♣-P

Details of Ruling

The lack of alert of 3♥ is UI to West. Laws 16B1, 12C1c, 73C

E/W Appealed

Basis of Appeal

1. [West] Assuming that partner has interpreted by bid correctly, she has denied a control in diamonds or spades, in which case I may not even be worth a slam try. In fact our agreement is that 5♣ is more forward-going than a discouraging 4NT, so I had made a mild effort.

2. [West] Since I knew we had no agreement about 3♥, how can there be any UI?

3. [East] If I had been in 6♣, I might have made it on the actual lead of ♦Q.

4. Had North doubled 3♥, East would have passed and the problem would not have arisen.

Comments by N/S

[South] I might have led differently against 6♣, particularly if my partner had doubled 3♥.

How would you rule if on the AC?

[RMB1]

Was there misinformation? Is an undiscussed bid that you are going to treat as natural alertable (in the EBU)? We have discussed this before - the answer appears to be: no, not alertable.

Was there unauthorised information? Yes, the failure to alert tells West that East thinks 3♥ is discussed and natural or is undiscussed and East is "taking it" as natural. The unauthorised information suggests that 4♥ is a natural raise of hearts, so is not control showing, so does not deny controls in by-passed suits.

I seem to be arguing that UI suggests further slam "try" (6♣ / 4NT / 4♠ ) over signing off in 5♣. Even if 5♣ were not a logical alternative, we would allow it if the alternatives were suggested by the UI.

...

I must be wrong somewhere: it's too early in the morning.

[mjj29]

RMB1, on Oct 5 2010, 01:55 AM, said:

I must be wrong somewhere: it's too early in the morning.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to rule table result stands. E/W had an undiscussed auction - I don't like the idea that just because you encounter a sequence you've not discussed you should get a bad score. If people wish to change the regulations to make "undiscussed" alertable (or should it be an announcement, so people don't assume it's an alertable meaning, rather than undiscussed when they can't be bothered to ask?) then I won't complain too much, but I feel very strongly that people shouldn't just be hung out to dry because they've not discussed a particular sequence.

[hotShot]

I may be naive, but I think there has to be a legal and ethical way to act if you don't have sufficient agreements.

West made a bid, knowing that it was undiscussed and could be taken in a wrong way.
East raise to 4♥ made it clear that the bid was taken as natural, otherwise East would have bid ♠ or the minors.
East also knows that the bid is undiscussed and 5♣ is a clear indication that West does not want to play in ♥.

So I think the table result has to stand.

[gordontd]

Do we know anything about EW's cue-bidding style?

[bluejak]

"undiscussed" sounds very black and white. When I make a call which is undiscussed it can be anything from

• While I have not discussed this specific sequence I know we have agreements in very similar positions TO
  
• Everyone I know plays this this way so no doubt she will TO
  
• From our general style I can infer how she will take it TO
  
• I cannot remember whether we have discussed it or not TO
  
• Well I think it obvious what it means and if she does not she will know for next time

I think where "undiscussed "is on the ladder affects things like whether it should be alerted and how reasonable it is to make the call knowing of the potential UI problems.

[Cyberyeti]

I actually think 5♣ is the ethical bid. From W's point of view, responding to the splinter, E has bid as if he has x, AQxx, QJx, KQxxx or similar (but maybe he has ♦xxx or is missing ♣Q). He's denied a diamond control or a high card spade control.

In fact you know he could easily have a diamond control as he's not read your splinter as such. If 6 had been bid and it had made as it might have done on better breaks, opps would have rapidly called the director to get it adjusted back.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on Oct 5 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Do we know anything about EW's cue-bidding style?

I believe the agreememt was Italian cue bidding (cue the cheapest control first even if 2nd round). Many players at this level would be reluctant to cue bid a shortage in partner's suit, although I would guess that this point had probably not been explicitly discussed.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Oct 4 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

1.  [West] <snip> In fact our agreement is that 5♣ is more forward-going than a discouraging 4NT, so I had made a mild effort.

It is strange how East-West have such precise agreements over whether 4NT or 5C is stronger, but did not know whether 3H was a splinter. That seems improbable to me.

Also what does 4H mean, and it is an interesting bidding question as well as a rules question? It clearly denies a first round diamond control, and denies Kx in spades, but why did East not bid 4C if he lacked a diamond control? I guess it is some sort of picture bid like x AKxx Qx KQ10xxx. West should bid 4S over it, as he has the ace of spades and king of diamonds. Clearly 5C (or 4NT) is not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of the UI. However 4S does not excite East, who can see wasted values there. But with bad trumps (he still thinks hearts are trumps), he will sign off in 5H for now. West will go back to 6C, but why should East pass that? Does that not sound like a further grand slam try in hearts, something like AKQxx AQJxx KQx none? The problem with UI auctions is that they rapidly go out of control, and I recall Burn-Price bidding to 6H, after a 2NT opener showing 5-5 in the minors was not alerted, showing admirable ethics along the way. I would have no problem with 100% of 7Hx - 7 on the normal QD lead. And the AC is quite entitled to give E/W a worse result than the TD, as I think another thread showed.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Oct 5 2010, 01:55 AM, said:

I seem to be arguing that UI suggests further slam "try" (6♣ / 4NT / 4♠ ) over signing off in 5♣.

I would agree with you here if 4S would be interpreted as a slam-try for clubs, but why should it be? 5C is the bid that will "get you out of trouble" because partner is quite likely to pass it. It sounds like it is saying "no, you got that wrong, pard, I intended 3H as a splinter, and raising it was not what I was looking for". By making the normal bid of 4S, you know that you will catapult the auction into the nether regions, rather than apply a handbrake with 5C.

[RMB1]

Given their agreement that 4NT is a weaker 5♣ bid then 4NT may well be a logical alternative; 5♣ is suggested over 4NT because 5C is a mild slam try and because it suggests clubs are trumps. Assuming opener treats 4NT as ace-asking with hearts agreed, NS will get too high.

[peachy]

jallerton, on Oct 4 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

1. [West] Assuming that partner has interpreted by bid correctly, she has denied a control in diamonds or spades, in which case I may not even be worth a slam try. In fact our agreement is that 5♣ is more forward-going than a discouraging 4NT, so I had made a mild effort.

If a new partnership had discussed minor suit auctions to this level of detail, they must have skipped discussion of splinters and proceeded directly into the more subtle situations. I am sometimes a little sceptical in the sense that when something does not make sense (to me), the likelihood has increased significantly that it may not be true. Here, a new partnership actually having the described agreement but not having a splinter agreement is in that genre. Did they have system notes?

I am going work out the LA's when there is UI from the non-alert. Under their stated agreements, opener can see that responder has made a slam try with trumps that lack the K, Q, and J, so there must be a lot of values in the other suits, but it is strange that there was no cuebid of spades or diamonds [Italian style, as was confirmed somewhere in this thread] and no 4NT bid; instead West bid the ambiguous 5C slam try when he had room to cue something on the four-level. Given all this, I am inclined to let the table result stand.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Oct 7 2010, 07:01 AM, said:

Given their agreement that 4NT is a weaker 5♣ bid then 4NT may well be a logical alternative; 5♣ is suggested over 4NT because 5C is a mild slam try and because it suggests clubs are trumps.  Assuming opener treats 4NT as ace-asking with hearts agreed, NS will get too high.

Yes, I like this argument. East will respond 5H which will not interest West, as he must now assume he is off the ace of diamonds. He will retreat to 6C, interpreted as a grand-slam try in hearts. East has a great hand now with a source of tricks and accepts with a leap to 7H. However, West cannot play there, and will take a shot at 7NT, which gets doubled and is only four off, so I erred earlier in suggesting an adjustment to 7Hx-7. 7NTx-4 seems right (either via 4S or via 4NT), and peachy's suggestion of letting the table result stand seems way off the mark.

[peachy]

lamford, on Oct 7 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

7NTx-4 seems right (either via 4S or via 4NT), and peachy's suggestion of letting the table result stand seems way off the mark.

It might be off the mark. This was a new partnership, but nevertheless, what happened, does not add up. Since there seems to be no damage, other than the hypothetical windfall that the NOS might get from a UI ruling, I'm still willing to let this one go, and as TD wait for the next case from this pair. I hope my decision is not illegal, I think not, but maybe I am wrong.

[lamford]

peachy, on Oct 7 2010, 09:05 AM, said:

<snip> I am going work out the LA's when there is UI from the non-alert.   Under their stated agreements, opener can see that responder has made a slam try with trumps that lack the K, Q, and J <snip>

It is the responder that has the UI from the failure to alert, so opener can do what he likes, as long as his partner did not indicate a wheel had come off by any mannerism.

It is the 5C bid that, in my opinion, uses the UI. It smacks of the "unauthorised panic" when partner has treated a bid as natural and we support clubs again in case partner had his hearing aid turned off last time. You know that both 4S and 4NT will be misinterpreted.

[peachy]

lamford, on Oct 7 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

It is the 5C that, in my opinion, uses the UI. It smacks of the "unauthorised panic" when partner has treated a bid as natural and we support clubs again in case partner had his hearing aid turned off last time. You know that both 4S and 4NT will be misinterpreted.

Yes, I know opener does not have any UI - unless from body language, which was not mentioned in the original post. And that responder does have it. What I was speculating was reasons why opener did not bid on to slam over 5C; the auction must have been peculiar to him/her and I explained what his/her presumed thought process might have been.

[lamford]

peachy, on Oct 7 2010, 12:04 PM, said:

lamford, on Oct 7 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

It is the 5C that, in my opinion, uses the UI. It smacks of the "unauthorised panic" when partner has treated a bid as natural and we support clubs again in case partner had his hearing aid turned off last time. You know that both 4S and 4NT will be misinterpreted.

Yes, I know opener does not have any UI - unless from body language, which was not mentioned in the original post. And that responder does have it. What I was speculating was reasons why opener did not bid on to slam over 5C; the auction must have been peculiar to him/her and I explained what his/her presumed thought process might have been.

My guess is that the 5C bid told him that he had misinterpreted 3H. He is entitled to know that he was not on safe ground. If he had been sure 3H was natural, he would have moved on, as his partner would have something like Axxxx AQxx Kx Ax to be making a slam try, as opener has shown nothing more than a minimum with four hearts. If the opener did have UI, then we would be disallowing the pass of 5C as well, as it is a slam try for hearts, not clubs (from East's point of view).

[jallerton]

lamford, on Oct 6 2010, 12:12 AM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 4 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

1.  [West] <snip> In fact our agreement is that 5♣ is more forward-going than a discouraging 4NT, so I had made a mild effort.

It is strange how East-West have such precise agreements over whether 4NT or 5C is stronger, but did not know whether 3H was a splinter. That seems improbable to me.

Also what does 4H mean, and it is an interesting bidding question as well as a rules question? It clearly denies a first round diamond control, and denies Kx in spades, but why did East not bid 4C if he lacked a diamond control? I guess it is some sort of picture bid like x AKxx Qx KQ10xxx. West should bid 4S over it, as he has the ace of spades and king of diamonds. Clearly 5C (or 4NT) is not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of the UI. However 4S does not excite East, who can see wasted values there. But with bad trumps (he still thinks hearts are trumps), he will sign off in 5H for now. West will go back to 6C, but why should East pass that? Does that not sound like a further grand slam try in hearts, something like AKQxx AQJxx KQx none? The problem with UI auctions is that they rapidly go out of control, and I recall Burn-Price bidding to 6H, after a 2NT opener showing 5-5 in the minors was not alerted, showing admirable ethics along the way. I would have no problem with 100% of 7Hx - 7 on the normal QD lead. And the AC is quite entitled to give E/W a worse result than the TD, as I think another thread showed.

Hang on, Paul. There are a few flaws in this chain of events.

1. If West bids 4♠, would East really bid 5♥?

According to the opening post:

Quote

East was aware of two possible meanings for 3♥ [splinter and natural] and says that she bid 4♥ "as 3♥ might have been intended as natural".

Whilst the TD/AC should always be sceptical about potentially self-serving statements, actions speak louder than words and the fact is that (apparently without being in possession of any UI) East chose to pass 5♣. If she had been confident that 3♥ was natural, then she would have recognised 5♣ as an obvious cue bid and engaged grand slam force. Hence we should believe her doubt about the meaning of 3♥ and assume that she will be continuing to try to hedge her bets during the subsequent auction.

On this basis, over a 4♠ cue bid the correct call looks to be 5♣: if partner things clubs are agreed, an encouraging 5♣ bid is about right on values; whilst if partner things hearts are agreed, she is cueing her lowest (1st or 2nd round) control. East now hopes that her partner's next call will be one of Pass/5♥/6♣/6♥ to clarify the trump suit.

2. Although West is still in possession of UI once the hypothetical auction reaches 7♥, it is just possible that there may be no logical alternative to removing the contract out of a 4-1 fit?

3. If West is forced to declare 7♥x, why should the AC assume that South, a non-offender, will lead out of turn? Perhaps the number of tricks in 7♥x should be weighted depending on the perceived likelihood of the various "lead out of turn" options being exercised!

[jallerton]

peachy, on Oct 7 2010, 03:05 PM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 4 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

1.  [West] Assuming that partner has interpreted by bid correctly, she has denied a control in diamonds or spades, in which case I may not even be worth a slam try.  In fact our agreement is that 5♣ is more forward-going than a discouraging 4NT, so I had made a mild effort.

If a new partnership had discussed minor suit auctions to this level of detail, they must have skipped discussion of splinters and proceeded directly into the more subtle situations. I am sometimes a little sceptical in the sense that when something does not make sense (to me), the likelihood has increased significantly that it may not be true. Here, a new partnership actually having the described agreement but not having a splinter agreement is in that genre. Did they have system notes?

Yes! East/West were a new partnership for the weekend. West agreed to play East's system with another partner (not her most regular partner, but one who had written out a few pages of system notes), with one specific simplification. These system notes specify 4NT/5m discouraging/encouraging in minor suit auctions and 4NT RKCB in major suit auctions, but do not mention anything about Responder's rebids after 1♣-P-1suit-P-2♣.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on Oct 7 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

Given their agreement that 4NT is a weaker 5♣ bid then 4NT may well be a logical alternative; 5♣ is suggested over 4NT because 5C is a mild slam try and because it suggests clubs are trumps.  Assuming opener treats 4NT as ace-asking with hearts agreed, NS will get too high.

If Responder did bid 4NT, it is not 100% clear what Opener would do now as she would no longer be able to hedge her bets properly. Probably the closest bid to hedging would be 5♣ (obvious enough if clubs are trumps, optimistically hoping that the ♠ void is worth a key card if hearts are trumps), but perhaps East should now have to assess the relative likelihood of the two possible meanings and come to a decision on how she is going to treat 3♥.