[BudH]

Matchpoints, club game against a very long time partnership that plays 2/1 game forcing.
North dealer, both vulnerable

2C is alerted and explained upon inquiry as a form of Drury (invitational with hearts)

Clearly, North forgot the partnership agreement for 2C.

---

3H went down one trick. +100 for North/South. It was confirmed that the explanation was correct - the partnerships plays a form of Drury over a takeout double as well as a pass.

So how many of you would press the issue that with no alerts, questions, or answers to questions, that the 3H bid would presumably have been forcing even after a natural 2C bid and that West had non-passes that were logical alternatives?

(Not that it matters, but in case you were curious, South holds a 5=6=2=0 hand and North/South are in big trouble if they bid past 3H.)

Bud H

[wyman]

BudH, on 2010-October-21, 18:34, said:

So how many of you would press the issue that with no alerts, questions, or answers to questions, that the 3H bid would presumably have been forcing even after a natural 2C bid and that West had non-passes that were logical alternatives?

I would. Not close.

[gordontd]

BudH, on 2010-October-21, 18:34, said:

So how many of you would press the issue that with no alerts, questions, or answers to questions, that the 3H bid would presumably have been forcing even after a natural 2C bid and that West had non-passes that were logical alternatives?

I'm not sure that 3♥ should be forcing if this is an acceptable 2♣ response, but I do think the question should be looked at of whether bidding rather than passing is a logical alternative.

[Free]

Ofcourse it would be forcing.

[TimG]

gordontd, on 2010-October-22, 02:26, said:

I'm not sure that 3♥ should be forcing if this is an acceptable 2♣ response, but I do think the question should be looked at of whether bidding rather than passing is a logical alternative.

I agree: not sure why 3♥ should be forcing after a natural 2♣, but think there may be logical alternatives even if it is non-forcing.

However, I doubt very much doubt that I would pursue the matter in a club game.

[wyman]

TimG, on 2010-October-22, 05:45, said:

I agree: not sure why 3♥ should be forcing after a natural 2♣, but think there may be logical alternatives even if it is non-forcing.

However, I doubt very much doubt that I would pursue the matter in a club game.

I thought a 2/1 always promised a rebid

[TimG]

wyman, on 2010-October-22, 05:47, said:

I thought a 2/1 always promised a rebid

Not only is there an intervening double, but responder is a passed hand; I do not expect passed hand competitive bidding agreements to be "2/1".

Aside: I wanted to quote the original auction, but could find no convenient way to do so.

[wyman]

TimG, on 2010-October-22, 05:57, said:

Not only is there an intervening double, but responder is a passed hand; I do not expect passed hand competitive bidding agreements to be "2/1".

Aside: I wanted to quote the original auction, but could find no convenient way to do so.

You are correct about the double, so now I'm not sure whether 3H should be forcing.

But I think you're mistaken about what I was saying: even in SAYC, the auction 1H-2C-2X is forcing.

[TimG]

wyman, on 2010-October-22, 06:03, said:

But I think you're mistaken about what I was saying: even in SAYC, the auction 1H-2C-2X is forcing.

I don't know whether Drury is part of SAYC, but in the absense of Drury would P-1♥-2♣-2♥ be forcing? P-1♥-2♣-P is certainly a possible auction.

[wyman]

TimG, on 2010-October-22, 08:08, said:

I don't know whether Drury is part of SAYC, but in the absense of Drury would P-1♥-2♣-2♥ be forcing? P-1♥-2♣-P is certainly a possible auction.

Maybe it's because I've always played Drury and because I switched to 2/1 early on (i.e., I know less about SAYC than I thought), but if we're playing sound 3rd seat openers (lol) and 1M-3M shows a 4c limit raise, don't you usually show a 3c limit raise by first bidding a 2/1 and then bidding 3M, a la forcing NT? If so, isn't 2C by a PH over 1H still forcing?

Bah, I play so much system, I've forgotten how to handle these things "naturally".

[awm]

In standard bidding 1♥-X-2m is pretty weak, less than 10 points (with more XX) and not forcing, often quite short in hearts. The fact that north is a passed hand doesn't change things much. I would think that 3♥ by opener here shows roughly the same as after a 1NT response (so on the order of 16 hcp, six good hearts, etc). Personally I would not bid with the north hand in this sequence. Of course, here north has UI that his partner expects a heart fit which makes passing more appealing, so we have to poll players of comparable level and see what the logical alternatives are... if everyone is like me and passes then the table result stands, but if some people bid then we should adjust appropriately.

[keylime]

Close decision on the TD call admittedly, but suspect we are booked for a good board, and depending on opps may elect to stay quiet.

[straube]

I agree with awm. Opener's reverse or jump shift would be forcing, but not a jump rebid of his suit. This is not a 2C that promises 10 pts or so. This was intended by responder as a weaker hand with clubs.

[daveharty]

BudH, on 2010-October-21, 18:34, said:

---

I am still trying to figure out how North is sitting to West's right.

Anyway, this sort of thing happens so often at the club where I play that I think it's pointless to call the director about it. But it does tick me off when it happens.

[wyman]

daveharty, on 2010-October-22, 13:15, said:

Anyway, this sort of thing happens so often at the club where I play that I think it's pointless to call the director about it. But it does tick me off when it happens.

Maybe it's a philosophical thing, or maybe I'm just a jerk; either way, deciding whether I was damaged or whether the opponents committed some sort of infraction is above my pay grade. I'm always of the "call the director, and let him or her sort it out" mindset. This might not make me popular with the crowd that perceives this as "tattling," but I paid my entry fee (even if it was a junior rate!), so I have rights.

Of course, it's not about winning or losing the club game (unless you are pro), but I don't typically treat a club game any different than I'd treat a sectional or regional. Moreover, there might be something subtle about the laws (or about directors) that I learn from the ruling (and postmortem thereof). Of course, there's the side benefit that your opponents may learn something about the laws also, however unlikely.

[daveharty]

wyman, on 2010-October-22, 13:27, said:

Maybe it's a philosophical thing, or maybe I'm just a jerk; either way, deciding whether I was damaged or whether the opponents committed some sort of infraction is above my pay grade. I'm always of the "call the director, and let him or her sort it out" mindset. This might not make me popular with the crowd that perceives this as "tattling," but I paid my entry fee (even if it was a junior rate!), so I have rights.

Of course, it's not about winning or losing the club game (unless you are pro), but I don't typically treat a club game any different than I'd treat a sectional or regional. Moreover, there might be something subtle about the laws (or about directors) that I learn from the ruling (and postmortem thereof). Of course, there's the side benefit that your opponents may learn something about the laws also, however unlikely.

Dream on Brian...

I know what you mean, but to me there are definite differences between the club game and tournament games. A lot of the people we face at the club have been playing for decades without any appreciable improvement; they wouldn't know Unauthorized Information if it bit them on the backside. It would be beyond their capabilities to take advantage of UI, so what is the point of alienating them by embarrassing them in front of their peers? (Of course that is not how a director call should be viewed, but you and I both know that is how many of them perceive it.) It's true that you have "rights" but isn't it really better to just collect your tops against these people and accept the occasional bad board with equanimity (and grumble about it later with your friends)? Tournament bridge is different, not only because I have paid more money but because those who venture outside the friendly confines of their local social bridge group should be held to a higher standard. I wouldn't hesitate to call the director if the OP's situation happened in a tournament game.

FWIW, of course you aren't a jerk for expecting/demanding a level playing field and exercising your rights to ensure such. It's just that I used to feel exactly like you do, but I really don't like seeing old ladies cry when I make a (technically correct) director call; when that happens (yes it did happen to me, and I bet you know who I am referring to), you can't win, because any attempt to explain that the director call is not an accusation of cheating just sounds condescending, and just sitting there and letting the director do his job makes you look like a heartless bridge robot. So unless something like this is perpetrated by someone who, in my judgment, should know better, I really try to let it go even if I am seething inside.

[Rodney26]

awm, on 2010-October-22, 09:44, said:

In standard bidding 1♥-X-2m is pretty weak, less than 10 points (with more XX) and not forcing, often quite short in hearts. The fact that north is a passed hand doesn't change things much. I would think that 3♥ by opener here shows roughly the same as after a 1NT response (so on the order of 16 hcp, six good hearts, etc). Personally I would not bid with the north hand in this sequence. Of course, here north has UI that his partner expects a heart fit which makes passing more appealing, so we have to poll players of comparable level and see what the logical alternatives are... if everyone is like me and passes then the table result stands, but if some people bid then we should adjust appropriately.

I agree entirely with Adam. North has to evaluate his hand in the context that he had bid a non-forcing 2C. He's got a heart misfit and setting up the clubs seems way against the odds. Doubler is behind opener so that would add to my pessimism at this form of scoring.

[nige1]

BudH, on 2010-October-21, 18:34, said:

Matchpoints, club game against a very long time partnership that plays 2/1 game forcing. North dealer, both vulnerable 2C is alerted and explained upon inquiry as a form of Drury (invitational with hearts) Clearly, North forgot the partnership agreement for 2C.

---

3H went down one trick. +100 for North/South. It was confirmed that the explanation was correct - the partnerships plays a form of Drury over a takeout double as well as a pass. So how many of you would press the issue that with no alerts, questions, or answers to questions, that the 3H bid would presumably have been forcing even after a natural 2C bid and that West had non-passes that were logical alternatives? (Not that it matters, but in case you were curious, South holds a 5=6=2=0 hand and North/South are in big trouble if they bid past 3H.)

It is not clear to me that North's 2♣ is Drury after West's double; so it is possible that South has misexplained the NS agreement. Whatever 2♣ means systemically, however, I doubt that South's 3♥ is forcing. I agree with GordonTD that North is in recept of unauthorised information that may make pass a more attractive call than other less successful logical alternatives. So you are well within your rights to call the director. In many clubs, however, members regard the use of UI as unremarkable, so don't be surprised if the director takes you aside, later, and warns you not to upset opponents again

[blackshoe]

I've never had a director, club or otherwise, warn me not to upset opponents by calling him. Nor, as a director, have I ever given such a warning. And I would be very surprised if that were ever to change.

[NickRW]

daveharty, on 2010-October-22, 13:15, said:

I am still trying to figure out how North is sitting to West's right.

You're doing what I did when I first saw this diagram - assuming that the box with the bidding is the table. It isn't. The table is the green bit and therefore North is to West's left.

Nick