[FrancesHinden]

Various people seem to have detailed agreements about this sequence (as do we: 2C would obviously be to play, redouble shows one more spade than diamond, pass is neutral). But without discussion, I'd just take partner's pass as no preference not as a desire to play in 1NTx, so I bid my better suit.

[VixTD]

I was both playing director and South, and I made the call in the full expectation that North would assume it showed a weak hand with length in the unbid suits. I didn't judge that pass was a logical alternative, and I bid 2♦. The auction continued:

---

At some point towards the end of the auction EW asked North to explain the 1NT bid, and he said we didn't have an agreement. East asked me at the end of the auction if the explanation was correct. I said I couldn't really explain my own bid, but we agreed that North could leave the table so that I could confirm that that was indeed the case.

I led ♠J and declarer ended up one down.

West was not happy with the outcome, although he didn't really have a clear idea of what we had done to contravene the laws. The only objection I could see was my bid of 2♦, so I asked three of the better players at the end whether they would have considered passing in that situation. I deliberately chose players who would not be shy of dumping partner in it if they thought that was the ethical thing to do. (Most players at the club are prone to "unauthorized panic" when it's clear there's been a misunderstanding.) None of them seriously considered passing. One of them was a regular (but not highly qualified) director at the club, and he said he would have let the score stand.

I thought I would post it here to see if there was any support for passing the double. I see there was a little. Perhaps it would have been safer for me to send it to one of my colleagues on the TD panel for a formal ruling.

[helene_t]

Did you have any UI that would make passing less attractive? Did partner not alert your 1NT bid?

[whereagles]

Would consider 2♦. On a serious partnership I would have rdbl defined as "equal length, you choose".

2♠ doesn't come to mind and I would definitely not pass. Subpar HCP and "extra" shape (people overcall unusual 1NT on 5-4s on a regular basis) make it clear to me to act.

[VixTD]

helene_t, on 2014-June-23, 07:54, said:

Did you have any UI that would make passing less attractive? Did partner not alert your 1NT bid?

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, partner did not alert. I didn't mention that at the start because you need to work out what logical alternatives you have without the UI.

[Cyberyeti]

No adjustment for me, the 2♦ bid is routine. GBK should suggest this type of south hand is a good possibility. So they've removed from 3N which is making to 4♥ which is pretty tough to defeat if possible at all if you play for this sort of distribution and go off in it.

[aguahombre]

Over here, this would/should be an easy adjustment back to 1NT X.

1) A passed hand sandwich NT is specifically not alertable --too obvious.
2) North, with 4-card Spade support was clueless.
3) South, via North's answer to the opponents' question, has UI that North is clueless.
4) Bidding 2D is (not just "could be") taking advantage of the UI.
5) Then, if that isn't enough, South sends North away from the table ensuring that North wakes up to his cluelessness.

[fbuijsen]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-24, 08:48, said:

Over here, this would/should be an easy adjustment back to 1NT X.

1) A passed hand sandwich NT is specifically not alertable --too obvious.
2) North, with 4-card Spade support was clueless.
3) South, via North's answer to the opponents' question, has UI that North is clueless.
4) Bidding 2D is (not just "could be") taking advantage of the UI.
5) Then, if that isn't enough, South sends North away from the table ensuring that North wakes up to his cluelessness.

You're omitting a rather important detail here: is passing 1NTx a Logical Alternative for south? I think it is not, passing is complete lunacy.

[aguahombre]

fbuijsen, on 2014-June-24, 08:59, said:

You're omitting a rather important detail here: is passing 1NTx a Logical Alternative for south? I think it is not, passing is complete lunacy.

My opinion of that has already been expressed. South made a descriptive bid, and North does what he/she wants to do with it. South might choose to mastermind with another bid; but not when in receipt of UI which suggests his partner might have support for one of his suits after all...and certainly not when South has the mere minimum shape in his two suits + UI.

[ggwhiz]

fbuijsen, on 2014-June-24, 08:59, said:

You're omitting a rather important detail here: is passing 1NTx a Logical Alternative for south? I think it is not, passing is complete lunacy.

Lunacy? Hardly.

Along the lines of passing a takeout double by partner for penalty, a takeout 1nt bid was left in for a reason and playing partner to be an idiot is no longer a cinch alternative when they have confirmed it through UI.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-24, 08:48, said:

Over here, this would/should be an easy adjustment back to 1NT X.

1) A passed hand sandwich NT is specifically not alertable --too obvious.
[....]
3) South, via North's answer to the opponents' question, has UI that North is clueless.
4) Bidding 2D is (not just "could be") taking advantage of the UI.

I thought the UI you refer to in 3) came later on in the auction, so cannot possibly have affected 4). If you think from point 1) that there is no UI until the question is answered, I don't see how you can roll back an action that occurred before the UI...

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2014-June-24, 09:18, said:

My opinion of that has already been expressed. South made a descriptive bid, and North does what he/she wants to do with it. South might choose to mastermind with another bid; but not when in receipt of UI which suggests his partner might have support for one of his suits after all...and certainly not when South has the mere minimum shape in his two suits + UI.

The point is that North made a very descriptive first call: Pass. It says that North does not have a lot of high cards. Together with the cards in the South hand this means that the hand belongs to EW.

North also made a very descriptive second call: Pass. After a double of an unusual NT, it says: "I don't want to choose, why don't you choose?". It does not say: "I think it is a good idea to play 1NTX."

The fact that North was asleep and actually meant to say: "I think it is a good idea to play 1NTX." does not mean that this is also what pass really means.

So, pass is definitely not an LA.

In addition: 5-5 is not minimum shape for an unusual 1NT in the sandwich. I would expect 4-5 (when ♠-m then 4♠-5m). I know people who do it with 4-4. This depends on style.

Rik

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2014-June-20, 07:15, said:

When I said "undiscussed", I didn't mean there was any doubt that the concept of the unusual no trump was known to both North and South. They play a system of Ghestem overcalls in which a jump to 2NT shows the majors over a minor-suit opener and the minors over a major. They don't play weak two-suited openers. What else could a 1NT overcall possibly mean from a passed hand in direct seat? A balanced ten-count?

South's 1N is "undiscussed" but NS have an implicit agreement that it isn't natural. From their other agreements, they can work out its likely meaning. Hence IMO, North should alert it (if it's alertable) and be prepared to explain it as undiscussed but almost certainly artificial. Also, North should offer to supply the negative inferences detailed above.

One possibility is that North failed to take on board that South was a passed hand when she bid 1N. So, perhaps the director should consider adjusting to 1NX -- if pass is judged to be a logical alternative.

[mr1303]

If partner doesn't know what to do, he or she may pass given that 1NT has been doubled and allow you to clarify.

I would assume this in this case, and so bid 2D.

Even if I'm wrong, 2D rates to be the cheapest mistake. I do not redouble for rescue....