[bluejak]

I was Chairman of appeals in Iceland. The first appeal I have already posted. This is the second appeal, which in fact was withdrawn before it was heard, but it might be interesting to see if you agree with my opinion just based on the form. Sadly I had to leave three matches before the end to get to San Remo on time, and the third appeal was heard without me. Hopefully we shall see the details so we can discuss that one.

Scoring: IMP

---

  W  N   E   S
     No 1NT 2♠
3♦ 4♠  No No
5♥ No No 5♠
No No Dbl No
No No

Result:
5♠ dbld -1, NS -100

On the form, 2♠ was marked with an asterisk but no explanation. I wonder whether it might be spades and a minor?

3♦ was not alerted. In fact, E/W play transfers, so it was a transfer to hearts. TD was called to the table when West bid 5♥.

"North argues that if he had known that West's bid was transfer, he would have bid 3♥, showing good spade support, and then helping partner to make a decision at the 5-level."

TD ruling:
Table result stands.

Comment by TD:
"TD thinks that North could have doubled 5♥ to show a good hand, a hand that bid 4♠ to make."

So how would you decide if you were on the AC?

[paulg]

I don't think much of North's argument when he could have bid 4♦ to show the good raise.

However, West appears to be have UI (lack of alert) and then chosen the call most likely to wake partner up, when 4NT or 5♦ are logical alternatives. If I were North it is this aspect that I'd focus on.

Paul

[hotShot]

5♥ makes, so bidding 5♠ was a good choice. No damage.
But
was West allowed to bid 5♥? The missing alert on 3♦ is UI.
West could bid 5♦ as choice of games and opposite a weak NT I won't rule out pass as a LA. If the transfer only promised 5(+) cards 5♥ might be an LA again. With 9 HCP opposite a weak NT even dbl might be a LA.
This calls for a poll.
4♠ makes and 5♦ is down 2.
While I would not allow immediate 5♥ call, I think West could run to 5♥, if 5♦ is dbled.

So I would suggest a weighted score between 4♠=, 5♦-2 and 5♠-1, weights depending on the result of the poll.

[lamford]

hotShot, on Feb 21 2010, 05:15 AM, said:

5♥ makes, so bidding 5♠ was a good choice. No damage.
But
was West allowed to bid 5♥? The missing alert on 3♦ is UI.
West could bid 5♦ as choice of games and opposite a weak NT I won't rule out pass as a LA. If the transfer only promised 5(+) cards 5♥ might be an LA again. With 9 HCP opposite a weak NT even dbl might be a LA.
This calls for a poll.
4♠ makes and 5♦ is down 2.
While I would not allow immediate 5♥ call, I think West could run to 5♥, if 5♦ is dbled.

So I would suggest a weighted score between 4♠=, 5♦-2 and 5♠-1, weights depending on the result of the poll.

I think it is normal for good players to beat 5H on a spade lead. When North cashes a spade after winning the heart ace, South will give suit preference for diamonds, and it is easy to defeat the contract.

I agree that the likely damage is from the misuse of UI by West. He transferred to hearts at the three level opposite a presumed weak no-trump, and his partner took no action over 4S. Given that his partner is likely to have club values (he doesn't here), I think Pass is an LA. The chances of his partner having significant heart support have gone up as a result of the failure to alert, and this makes 5H demonstrably suggested. If he bids 5D, and North doubles, then he would have no great reason to pull to 5H either. So, there would certainly be some percentage of 4S making by N/S and some of 5D* - 1 by West, but probably not any of 5H.

[bluejak]

As to whether 5♥ makes, I made 5♥ doubled on a diamond lead when South attempted to cash a club instead of play a spade. Note that if you disallow 5♥ then to to reach 5♥ legally you have to show the diamonds.

The auction at miy table, for example, was

 W   N   E   S
     No 1NT 2♠
4♥ 4♠   No No
5♦ Dbl 5♥ No
No Dbl No No
No

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Feb 21 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

Note that if you disallow 5♥ then to to reach 5♥ legally you have to show the diamonds.

But when partner has misunderstood 3♦, showing diamonds is not enough to get you to 5♥ legally. Any of the logical alternatives to 5♥ (4NT, 5♦) will not "wake up" partner and will not get this partnership to 5♥.

[MFA]

I would rule 5♦X-2.

5♥ is illegal, suggested over 5♦ because of the lack of alert of 3♦. 5♦ is a LA. East would very likely have passed 5♦, still thinking that partner just has diamonds. 5♦ goes down 2 after being forced, even on a spade lead.

[pran]

bluejak, on Feb 21 2010, 01:55 AM, said:

On the form, 2♠ was marked with an asterisk but no explanation.  I wonder whether it might be spades and a minor?

Since nobody has commented: Yes, this sounds like Capuletti. (I am unsure about the spelling). Not that I think this convention is material here.

As for the question: I would ask: What does North want to achieve with his appeal? Has he questioned the 5♥ bid? (I don't buy his argument apparently based on MI, and I certainly do not want to bid or play his hand for him on the AC)

[hotShot]

The TD should not ignore the UI case once it gets to his notice, even if NS did not mention it.
I think North claim has some merits. He could have bid 3♥. This is different from bidding 4♦ (assuming that would show a good ♠ rise too), because it's not clear that East will bid 4♥. There is a chance that West would pass or double allowing South to bid 3♠ or 4♣ describing his hand. It's also clear that South will now recognize that, if opps bid to the 5 level, there is a chance they will go down.
I disagree with the TD that 5♥ could be dbled by North. Without the alert West has shown a 2 suited hand with very long ♦ and long ♥. There is no guarantee that ♠K or ♣A are worth a trick.

[bluejak]

It was my view, having read the form, that North had little case for MI. As has been pointed out, he could always have bid 4♦ if he thought a cue-bid in order.

But the 5♥ bid was a deliberate and disgraceful use of UI. So I would rule the contract as 5♦ doubled making some number of tricks - neither West nor East has any legal reason to bid hearts - weighting the score if necessary for the number of tricks. There is some possibility of South pulling North's double, so I might include some proportion, probably small, of the table result in the weighting.

As for West, if he is relatively inexperienced, a lecture on why 'Unauthorised Panic' is completely unacceptable. If he is experienced, then a 2 VP fine as well should teach him the error of his ways.