[Richard_E]

Scoring: IMP

---

North South play Viking Precision with a 14-16 1NT. East West play SAYC. The Auction went:
---E---S---W---N 
---P--1♦---P--1♥ 
-2NT--X--3♣--3♥ 
--4♣---P---P---P 

1♦ was alerted (11-13HCP balanced, or 11-15HCP without a 5 card major or good 6 card Club suit) 1♥ from North was either 6+HCP with Hearts or an any shape game force. East's 2NT was not alerted. South's double showed 14-15HCP and wasn't alerted. West's 3♣ was after some thought, and at this point North asked about the 3NT. This was described in terms equivalent to "Not discussed but likely to be Spades and Clubs" 
4♣ went one off, but clearly North-South can make 11 tricks in either major. 

North says that with an explanation of what East had she would have bid 3♠ and been raised to 4♠ making an overtrick. The explanation made it difficult to bid Spades and had thus been damaging. 
I was asked to give a ruling so I asked North about the meaning of 3♥ and 3♠ bids in this auction. 3♥ is natural non-forcing. 3♠ is FG with Spades the main suit, the 1♥ with this continuation does not show Hearts. I was satisfied that East-West had no agreement as to the 2NT bid, although West should not have tried to be helpful by nominating suits.

I let the score stand as I thought it unlikely that North would overbid the hand as being FG with Spades the main suit, having made a non-forcing bid in the actual auction. My view was that the poor score was caused by not bidding 4♥ over either 3♣, or 4♣, after South failed to double that. North-South were advised of their right to appeal, but after a number of emails flying about decided not to.
 
If they had appealed to you - what would you have done?

[kenrexford]

First, I would have asked whether any of these parties want to admit to this sick sequence and ridiculous agreements.

Then, I'd rule in favor of East-West.

The damage was caused by two sources.

1. E-W were clueless about 2NT. That happens.
2. Something went terribly wrong with North's bidding and/or the agreements.

I mean, how can North have boxed himself into a call where a 3♠ call would show primary spades but started with a 1♥ call? Not to mention, why would a 3♠ CUEBID show primary spades?!?!?

What the heck kind of agreement is that?!?!? 3♠ shows a hand where I initiated some sort of canape sequence but want to complete my canape into a suit shown by the person behind me? Just weird.

[TylerE]

Ken - I'd expect you would have gotten this. 1♥ is either a natural 1♥ response, or any GF hand. Sort of analogous to a a 3♣ opening that is either a diamond preempt or a strong ♣ hand, but in reverse.

[hotShot]

"NS play Viking Precision with a 14-16 NT."

South holds a 4333 shape with 14 HCP, why did South deviate from the agreed System?

I usually have little sympathy for player who mix up their 2-suited overcalls, but I don't expect players to have agreements to defend any possible bidding system.
OK West should not speculate, if they don't have an agreement, but anyone who plays an unusual bidding system should be prepared that opps have no agreement.

EW are not responsible that North now has to choose between non-forcing and game forcing. A problem caused by South decision to deviate from the agreed NT bid.

If they appeal, I suggest to keep the money.

[Vampyr]

Richard_E, on Feb 25 2010, 09:47 PM, said:

North South play Viking Precision with a 14-16 1NT. East West play SAYC. The Auction went:
---E---S---W---N 
---P--1♦---P--1♥ 
-2NT--X--3♣--3♥ 
--4♣---P---P---P 

1♦ was alerted (11-13HCP balanced, or 11-15HCP without a 5 card major or good 6 card Club suit)

Why does South's hand not qualify as a 1NT opener?

[FrancesHinden]

I'm confused about the NS system.
What was North supposed to bid with a game force with primary hearts and a spade side suit? Would that involve a difference response to 1D?

That is, had North "pre-decided" to call his hand a non-game-forcing single-suiter when he responded 1H, or could he opt to change his mind later?

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 25 2010, 11:37 PM, said:

I'm confused about the NS system.
What was North supposed to bid with a game force with primary hearts and a spade side suit?  Would that involve a difference response to 1D?

Oh, I can answer that one! He bids 1♥, then jumps in hearts, then bids spades, and plays a the 5-level one down. Of course, if the opponents interfere ....

Please can I play against these methods? Please, pretty please?

[Richard_E]

Quote

Why does South's hand not qualify as a 1NT opener?

 
I asked this when I met him a day or so later. It does, he chose not to bid it. That seems wrong to me as their 1♦ bid is overloaded with meanings. At other tables on the night Souths opened 1NT if they were playing 12-14 or 14-16, invariably ending in a major suit game.
 

Quote

What was North supposed to bid with a game force with primary hearts and a spade side suit? Would that involve a difference response to 1D?

 
The 1♥ starts a series of relays, where the 1♦ bidder describes shape, more shape, then strength and so on. Any bid on the second round other than the relay shows weak or intermediate with Hearts. What I wanted to know before ruling was whether there was an agreement over this kind of intervention. The answer I got at the time was as stated at the start of the post. I have since received an email saying that 3♠ would in fact be non-forcing showing Hearts and Spades, and that Double, 3NT or 4♣ would show the strong option. It also argued that the North hand is significantly worse with Spades over it as suggested by the comment, and there may not be a fit in either major.

[bluejak]

Ok, let's be serious. N/S clearly had little idea what to do over intervention. Was there MI? Yes, just. When West said "Not discussed but likely to be Spades and Clubs" it appears that a correct answer was "Not discussed".

How will N/S bid differently if they were told that? I find it difficult to believe North would bid 3♠ when East might easily have spades - the correct information has not denied them - and they clearly did not know the system well enough to think of that at the time.

No damage, warn West how to answer questions, and keep the money if N/S appeal.

Now you know why it is important to get in the auction if the opponents play a relay system, especially one with either/or bids.

[mycroft]

I do love people who bid "ostensibly natural, but 0+, NF" 1D and then are surprised when one opponent thinks diamonds are unbid and the other thinks they are. I mean, they're in the right (provided 2NT to be legal has to show two suits), but how many people are going to actually have an agreement?

This must be the extension of the people who want to be able to open their shortest suit with a big hand and have it considered "natural", because that way they don't have to defend against defences to it designed to increase the ambiguity - while, of course, making it much more likely that they've picked off the opponents' suit.

[rest deleted - while I was looking up the Viking Club agreement, because I had the same problem with 1D...X as other people, David made all of my other arguments (and others made most)].

One issue with the 1D...X is that by bidding that way, North is going to expect an unbalanced hand...which, frankly, looks like short spades, so likely more hearts; yes, the shortness is in the wrong spot, but doesn't that make the hand more likely to be game-worthy?

[MBV53]

I don't find any merrit in case NS appeals. There is no rectification for own misunderstanding.

[campboy]

bluejak, on Feb 26 2010, 12:42 AM, said:

Ok, let's be serious. N/S clearly had little idea what to do over intervention. Was there MI? Yes, just. When West said "Not discussed but likely to be Spades and Clubs" it appears that a correct answer was "Not discussed".

Really? I would certainly say if asked "not discussed, but if 1♦ were natural it would show spades and clubs", since I am supposed to mention agreements we do have about similar sequences which might be relevant. Is that not what West is trying to do here? Admittedly he should be more explicit about why spades and clubs is "likely".

[bluejak]

mycroft, on Feb 26 2010, 01:16 AM, said:

I do love people who bid "ostensibly natural, but 0+, NF" 1D and then are surprised when one opponent thinks diamonds are unbid and the other thinks they are.  I mean, they're in the right (provided 2NT to be legal has to show two suits), but how many people are going to actually have an agreement?

Everyone I play with who is not a client knows what 2NT is here: we all know how we defend against short diamonds. It is not unusual.

mycroft, on Feb 26 2010, 01:16 AM, said:

This must be the extension of the people who want to be able to open their shortest suit with a big hand and have it considered "natural", because that way they don't have to defend against defences to it designed to increase the ambiguity - while, of course, making it much more likely that they've picked off the opponents' suit.

Agreed: players who open doubleton clubs are playing an artificial 1♣ and trying to stop me playing my anti-artificial defences is not acceptable just because some of them now think it is "just bridge".

[mycroft]

bluejak, on Feb 26 2010, 07:50 AM, said:

mycroft, on Feb 26 2010, 01:16 AM, said:

I do love people who bid "ostensibly natural, but 0+, NF" 1D and then are surprised when one opponent thinks diamonds are unbid and the other thinks they are.  I mean, they're in the right (provided 2NT to be legal has to show two suits), but how many people are going to actually have an agreement?

Everyone I play with who is not a client knows what 2NT is here: we all know how we defend against short diamonds. It is not unusual.

Maybe it's different places issues, but I'd bet that "everybody" here would know how we defend against short diamonds, too; and at least 20% of them would be on the wrong page from their partners at the table, especially as min diamonds go from 2, to 1, to 0, or to "non-forcing, promising a major".