[pigpenz]

---

TD was called on opening lead that there may have been a failure to alert. One was playing transfers and other was not.
TD ruled that there was damage and rolled contract back to 4♥ making instead of 6♥down two.

On the surface it looks like south is trying for a two way shot by bidding 6♥.
4 souths opened 4 ♥ west overcalled 4♠ then south rebid 5♥ so there is grounds for players bidding to 5♥

would options by TD be
1. misbid by west -result stand
2. roll back to 5♥ down one
3. let result stand for n/s 6♥-2 e/w 5♥-1 or 4♥ making

How would you rule and would you appeal TD's deciscion/
TIA

[pran]

With correct alerts and explanations I would consider the following relevant results:
4♥ S = +420
4♠X E -3 +800
4♠X E -4 +1100

so I think TD was very lenient on EW

(IMHO South is far too strong to open 4♥)

[blackshoe]

What was the actual partnership agreement regarding the 2♥ bid? What did North think 4♥ meant?

[Zelandakh]

More to the point, what would West think 3♥ meant if 2♥ has been alerted and correctly explained? Whatever it is, I doubt 3♠ is the only LA so we have to consider the UI case as well as the MI.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 02:32, said:

More to the point, what would West think 3♥ meant if 2♥ has been alerted and correctly explained? Whatever it is, I doubt 3♠ is the only LA so we have to consider the UI case as well as the MI.

I don't think East is going to bid again, so the UI issue is not relevant. And if 3H is anything it shows hearts and spades from West's point of view, when he will only bid 3S. So, the idea that EW will get to 4S is wrong. However, if 2H had been alerted (and we assume MI rather than misbid), North would have passed 4H as he would have known it was natural. I think 100% of 4H= is correct, the result which would have occurred without the infraction. So, I agree with the TD decision.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-10, 07:30, said:

And if 3H is anything it shows hearts and spades from West's point of view, when he will only bid 3S.

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts. Ask 100 club-level players about the auction (2♣) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥. How many do you think would say this was a FNJ?

[sanst]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 11:13, said:

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts. Ask 100 club-level players about the auction (2♣) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥. How many do you think would say this was a FNJ?

What's a FNJ?

[robert2734]

sanst, on 2016-April-10, 13:18, said:

What's a FNJ?

Intuitive, feeling, judgemental.

[Zelandakh]

sanst, on 2016-April-10, 13:18, said:

What's a FNJ?

Fit non-jump.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 11:13, said:

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts. Ask 100 club-level players about the auction (2♣) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥. How many do you think would say this was a FNJ?

South has opened a strong 2C, and North has passed to show values, presumably forcing. That does not leave many values for East, and he would not bid if he did not have a spade fit as well (in the authorised auction of course). West doesn't want to play in 3H doubled, so he bids 3S. And 3H wasn't a leap. It was a non-leap!

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-10, 14:52, said:

South has opened a strong 2C, and North has passed to show values, presumably forcing. That does not leave many values for East, and he would not bid if he did not have a spade fit as well (in the authorised auction of course). West doesn't want to play in 3H doubled, so he bids 3S. And 3H wasn't a leap. It was a non-leap!

I follow your logic. I just do not think many club-level players would think of it. More likely, something like 08(32) would be considered. If West knew that 3♥ was natural and denied any interest in spades, 3♠ becomes questionable to say the least. Maybe you are too good to be able to put yourself as a peer of such a club-level player but I daresay you have seen worse. But there is an easier way, we can ask the E-W pair about their agreements and see where that takes us.

And yes, non-jump and non-leap are synonymous but FNJ is by far the more common usage in bridge circles.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 16:21, said:

But there is an easier way, we can ask the E-W pair about their agreements and see where that takes us.

We already know that their agreement was (deemed to be) to play transfers over a 2C opener, but East forgot. So they won't have discussed 3H here. However, if East just had hearts, he would have passed 2♥.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-10, 17:36, said:

So they won't have discussed 3H here.

You have evidence of that? Why make assumptions rather than investigating? There is a UI case. It may turn out to be trivial and unimportant but we should check rather than ignoring it or assuming that the pair either have no agreement or some manufactured advanced agreement that we think would work well.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-11, 02:55, said:

You have evidence of that? Why make assumptions rather than investigating? There is a UI case. It may turn out to be trivial and unimportant but we should check rather than ignoring it or assuming that the pair either have no agreement or some manufactured advanced agreement that we think would work well.

We are told by the OP that one side was playing transfers and the other was not. Therefore they have no agreement. And thinking they might have discussed continuations is Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Far better to investigate what the authorised but undiscussed auction would mean to peers of West.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 04:25, said:

Therefore they have no agreement.

Another assumption. It might be that West started using transfers on a whim but it might also be that they discussed and agreed the method and East simply forgot. What do you have against investigating?

[gnasher]

We should certainly ask EW about their agreements regarding 3♥. If, as seems likely, we determine that 3♥ was undiscussed, passing 3♥x was clearly an LA for West. If so, we should adjust to some large percentage of NS +2000, perhaps with a bit of something else to allow for North's pulling the double.

Has somebody hijacked Lamford's BBF account?

[c_corgi]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-10, 11:13, said:

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts....

Indeed, especially as OP makes no mention of it being alerted as such. It is also not clear whether N/S both knew that they were playing in hearts. If so then I agree with OP that 6H was wild or gambling. If not, and the lack of alerts contributed to this confusion, then I have more sympathy with the 6♥ bid.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2016-April-11, 05:58, said:

We should certainly ask EW about their agreements regarding 3♥. If, as seems likely, we determine that 3♥ was undiscussed, passing 3♥x was clearly an LA for West. If so, we should adjust to some large percentage of NS +2000, perhaps with a bit of something else to allow for North's pulling the double.

Has somebody hijacked Lamford's BBF account?

Not that I am aware. While I am always keen to adjust to -2000 or more (less?), here the double of 3H was penalties, and assuming it is EBU-land, it should have been alerted. And if it is takeout, or North thinks it is, there is zero chance that North will pass it, having not alerted it. So, the "bit of something else" would be 99.9% of North bidding 4NT, presumably "pick a minor suit game or slam".

As you seem to think North would pass a takeout double of 3H a large percentage of the time, I suspect someone may have hijacked gnasher's account, as that is way short of his normal bidding judgement.

[lamford]

pigpenz, on 2016-April-09, 16:17, said:

One was playing transfers and other was not.

What did the CC say?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-April-10, 17:36, said:

We already know that their agreement was (deemed to be) to play transfers over a 2C opener, but East forgot.

lamford, on 2016-April-11, 04:25, said:

We are told by the OP that one side was playing transfers and the other was not. Therefore they have no agreement.

Which is it -- they have an agreement but one forgot, or they don't have an agreement?