[goose]

xxx,AQxxx,x,AKQx

1D as dealer on your right (precision 1+ diamonds) and you overcall 1H; 2D on your left passed back to you?

You X and 10 seconds later the opponents are in 3NT. It transpires that 2D was forcing and RHO failed to alert.

How would you rule?

[Walddk]

You have been damaged by the missing alert. You did not have the option of passing when 2♦ wasn't alerted. Everyone would re-open with either double or 3♣ with that hand given that 2♦ was NF.

Should you have protected yourself by asking is the question. Delicate matter, but I think no. It would not come as a big surprise that 2♦ was NF on this auction, so I would assume that it was when not alerted.

Had you known that 2♦ showed 11+ and therefore a 1-round force, you would sometimes pass, but you did not get the chance here. Pass is not a logical alternative if 2♦ shows 6-9 opposite opener's 10-15.

Roland

[mikeh]

I agree with that pipe-smoking, war-mongering Dane... you wos damaged!!! Contract should be rolled back to 2♦, unless 3N goes down. If 3N should go down but was misdefended, then offending side gets 2♦ and non-offendng side is stuck with the poor result.

[goose]

No 3NT had 9 top tricks

TD ruled as 2D+1 overturned in appeal's committee to 3NT=

[Rebound]

Jlall, on Oct 19 2005, 09:48 PM, said:

Only reason they would overturn it is if they deemed that 2D had been a misbid and that their agreement is that it's NF. Otherwise, bad job by committee

Probably an easy question to answer if we had their convention card :-)

Perhpas that was the basis of the committee's decision.

[goose]

CC does not now contain methods after interference unless you add it as a note or in 'important notes....'. In this case that might be appropriate but no information was given.

[helene_t]

FWIW, in the Netherlands, a forcing 2♦ bid would not be alertable.

It would not help to ask if 2♦ was forcing since opener obviously considered it non-forcing, since he passed.

[mycroft]

Whenever there's a MI case, there's always (barring screens) a corresponding UI case. May not be a problem, but it may be.

Did anybody look at West's 3NT? I realize the AI (partner's pass) duplicated the UI (failure to alert a forcing bid), but it's worth looking at anyway.

I am surprised the committee reversed the ruling; I can't imagine "99.9+% of the world plays this as NF, it wasn't Alerted, opener *passed*, I won't bother checking to see if it is, in fact, forcing" being considered "failing to protect oneself" (the ACBL regulation - other SOs have similar regs). I can only imagine that the committee thought that action with your hand is automatic even with the correct information (say, that 2D promised 10+, but not GF), and so you weren't damaged. Not sure I believe that, but that's my only idea of a sensible reasoning.

Be interested to know what the committee's reasoning was.

Michael.

[goose]

it seems the committee's reasoning was that the opponents were playing unusual methods viz 1D may be one card And the hand should have been alert to the fact that 2D might be unusual.

My point is that you should be allowed to assume things are normalish (obviously 2D facing a possible but unlikely singleton cant be completely normal) and the opponents have a duty to alert you otherwise.

Strictly, should not LHO alert their partner's pass of a forcing bid?

Thanks for all your comments

[barmar]

goose, on Oct 20 2005, 02:57 PM, said:

Strictly, should not LHO alert their partner's pass of a forcing bid?

Only if they have a special agreement about the situations where they do this. And if they do, then describing the bid as forcing is not full disclosure; semi-forcing would be more appropriate, I think.

The "standard" meaning of passing a forcing, natural response is that the opening bid was a psyche. I don't think there's any need to alert this, it's bridge logic.

[Rebound]

barmar, on Oct 24 2005, 11:43 AM, said:

goose, on Oct 20 2005, 02:57 PM, said:

Strictly, should not LHO alert their partner's pass of a forcing bid?

The "standard" meaning of passing a forcing, natural response is that the opening bid was a psyche. I don't think there's any need to alert this, it's bridge logic.

In that case, it follows that 3NT involved UI and therefore, the adjustment to 2♦+1 would appear to be in order. However, I think that whether or not this statement is true depends a great deal upon the level of competition and how long the accused have been playing these methods together.