[VixTD]

---

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs
2♦ was a transfer showing a better raise to 2♥ than a direct bid. It was not alerted.
Result: 4♥(S)=, NS+420

North called me at the end of the auction to say that 2♦ should have been alerted. East did not want to retract his final pass, but at the end of play called me back to say that if he had known it was a transfer he would have doubled to show diamonds. South would then have bid 2♠ and West 3♦ (so they all say).

What should the ruling be?

[paulg]

No damage, table result stands.

It seems highly unlikely that EW are going to sacrifice in five diamonds and NS then decide to push on to five hearts rather than double. North has received UI from the missing alert, but his three hearts call seems the only LA for a hand that has already shown a good raise.

[Hanoi5]

I think West should have been the one complaining, why would East double an artificial diamond bid with 9xxxx?

[mgoetze]

Right, 5♦x-2 is not better for EW. Meanwhile, from South's point of view, if North has a hand that will allow 5♥ to make then 5♦ is more likely to go down 3 than just down 2...

[paulg]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-06, 07:47, said:

Right, 5♦x-2 is not better for EW. Meanwhile, from South's point of view, if North has a hand that will allow 5♥ to make then 5♦ is more likely to go down 3 than just down 2...

It is three down with the club ruff.

[ahydra]

Until I saw West's X I was wondering if you have the East/West hands swapped - I'm never believing East if he tells me he'll make a lead-directing double with 9xxxx.

South is always getting to 4H with that hand and E/W can't sac profitably, so table result stands either way.

ahydra

[RMB1]

ahydra, on 2011-June-06, 13:08, said:

South is always getting to 4H with that hand and E/W can't sac profitably, so table result stands either way.

Is South always getting to 4♥ if he has forgotten that 2♦ shows ♥ support?
North has UI and will not be able to show heart support again.

[Phil]

Why would x of 2♦ be lead directing? It shows a suit.

Results stands for reasons stated by others.

[mgoetze]

RMB1, on 2011-June-06, 14:17, said:

Is South always getting to 4♥ if he has forgotten that 2♦ shows ♥ support?
North has UI and will not be able to show heart support again.

Which bids are you proposing as LAs to 3♥?

[RMB1]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-06, 16:31, said:

Which bids are you proposing as LAs to 3♥?

Not on the original sequence, no.

If (a big "if") we adjust on the basis that East doubles 2♦
then Pass is a logical alternative (to 3♥) for North on the sequence
1♥-(X)-2♦-(X)-2♠-(3♦)-

[paulg]

RMB1, on 2011-June-07, 03:52, said:

If (a big "if") we adjust on the basis that East doubles 2♦
then Pass is a logical alternative (to 3♥) for North on the sequence
1♥-(X)-2♦-(X)-2♠-(3♦)-

Most partnerships would have an agreement on this sequence as to whether 2♠ is forcing to 3♥ and, if so, whether bidding 3♥ is the weakest action at this point or not. Seems to me that the North hand is probably (sub-)minimum for a good raise and so North's action would probably be easy to identify in such an auction.

However, as South is always bidding 4♥ I'm not sure what difference it will ever make.

[gnasher]

If it goes as Robin suggests, North would presumably do whatever shows a minimum, so we'd need to know what NS's agremeents are about pass and 3♥.

Suppose that we decide that North will pass 3♦. When it comes back to South, he's in the rather puzzling situation that the opponents are trying to play in the suit in which North made a two-over-one response. Would this be enough to remind South of their agreement about 2♦?

Suppose that we decided that South would be puzzled, but not woken up. Now he might bid 4♥, because that's where he wants to play. On the other hand, he mght bid only 3♥, believing that the partnership is in a game-force. Or he might infer that his partner has psyched and the psyche has been exposed - that would probably cause him to bid 4♥, but it depends on what he thinks a psychic 2♦ looks like.

So, it's possible that NS might reach 3♥, but it involves a lot of ifs, and some research by the TD.

[bluejak]

We need to know the E/W methods, of course. Most people play a double of 2♦ as "lead a diamond" and it is not a convincing argument that he would/might have doubled if so. But if this pair plays it as length in diamonds then the double becomes credible.

As for the other vague possibilities, I cannot see any adjustment that does not include a large proportion of table result but that is no reason not to consider a weighted score.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-June-07, 17:46, said:

Most people play a double of 2♦ as "lead a diamond"

Do they really? I suspect that most people haven't discussed this auction at all, so they'd have to fall back on what they have discussed, together with some common sense.

Most people play that

1♥ dbl 1♠[natural] dbl

says "I wanted to bid spades", and presumably that

1♥ dbl 2♦[natural] dbl

says "I wanted to bid diamonds".

If that's what the double means when the opponents are ostensibly showing length in the suit, it seems sensible to assume it means the same when they are not.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-June-08, 02:03, said:

Do they really? I suspect that most people haven't discussed this auction at all, so they'd have to fall back on what they have discussed, together with some common sense.

Most people play that

1♥ dbl 1♠[natural] dbl

says "I wanted to bid spades", and presumably that

1♥ dbl 2♦[natural] dbl

says "I wanted to bid diamonds".

If that's what the double means when the opponents are ostensibly showing length in the suit, it seems sensible to assume it means the same when they are not.

Yes, it looks normal to double on East's hand to show diamonds. Nobody seems to disagree that South will bid 2S, and I agree that West will bid 3D. The problem is that I expect North-South will have no agreement on which is now stronger, Pass or 3H, and there is double to consider as well - what would that have meant? Let us say that Pass is the weakest option, as otherwise North-South gallop into 4H. But South has a four-loser hand opposite a two-level response. In practice only Struthio Camelus will fail to realise at this stage that North does not have diamonds, but even opposite the weak raise, as he might think it is that instead, he would surely bid 4H. After all Qxx xxx xxx xxxx gives good play for game. And if he has no clue what it meant he will bid 4H.

So, while Pass might be an LA for North (if it is the weakest option), anything other than 4H from South looks off the wall. I would poll, but be surprised if I did not have unanimity. So 0% of anything else here, bluejak - while I usually agree with weighting.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-June-08, 02:03, said:

Do they really? I suspect that most people haven't discussed this auction at all, so they'd have to fall back on what they have discussed, together with some common sense.

Exactly.

Ok, I do not know about the commonsense.

The vast majority of players, who are not particularly scientific, play a double of any artificial bid in an undiscussed sequence as "lead this suit".

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-June-08, 06:35, said:

The vast majority of players, who are not particularly scientific, play a double of any artificial bid in an undiscussed sequence as "lead this suit".

The vast majority of players, who are not particularly scientific, play a double of any artificial bid in an undiscussed sequence after partner has made a takeout double as "I have length in this suit".

[bluejak]

Don't believe it. Try polling a few with a few undiscussed sequences including this one.

[WellSpyder]

My experience of the vast majority, and my expectation of a random partner, match Lamford's view here rather than Bluejak's.

[StevenG]

My experience is that the majority never do it at all. Of course, people on this forum seem to think that "all players" and "experienced tournament players" means more or less the same thing. My understandings with players of s similar playing level to myself matches Bluejak's view, not Lamford's.