[WellSpyder]

I need to make a ruling on this hand (England, so weighted scores allowed). Scoring is matchpoints. I'm starting with a bidding question, but didn't see any point in putting it in a different forum since I'm sure you would all have guessed it was related to a ruling....)

---

After the natural (4+) 1♦ opening, 2NT was alerted but not asked about (everyone around here - including you - plays it as "unusual", showing ♥+♣, and you expect partner to have a reasonable hand at this vulnerability). The double was not alerted, but you assume it shows values and you simply bid 3♥, thinking you wouldn't mind playing there doubled. You do indeed get doubled, but opener takes this out to 4♦ and when the bidding comes round to you, you decide you had better ask about West's doubles. You are told that they have no agreement. What do you bid now??

[helene_t]

I voted 4♥ but I think pass and double are both reasonable.

[Trinidad]

I always assume that there is no infraction. That means that the explanation is correct. The way the facts are given, I would bid 4♥. I expect to make it.

After all, what kind of a hand would East have to pull the last double, given that he thinks that there is no agreement? He won't be long in hearts. Then he would have passed. He won't be short in hearts. He would reason that West intended it as penalty and he would pass. So, hearts should be breaking.

If -in real life- hearts are not breaking, I would ask the TD to investigate whether I have been misinformed. If I would reason that hearts are breaking bad, I would double. We won't make 4♥, but they don't rate to make 4♦.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-12, 08:43, said:

I always assume that there is no infraction. That means that the explanation is correct. The way the facts are given, I would bid 4♥. I expect to make it.

After all, what kind of a hand would East have to pull the last double, given that he thinks that there is no agreement?

"No agreement" is actually my view of what the correct explanation would have been! At the table, East explained both doubles as being for take-out. West, on the other hand, thought both doubles were for penalties. The system card was silent on the point (though it did actually set out part of a defence to the Unusual NT, along the lines of "unusual vs unusual"). West's view would be my interpretation of what is commonly played here, but on the other hand EW were in general playing "East's system card". Overall, and taking account of the injunction to rule MI rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I felt that "take-out" was MI and that "no agreement" would have been accurate.

The bid chosen at the table was 4♥, but I think it is clear that this could be affected by the MI - hence the poll to look at what North might have done with the "correct" explanation.

[axman]

WellSpyder, on 2012-December-12, 05:06, said:

I need to make a ruling on this hand (England, so weighted scores allowed). Scoring is matchpoints. I'm starting with a bidding question, but didn't see any point in putting it in a different forum since I'm sure you would all have guessed it was related to a ruling....)

---

After the natural (4+) 1♦ opening, 2NT was alerted but not asked about (everyone around here - including you - plays it as "unusual", showing ♥+♣, and you expect partner to have a reasonable hand at this vulnerability). The double was not alerted, but you assume it shows values and you simply bid 3♥, thinking you wouldn't mind playing there doubled. You do indeed get doubled, but opener takes this out to 4♦ and when the bidding comes round to you, you decide you had better ask about West's doubles. You are told that they have no agreement. What do you bid now??

If N's awareness of his own method is 'showing ♥+♣, and you expect partner to have a reasonable hand at this vulnerability).' it is not credible that he is suited to judge his best course with or without accurate descriptions of his opponents' method.

To demonstrate the distinction, my U2NT promises 5+5+ in the lower two unbid including 6+hcp between those two suits; additionally the hand is unsuitable to start the bidding at the one level [less than 2QT] unless it will make game in pard's best support suit

My method suggests that defending is a superior proposition; even worth an occasional speculative double.

[Bbradley62]

WellSpyder, on 2012-December-12, 05:06, said:

After the natural (4+) 1♦ opening, 2NT was alerted but not asked about (everyone around here - including you - plays it as "unusual", showing ♥+♣, and you expect partner to have a reasonable hand at this vulnerability).

Why did I alert 2N? Is Unusual 2N alertable in England?

[WellSpyder]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-12, 09:24, said:

Why did I alert 2N? Is Unusual 2N alertable in England?

Yes

[WellSpyder]

axman, on 2012-December-12, 09:20, said:

If N's awareness of his own method is 'showing ♥+♣, and you expect partner to have a reasonable hand at this vulnerability).' it is not credible that he is suited to judge his best course with or without accurate descriptions of his opponents' method.

If you think I should have been more precise I think I can add some additional details based on my understanding of what North normally plays. Minimum length is certainly 5-5, and I think minimum strength at this vul would be around 10HCP if fairly concentrated in the two suits. Maximum probably not well defined since the 2NT bidder is expected to bid again with a strong (maybe, say, 16+?) hand.

[NickRW]

FWIW, I might well have called 4♥ - frankly I'm not sure. However, whatever my opinion, I don't see how that can possibly be clear cut from the actual North's point of view, as he/she didn't choose that call at the first opportunity.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that I would have believed "Take out" as the explanation for both the 1st and 2nd X. If the 2nd one was more penalty oriented, then 4♥ now seems weird especially when I am looking at some bullets and partner is supposed to have a reasonable hand - whatever that precisely means!

[Trinidad]

NickRW, on 2012-December-12, 10:17, said:

FWIW, I might well have called 4♥ - frankly I'm not sure. However, whatever my opinion, I don't see how that can possibly be clear cut from the actual North's point of view, as he/she didn't choose that call at the first opportunity.

From the OP it seems clear that North expected to either:
- get to play a doubled 3♥ contract
or
- get a second turn (since usually a double in that situation creates a force)

Therefore, the fact that North bid a mere 3♥ the first time does not mean that he didn't intend to bid 4♥ at his second turn. After all, if I think that I can make 4♥, I would still prefer to play 3♥ doubled if possible.

From the second post it turns out that North actually did bid 4♥ at the table. So from the after_the_fact_perspective it was clear enough.

Rik

[Sjoerds]

If partner has the hand he promises, I would dbl in match points no doubt.
In butler...I might try 4♥

[bluejak]

I am surprised at the vote for 4♥: does that mean my hand has got better by being doubled?

If I had to guess the heart division, not only do I believe West to have four hearts, but I would put serious money on it, even if the information given me is correct.

By bidding 4♥ I expect to turn a plus score into a minus score.