[pescetom]

MPs.

---

NS are very experienced but prone to mysterious bidding. After the 1NT opening (announced as 15-17) of North, South thinks for a while and bids 3♣. This is not alerted by North (any artificial bid would be alertable here) who now bids 3♦, not alerted by South. East asks about 3♣ and North says "not really sure, we haven't discussed this, but I took it as clubs although in that case he should have transferred". East leaves it there, South thinks for an entire minute and then bids 3NT. North now bids 4NT asking for Aces and a contract of 6♣ is reached.

East calls the Director, explains these facts and complains that he may have been damaged by North's failure to pass after South's long pause and apparently conclusive 3NT. How should Director proceed, and rule? If he asks them to play on, the contract is made despite competent defence.

Director has available the the scores at other tables (mainly 3NT+2, a few 3NT+1 and one 2NT+3) and a double-dummy analysis of the hand (6♣ is PAR, 5NT makes). Do you consider it appropriate to consult either of these and should they influence his decision?

[Vampyr]

The results of other tables are not at all relevant. The question we are asking is whether virtually everyone would move on over three no trumps with no breaks in tempo. You need to poll to find out.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-November-13, 09:42, said:

The results of other tables are not at all relevant. The question we are asking is whether virtually everyone would move on over three no trumps with no breaks in tempo. You need to poll to find out.

More specifically, peers of the players in question. And presumably equipped with the same tools too - this pair play simple Blackwood and have no agreements capable of discovering side kings before committing to a clubs slam.

[barmar]

How did this slam make? Spade-diamond squeeze? Double finesse in hearts?

[FelicityR]

The bidding is indeed strange, very strange. Would East feel aggrieved if the contract had gone down? Of course not! After 3♦, South has the option of 3NT, 4♣ or 5♣? Is that worth a minute's think. Maybe...

At the end of the day it's a dreadful slam that makes with a very, very favourable lie of the cards. If North and South are that 'experienced' should they be in this contract at all? Were they having a bad MP evening generally and trying to force or generate some tops out of thin air?

As Vampyr rightly says the results at the other tables are not relevant at all. What matters are the hesitations in the bidding here. I'm not sure what UI is supposed to have been passed during this strange sequence: that South has a semi-balanced 6332 shape, 7 HCP hand with 6♣ that opposite a maximum 1NT no-trump opener is suitable for a small slam that makes, let's say, 5% of the time?

Maybe, oh maybe, South actually felt a tinge of guilt at taking so long to bid 3NT, that when North bid 4NT - Blackwood or whatever that was supposed to be - he/she answered affirmatively, knowing full well that the partnership were probably heading for a ludicrous slam. (I probably would have left 4NT to play, or bid 5♣ here.)

[barmar]

So one of Lamford's RR stories actually happened at a real-life club!

[KingCovert]

If you believe that 3♣ is a slam try, and your 3♦ bid is a cuebid. 3NT seems to deny a major suit ace. Not exactly a shock to Opener... (They're holding all 3 outside aces)

Standard treatment is that 3♣ is a slam try over a 15-17 NT. But then... North's explanation is unfortunate. I think the problem is, North can't be certain it's not a slam try? Arguably, North did the ethical thing in continuing.

[nige1]

pescetom, on 2019-November-13, 08:39, said:

MPs. NS are very experienced but prone to mysterious bidding. After the 1NT opening (announced as 15-17) of North, South thinks for a while and bids 3♣. This is not alerted by North (any artificial bid would be alertable here) who now bids 3♦, not alerted by South. East asks about 3♣ and North says "not really sure, we haven't discussed this, but I took it as clubs although in that case he should have transferred". East leaves it there, South thinks for an entire minute and then bids 3NT. North now bids 4NT asking for Aces and a contract of 6♣ is reached. East calls the Director, explains these facts and complains that he may have been damaged by North's failure to pass after South's long pause and apparently conclusive 3NT. How should Director proceed, and rule? If he asks them to play on, the contract is made despite competent defence.

---

On the face of it, NS just got lucky. North tried to divulge the partnership agreements but would have done better not to speculate. The director should poll North's logical alternatives after South's slow 3N but would have difficulty describing N-S methods.

pescetom, on 2019-November-13, 08:39, said:

Director has available the the scores at other tables (mainly 3NT+2, a few 3NT+1 and one 2NT+3) and a double-dummy analysis of the hand (6♣ is PAR, 5NT makes). Do you consider it appropriate to consult either of these and should they influence his decision?

Vampyr, on 2019-November-13, 09:42, said:

The results of other tables are not at all relevant. The question we are asking is whether virtually everyone would move on over three no trumps with no breaks in tempo. You need to poll to find out.

Like Vampyr, most directors refuse to consider events at other tables, even those with similar auctions and methods, although such factual information seems relevant to me.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-13, 11:00, said:

How did this slam make? Spade-diamond squeeze? Double finesse in hearts?

The latter, West's hearts holding was a stiff KJ.

KingCovert, on 2019-November-13, 11:48, said:

If you believe that 3♣ is a slam try, and your 3♦ bid is a cuebid. 3NT seems to deny a major suit ace. Not exactly a shock to Opener... (They're holding all 3 outside aces)

Standard treatment is that 3♣ is a slam try over a 15-17 NT. But then... North's explanation is unfortunate. I think the problem is, North can't be certain it's not a slam try? Arguably, North did the ethical thing in continuing.

Yes the timing and choice of question by East was unfortunate, but I can't see it getting NS off the hook.
If you believe that 3♣ is a slam try rather than invitational, maybe you should be offering that as an explanation when opponents inquire about the bid, rather than "no agreement, maybe clubs"?
If South believes 3♦ is an advance cuebid then he should be alerting here too.

nige1, on 2019-November-13, 14:27, said:

Like Vampyr, most directors refuse to consider events at other tables, even those with similar auctions and methods, although such factual information seems relevant to me.

It is not orthodox but I share your perplexity in some contexts. Say TD decides to assign 3NT+2 weighted with some percentage of 3NT+1 here, the factual results of peers who played 3NT would seem to be a useful and objective aid to assigning that percentage.

[pescetom]

Just to complete the picture: NS some time ago agreed to play 1NT - 2♠ as transfer to clubs, but apparently did not discuss how this would impact 1NT - 3♣ which was part of their system.

As a Director I would expect an unalerted 3♣ here to be natural and invitational. I checked out the sequence 1NT - 3♣ in a textbook of their system and it is natural and invitational there too: opener is expected to bid 3NT holding a top honour or 4-cards in the suit, otherwise pass. Opener bidding 3♦ instead is not foreseen, but if natural and unalerted I would deduce it must show a 5-card suit, denying fit in clubs and inviting responder to bid 3NT or pass.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-November-14, 05:19, said:

Just to complete the picture: NS some time ago agreed to play 1NT - 2♠ as transfer to clubs, but apparently did not discuss how this would impact 1NT - 3♣ which was part of their system.

As a Director I would expect an unalerted 3♣ here to be natural and invitational. I checked out the sequence 1NT - 3♣ in a textbook of their system and it is natural and invitational there too: opener is expected to bid 3NT holding a top honour or 4-cards in the suit, otherwise pass. Opener bidding 3♦ instead is not foreseen, but if natural and unalerted I would deduce it must show a 5-card suit, denying fit in clubs and inviting responder to bid 3NT or pass.

Would be nat and forcing here.

3♦ should say that I'm bidding 3N but I'm now so good I'm making a slam try just in case partner has something like xxx, Kx, xx, A109xxx 3N is nothing to cue in the majors.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-14, 05:44, said:

Would be nat and forcing here.

3♦ should say that I'm bidding 3N but I'm now so good I'm making a slam try just in case partner has something like xxx, Kx, xx, A109xxx 3N is nothing to cue in the majors.

I follow your logic but I think you are assuming a more wide ranging use of 3♣ than their system foresees. The textbook requires a suit headed AQ or KQ and provides xxx xx xx AQxxxx as an example.

Of course we don't know whether North remembers this and what he meant by 3♦, which may indeed be some kind of slam try. An advance cuebid would be alertable here.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-November-14, 06:09, said:

I follow your logic but I think you are assuming a more wide ranging use of 3♣ than their system foresees. The textbook requires a suit headed AQ or KQ and provides xxx xx xx AQxxxx as an example.

Of course we don't know whether North remembers this and what he meant by 3♦, which may indeed be some kind of slam try. An advance cuebid would be alertable here.

If 3♦ is a stop, does that require an alert ? We have auctions where we play a bid as a stop (90+% of the time), but if you move beyond 3N it becomes a cue.

My impression is N had no clue what S showed as regards strength, S had no idea what 3♦ meant (and that was the cause of the hesitation) so there is nothing clearly suggested by 3N being slow. If anything, because 3♣ forcing-3♦ would be a reasonably obvious reply, the suggestion is that it was invitational, so that suggests not bidding on.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-14, 06:23, said:

If 3♦ is a stop, does that require an alert ? We have auctions where we play a bid as a stop (90+% of the time), but if you move beyond 3N it becomes a cue.

That is what I meant by an advance cuebid. I would expect the inference that what looked like a suit bid (be it stop or pattern) may become a cue to be alerted, considering also that this is an unusual method nowadays, at least around here. I wouldn't be surprised if historically it was not alerted, though. This weekend I'm with the bigwigs and will see what they have to say on this point.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-November-14, 07:06, said:

That is what I meant by an advance cuebid. I would expect the inference that what looked like a suit bid (be it stop or pattern) may become a cue to be alerted, considering also that this is an unusual method nowadays, at least around here. I wouldn't be surprised if historically it was not alerted, though. This weekend I'm with the bigwigs and will see what they have to say on this point.

I think there's a difference between guaranteeing a stop, and then confirming the stop is one of the top 2 and a cue that might be a singleton when you move over 3N, the latter should definitely be alertable, the former may vary by jurisdiction.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-November-14, 05:19, said:

Just to complete the picture: NS some time ago agreed to play 1NT - 2♠ as transfer to clubs, but apparently did not discuss how this would impact 1NT - 3♣ which was part of their system.

It probably shouldn't affect it at all, if the meaning was natural and invitational. The transfer would presumably be used for weak and game-forcing hands with clubs, which they couldn't easily show before adding the transfer.

[KingCovert]

Where I'm from: the common agreement amongst half decent players is to play 4-way transfers, 2♠ is a transfer to clubs, and 1NT-2♠-2NT is a super-accept. I'd imagine that if this was their agreement, then even though they had no agreement on 3♣, then possibly:

Opener believed 3♣ must be forcing.
Opener responded with surely the most positive cuebid of 3♦.
Opener received a response of 3NT, which is unsurprising given that Opener is holding all the outside aces.
Opener therefore believed that they must surely have to continue over 3NT.

I can't say what Opener was actually thinking, but, if 2♠ is a 4-way transfer, I'd find passing 3NT to be the MOST unethical action. Especially after a long pause.

[blackshoe]

A couple of things here. Apparently we now have some additional facts that weren't in the op. That's not good. It's common here to get the facts in dribs and drabs, but it shouldn't be, particularly if the poster was the table director for the incident in question. Tell us what you know, even if you think it's not relevant.

So. North says that South's 3!C bid is "undiscussed". The director says that some textbook or other on the system this pair are allegedly playing says that the bid is natural and invitational. What was South's intention when he made the bid? Why did he think (if he did) that his partner would understand it?

In the "book" system, where 3!C is invitational, what would 3!D mean? What would it mean in this pair's actual system?

If 3!D was "out of the blue", South's tank is at least understandable. If it means "I don't have a diamond stopper" then South should not bid 3NT. If it means "I have a diamond stopper, but I'm missing a stopper in one of the majors" then South should not bid 3NT there either. If it means "I don't know what you're doing, but I have a diamond control" then South should bid 3NT. Another question that would occur to me if I were South and intended 3!C as invitational: why didn't North just bid 3NT himself?

As a director, the first question to be answered, after "what is their actual system?" is whether 3!D is an infraction of Law 16. I would say maybe, but even if it is it may not matter, because the second question is whether 4NT is an infraction. I would rule that it is, and adjust the score. To what I would adjust would require seeing the other two hands, which we were not given. Probably some weighted score involving playing in 3NT.

[Trinidad]

pescetom, on 2019-November-13, 16:43, said:

nige1, on 2019-November-13, 14:27, said:

Like Vampyr, most directors refuse to consider events at other tables, even those with similar auctions and methods, although such factual information seems relevant to me.

It is not orthodox but I share your perplexity in some contexts. Say TD decides to assign 3NT+2 weighted with some percentage of 3NT+1 here, the factual results of peers who played 3NT would seem to be a useful and objective aid to assigning that percentage.

In principle, the scores at other tables are irrelevant. However, they are a very good "reality check" when you assign an adjusted score.

The way I assign an AS is to look what would have happened without the infraction at my table only. After I have made a decision, I check with the results at other tables. Usually (fortunately) these are in good agreement. Sometimes, I have overlooked that it isn't that obvious to take all the tricks on offense or defense (e.g. because of difficulties with entries or because the play that gets the most tricks is actually technically inferior or because I have overlooked that a defender may get (pseudo-)squeezed).

If there is a difference with the other scores, I will look whether the different score could have occurred at the table. Sometimes, it could have, and sometimes it couldn't. I will revise my opinion accordingly.

Summarizing: I will only use the events that happened at the table where the infraction occurred. The information from results at other tables is helpful to avoid assigning a wrong AS.

Rik

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-15, 15:03, said:

A couple of things here. Apparently we now have some additional facts that weren't in the op. That's not good. It's common here to get the facts in dribs and drabs, but it shouldn't be, particularly if the poster was the table director for the incident in question. Tell us what you know, even if you think it's not relevant.

So. North says that South's 3!C bid is "undiscussed". The director says that some textbook or other on the system this pair are allegedly playing says that the bid is natural and invitational. What was South's intention when he made the bid? Why did he think (if he did) that his partner would understand it?

In the "book" system, where 3!C is invitational, what would 3!D mean? What would it mean in this pair's actual system?

If 3!D was "out of the blue", South's tank is at least understandable. If it means "I don't have a diamond stopper" then South should not bid 3NT. If it means "I have a diamond stopper, but I'm missing a stopper in one of the majors" then South should not bid 3NT there either. If it means "I don't know what you're doing, but I have a diamond control" then South should bid 3NT. Another question that would occur to me if I were South and intended 3!C as invitational: why didn't North just bid 3NT himself?

The OP gives the facts offered to TD before he asks any further questions.
My textbook search took place ( as written here) some days after the OP.
And in the book system (as written here) 3D after 3C is undefined.
South thought their agreements about 2S and 3C were as Barmar suggests. North thought they no longer had an agreement about 3C.