[blml] Your call

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Karel
> Sent: 5. juni 2006 00:15
> To: 'blml'
> Subject: [blml] Your call
> 
> Ok  2 parter - no peeking :>>
> 
> Teams
> 
> S QTx
> H A98x
> D AQx
> C AQT
> 
> bidding proceeds
> 
> 2S*   3H    4D     ??
> 
> * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers)
> 
> Your call ...

First comment: Why hide the vulnerabilities?

> Ok now what actually happened
> 
> 
> Teams
> 
> North
> S Jxxxx
> H KJxxxx
> D K
> C K
> 
> 
> South
> S QTx
> H A98x
> D AQx
> C AQT
> 
> bidding
> 
>       North          South
> 2S*   2H(3H)**   4D   4H
> all pass
> 
> * 5+/4+ minors and (2-10 or <=4 losers)
> 
> ** Insufficient bid.  Apparnetly thought the bid was 1S.  Td called.  Bid
> not accepted.  3H was bid after enquiring what the 2S meant.  Result 4H
> making on a claim after D lead (H's are 3/0 and declarer didnt dump 4
> spades
> on the minors).
> 
> The opps call the td and say that 3H over a weak 2 bid generally shows a
> decent hand.  

What opponents feel that the 2H bid or 3H bid should show is not relevant?
North/South play their own system not their opponents' system

> South KNEW from the ui that this particular 3H's was alot
> weaker as North intended to bid 2H over 1S and not over 2S. 

Is this a fact? In case it is another fact that has been hidden from us.

> They felt
> over
> a "normal" 3H bid South had far too much not to pursue a slam and would
> infact bid it after North showed 1 key card + the increased likelihood of
> N's values being in the majors given the weak 2 minor opener.  They felt
> the
> score should be adjusted to 6H-1 as South had acted on the UI.

They have a point here, but whether it is strong enough to warrant an
adjusted score is for the Director (and in case the AC) to decide. I am not
so sure I would have adjusted.

> Extraneous info.
> N/S play weak 2D/2H/2S ... (it was suggested that N may have missed the
> opening bid all together)

So what?

> Several pairs did bid the slam after a pass, 1H opening by North.
> N/S played RKC

Again: So what?

> 
> 
> The committee allowed the result to stand.  Comments ?

On the available facts I tend to agree with the AC.

Regards sven