[blml] Your call

[Karel]

> 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?

+++  deliberately left out to see would it influence your call.  Double,
3NT, 4H, 4NT, others are all possibilities and vul may push you one way or
the other ...  Made it as grey and nebulous as possible to see was there a
sufficient vote to move toward slam or just die in game.


> Ok now what actually happened
>
>
++ Teams  Neither side vul
>
> 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

+++  I think if you are deciding this case on the AC or as a TD - what the
OS peers are likely to expect on a given sequence is very relevant or else
you have no basis to make a decision.  The OS agreements were not documented
(and lets face it generally arent) and as such they are/were free to claim
any range which improved their case.  Most pairs would not wander in with a
10 count over some sort of weak two as they need to be relatively confident
of not getting hammered with a double from LHO ... ergo the general style is
to keep overcalls over a weak two "decent".  The case in point, the 3H
overcall, would I think be considered by the majority as a "dangerous" bid
to put it mildly.  It is on the other hand a reasonable overcall of 1S.


> 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.

+++  yes this info should have been added and was disputed.  The NOS claimed
North was clearly reluctant to bid 3H.  In my experience in these types of
cases the huge majority of offenders will make the bid good, fairly
promptly, to avoid any penalities.  The NOS claim it was evident North was
considering passing.  The OS claim north was just thinking thru the possible
options.  IMO, Either way an established partnership will certainly pick up
an appropriate vibe.


> 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?

+++  Again there was doubt as to whether N actually saw the opening bid at
all.  The OS side claim North bid over what was thought to be a 1S opener,
but the NOS thought North appeared surprised that there was a bid at all.
If this was the case then 2H would have been a weak 2 (yes even with the 5
card spade), again reducing S's enthusiasm to move.


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

Again: So what?
+++  Well if some pairs arrived at slam with pass 1H (opening bid), then on
the actual auction, the OS have more information, similar values (again
assuming most pairs would have an opening+ bid for a 3H bid) and should be
more likely to get to slam.  That they didn't is due to the UI.

Which form of RKC the OS played could be relevant to allowing them to stop
in 5 or do a queen ask and still stop.  (eg) 4130 5C one keycard, 5D queen
ask, 5H none or 5S an extra heart - possible pass/bid on.  3041 5D - now
there isnt room and South will be forced to punt or bid 5H's.

> The committee allowed the result to stand.  Comments ?

+++  Not sure the timing of asking about the meaning of the 2S is relevant -
but I think it probably is.  When N didn't ask about the alert before
bidding 2H's, (maybe thought the NOS were alerting they played 5CM or weak
2's or tartan 5+S's/4+minor) then it is almost certain that North took the
2S as showing spades.  With spades on North's right - the 3H bid is abit
more understandable.  It also taints Souths perception of what to expect
from Norths hand as the bid was made on the basis of spades and not the
minors.  Also when it turns out its the minors, now the call doesn't look
half as good, and would possibly back up the NOS sides claim of reluctance
to bid.

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

Regards sven