[blml] bizarre?

[Jeff Easterson]

Two hands from a recent tournament.  Fairly large tournament, about 
80-100 tables per session, players from many countries, not a small club 
tournament.

Hand 1:  Dealer South, all vul.

            AK8
            AJ4
            J7
            AKJ72
J1074               Q952
986                 K1032
104                 A6
10983               Q54
            63
            Q75
            KQ98532
            6

Bidding:    S
             ps     ps     2NT    ps
             3sp    ps     3NT    ps
             6di   all pass                (ps=pass; no alerts)

Before opening lead West asks if 3sp. demands response of 3NT  No!  He 
then asks what 3sp. meant.  No idea!
Lead was club; contract fulfilled.
EW present two arguments.  (1) 3sp. was not alerted although 
conventional (explained later); did South use this UI (nonalert showing 
that partner did not understand the bid) in bidding 6di?  (2) With 
proper info would have West had a somewhat better chance of finding the 
killing heart lead? (Should South have explained trhe 3sp. bid before 
the opening lead?)
TD checked CC of EW.  3sp. was noted as "Niemeyer Jacobi".  On enquiry 
this was explained as showing both or one minor.  North explained that 
he thought that they didn't play this over openings of 2NT, at least he 
was unsure.  Supplementary question: if 3sp. is alerted, must South than 
take 3NT to be to play; no interest in a minor suit contract?
Your input?

Hand 2    West dealer, all vul.

             10742
             J82
             1064
             J95
KQJ63                  A985
7654                   AKQ3
9                      KQ87
A43                    6
             --
             109
             AJ532
             KQ10872

Bidding       W
               ps     ps     1di    ps          *splinter
               1sp    ps     4cl*   dbl         ² first round control
               redbl² ps     4sp³   ps          ³ after agreed hesitation
               6sp   all pass

East claimed that they had agreed to use splinters only with hands of at 
least 18 HCPs.  No note of this on CC and no confirmation by partner, at 
least a suspicion of a self-serving statement.  TD asked if 4sp. had a 
conventional meaning, such as controls in both red suits.  No!  No 
further explanation of the 4sp. bid.
NS protest, say that 4sp. is to play, denies controls in both red suits, 
West overrides this after the 4sp. bid is made after long hesitation.

Extraneous comments.  4sp seems to be to play but pass seems hardly a 
logical alternative for West with her hand with which she could 
reasonably have opened 1sp.  But, of course, if she believes that first 
round controls in both red suits are missing there would seem little 
reason not to pass. 4sp. is surely a bizarre bid, impossible to 
understand.  (Would he have retreated  to a spade partial with a 
negative response  -- no first round control -- by his partner?!!!!!)

After the session in conversation with West: she said she had realised 
during the first part of the session not to trust the bids of her 
partner (who apparently had been drinking but was not drunk).  Examining 
the 4sp. bid we can well understand this I think.  She bid 6sp. because 
she was apparently afraid he might pass 4NT or a cuebid.  Your opinions? 
  Ciao, JE