[blml] bizarre?

[Guthrie]

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?

[nigel1]
[1A] North suspects 3S was conventional, so should alert. If asked he 
should reply "don't know for sure but will guess if you like". If 
asked to guess, he should divulge that it may be "Niemeyer Jacobi 
*and* explain what that means.
[1B] South should volunteer this information, anyway, before the 
opening lead.
[1C] If 3N can be conventionally interpreted as no interest in 
diamonds, then South should pass because the failure to alert is 
unauthorised information to him.
[1D] Hence, even if you consider the favourable North-South result to 
be "the rub of the green", you may still consider a procedural penalty 
for disclosure violations.

Hand 2    West dealer, all vul.

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

Bidding
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

[nige1]
[2A] In absence of confirmation from convention card, system-notes or 
other source, you should disregard West's claim that splinters show 
18+ HCP -- a peculiar agreement that would make them virtually 
slam-forcing.
[2B] The hesitation could convey unauthorised information. IMO it's 
likely to show that East is thinking of going on.
[2C] In spite of East's denial, I feel that West should show a 
red-suit control over the redouble. East may well have leapt to 6S to 
avoid West making more drunken mistakes. IMO, however, all that is of 
marginal relevance.
[2D] The unauthorised information seems to have facilitated East's bid 
of 6S, so that North-South were damaged
[2E] If 6S makes, then the director should rule 4S+2.