[blml] bizarre?

[Eric Landau]

On Aug 22, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Jeff Easterson wrote:

> 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?

I've never heard of "Niemeyer Jacobi" by name, but this sounds a lot  
like a convention I play often.  3S promises one or both minors with  
slam-try or better values, opener almost always bids 3NT (a higher  
response says responder has a good hand for slam opposite any of the  
3S bidder's possible hand types), and responder clarifies (naturally,  
in my method, although there are variants with artificial rebids).   
South's hand is classic for 3S followed by 4D.  It certainly looks  
like South "used" the UI from partner's failure to alert 3S to select  
his call: 3NT was a noise, and he could have bid 6D directly over  
2NT; I suspect that he was simply worried that 4D would confuse  
partner further and so decided to take an obviously final action.

That said, I don't see a case for E-W having been damaged.  3S is the  
start of a two-step; responder cannot pass 3NT, and will always reach  
slam opposite the North hand (the bidding panel probably asks for key  
cards directly over 4D, signing off at 6D when one is missing).   
Given that, I don't see how a different auction might have led West  
to lead a heart when he chose a club here, nor is there anything to  
suggest that a full and accurate explanation of the actual auction  
might have done so.  I'd let the result stand.

> 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?

N-S's contention that 4S should deny a control in either red suit may  
have merit for N-S, but has nothing to do with the E-W agreements and  
is entirely specious.  Absent any such agreement, which E-W have  
denied, passing 4S with the West hand is not IMO an LA.  East (who is  
under no UI constraint) would presumably not reject any slam try  
(note that slam is excellent despite the massive undiagnosed  
duplication in diamonds).  West may have taken account of East's long  
hesitation in choosing 6S insofar as it revealed East's state of  
inebriation as opposed to anything about his hand, but I don't think  
letting partner know you're drunk (or nearly so) is actionable UI!  I  
wouldn't adjust this one either.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net