[blml] bizarre?

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 8/22/07, Eric Landau <ehaa at starpower.net> wrote:
> 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.
>

Excellent so far, but any competent director should rule that 6D was
motivated by UI and cannot be allowed.  I would give a PP to South for
that egregious call.  Unless South is a real beginner, he must be
taught to clearly understand why it is so wrong.

> 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.
>

Banging out 6D with that obvious UI must be disallowed.  But what is
NS's range for 2NT?  Suppose it is 21--22.  South, had he not been
tipped off, may well have thought 6NT is worth considering, and is
usually is opposite 21--22 (I imagine a computer simulation would back
that up when the partnership holds adequate key cards).

If not for the immediate 6D, the auction would have been longer, with
several chances for lead-directing doubles:  Thus, it is quite
possible something else would have been led.  Though a total NS
disaster is possible, the probable contract is 4, 5, or 6 D or NT
(probably after South bids D or North bids a negative NT again).  But
I think 6D and 6NT are the two most likely results that were likely
had the irregularity not occurred.

Therefore, the *kindest* result NS deserve is 6NT -1.  Plus the PP for
South.  Personally, I would give 6NT-1 to EW as well ("the most
favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred"),
but I leave the fun with Law 12C3 to those who like it---good luck
convincing anyone you are right.

I think it is seriously bad to say that 6D making was "most
unfavourable result that was at all probable"---South's own bidding
proved that he did not think so.  And it is seriously bad not to award
South with a PP.  You cannot use UI to bang out a close-out bid to
prevent the wheels from falling off of your auction.

Jerry Fusselman