[lamford]

?

---

2NT was systemically diamonds, but not alerted.

There was considerable discussion among the TDs at my local club last night in a multiple teams. South forgot that NS had agreed to play four transfers over 1NT. He asked about East's first double, and it was stated to be undiscussed, but by analogy with a double of a strong no-trump it might be majors/minors/diamonds, but West was sure it had not been discussed (off topic, what should it be if 2NT is natural and if 2NT is diamonds?). North decided to pass 3NT to try to pull the wool over East's eyes, and when it came round to him he pulled to 4D, and then sacced at the five level, arguing that South's undiscussed sequence made passing 4S not an LA, and that 5D was the only LA that was not demonstrably suggested.

East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, argued that North could not pull 3NTx, and that this sequence was mentioned on page 43 of the standard textbook, Burn's Book of Barking Bidding, where 3NT should show something like JTxx Ax AJxx Axx, and that North should therefore pass 3NTx because he has UI. East-West were unhappy as the other room gave in to 4S, and 5D made in some comfort. How do you rule?

[whereagles]

hmmm... I'm inclined let it stand.

With a correct explanation, East would have an easy 3/4♦ cue and West will have to decide whether to bid 5M or pass pard's dbl of 5♦ when North decides to take a save. The auction suggests to West that North bid 2NT solely on long diamonds, say KQ 7th, in which case passing 5♦ dbled seems normal.

So, normally I'd let stant, with at most a rule of

50% of 5♦x, NS +200
50% of 5Mx, NS +550

The secretary bird alegation seems pretty ridiculous to me

[lamford]

whereagles, on 2011-June-01, 05:57, said:

The secretary bird alegation seems pretty ridiculous to me

It's the way he tells them.

[mfa1010]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 05:17, said:

Burn's Book of Barking Bidding

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 05:17, said:

East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, argued that North could not pull 3NTx, and that this sequence was mentioned on page 43 of the standard textbook, Burn's Book of Barking Bidding, where 3NT should show something like JTxx Ax AJxx Axx,

That's fine, maybe he has to pass 3NT. But you'll notice that in the sequel, Better Barking Bidding for ex-Beginners, it is mentioned that double now shows xx KQJT98x KQ xx or better, so that pass of 3NTx is not a LA.

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-01, 06:39, said:

That's fine, maybe he has to pass 3NT. But you'll notice that in the sequel, Better Barking Bidding for ex-Beginners, it is mentioned that double now shows xx KQJT98x KQ xx or better, so that pass of 3NTx is not a LA.

Ah, but perhaps only 50% of Souths will have read Better Barking Bidding for ex-Beginners and the other 50% will have read Burn's Book of Barking Bidding. So that Pass of 3NTx will be an LA to the latter bunch, and all of them will choose the bid, as they will think that Burn is talking sense. That is usually, but not always, the case. As he once said, his strengths are shuffling, dealing and scoring. His weaknesses seem to be 3NT bids and claim rulings, but that is only a small area of bridge. Actually I recall a Tolly final where I had the good fortune to be in the same team as Burn and Callaghan and remember writing that they always made 3NT when it was possible to do so, and most of the time when it was impossible to do so. So, I should read both books.

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 06:46, said:

Ah, but perhaps only 50% of Souths will have read Better Barking Bidding for ex-Beginners and the other 50% will have read Burn's Book of Barking Bidding. So that Pass of 3NTx will be an LA to the latter bunch,

So the question is, perhaps, whether most players in this South's peer Group have read Better Barking.

[jh51]

whereagles, on 2011-June-01, 05:57, said:

So, normally I'd let stant, with at most a rule of

50% of 5♦x, NS +200
50% of 5Mx, NS +550

Huh? I think maybe you got the scores backwards.

[lamford]

whereagles, on 2011-June-01, 05:57, said:

So, normally I'd let stant, with at most a rule of

50% of 5♦x, NS +200
50% of 5Mx, NS +550

I would be reluctant to double 5S on the South hand, although maybe I have to still assume partner has the invitational balanced hand, despite his pull of 3NTx to 4D. I would be worried that a diamond was not cashing, and there certainly should be some of 5M undoubled if we adjust for MI. But, at the time West (or East) chooses to bid 5S, is everything not clear to all but the occasional ostrich?

[nige1]

2NT was systemically diamonds, but not alerted.
There was considerable discussion among the TDs at my local club last night in a multiple teams. South forgot that NS had agreed to play four transfers over 1NT. He asked about East's first double, and it was stated to be undiscussed, but by analogy with a double of a strong no-trump it might be majors/minors/diamonds, but West was sure it had not been discussed (off topic, what should it be if 2NT is natural and if 2NT is diamonds?). North decided to pass 3NT to try to pull the wool over East's eyes, and when it came round to him he pulled to 4D, and then sacced at the five level, arguing that South's undiscussed sequence made passing 4S not an LA, and that 5D was the only LA that was not demonstrably suggested.
East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, argued that North could not pull 3NTx, and that this sequence was mentioned on page 43 of the standard textbook, Burn's Book of Barking Bidding, where 3NT should show something like JTxx Ax AJxx Axx, and that North should therefore pass 3NTx because he has UI. East-West were unhappy as the other room gave in to 4S, and 5D made in some comfort. How do you rule?

My tuppence worth:
If 2N is a transfer to ♦ then, IMO, then 3N is the correct response on the South Hand: Too good a fit, merely to break to 3♣ but no major control to show; so 5♦ by North does seem automatic; but after this surprizing development., it is hard to believe that iSouth would not waken up to the recent agreement. Hence, prior to the lead, he should confess all.

---

[lamford]

nige1, on 2011-June-01, 16:59, said:

My tuppence worth:
If 2N is a transfer to ♦ then, IMO, 3N is the correct response on the South Hand: Too good a fit, merely to break to 3♣ but no major control to show; so 5♦ by North does seem automatic; but after this surprizing development., it is hard to believe that iSouth would not waken up to the recent agreement. Hence, prior to the lead, he should confess all. [/hv]

Yes, I like 3NT by South - although not everyone plays that it shows diamonds; it might pave the way for a sacrifice against 4M on a good day, and it cuts out 3M by West. I guess South was still perplexed how anybody could ever pull 3NTx, but North should correct the explanation before the opening lead, and West will get his last bid back anyway. He did, I am told on enquiry, but West elected to pass.

[Fluffy]

East was damaged by the non alert, partner will make a move if he knows partner has both majors. And he has an easy diamond bid to show them under normal explanations.

Asking NS to pass 3NT X is ridicoulous, but asking for a different outcome had he bid 3/4♦ makes sense.

[lamford]

Fluffy, on 2011-June-01, 21:08, said:

East was damaged by the non alert, partner will make a move if he knows partner has both majors. And he has an easy diamond bid to show them under normal explanations.

Asking NS to pass 3NT X is ridicoulous, but asking for a different outcome had he bid 3/4♦ makes sense.

The actual ruling was 50% of 5DX= and 50% of 5S-1 for East-West, not doubled. If East bids 4D over 2NT, South will double, West will bid 4S and North 5D. That should happen most of the time. The question is then whether EW press on to 5S with the known double fit, but at adverse colours.

[whereagles]

lamford, on 2011-June-01, 16:42, said:

I would be reluctant to double 5S on the South hand (...)

Self-contamination: I have a light dbl vs game bids

[lamford]

whereagles, on 2011-June-02, 07:40, said:

Self-contamination: I have a light dbl vs game bids

I am told there was a successful appeal against the weighting, by West, SB. He argued that after EW press on to 5S, much of the time North will misjudge and sac in 6D at IMPs. The final ruling, after the AC polled a number of players was:
40% of 6Dx-1 NS; 30% 5S - 1 EW; 30% of 5Dx= NS.