[Hanoi5]

---

N/S play Roman Club. 1♣ is not neccessarily natural. 2NT was alerted but no one asked. After 3♦ South asks East what 3♣ meant and receives a non-courteous answer of to play; South now asks West what 3♦ was and West kindly explains that 2NT shows the two unbid minors but that as 1♣ is not natural it could mean something else (West claims she said it could be ♣+♦ or ♦+♥). North doubles 3♥, in her own words 'based on HCP's'. After the lead is made the Director was called, the hand was played and made and North claims she wouldn't have doubled if she had been told 2NT was any two-suiter and/or a strong hand, she would have liked to be told the complete information about the bid for then she wouldn't have doubled.

What shall the Director/Appeals committee decide?

[pran]

Frankly, I cannot see how North has any case at all?
2NT was correctly alerted but she didn't ask.
During the auction she was given all the information there is?

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2010-November-25, 05:11, said:

Frankly, I cannot see how North has any case at all?
2NT was correctly alerted but she didn't ask.
During the auction she was given all the information there is?

OK, so a pretty tenuous MI case. What about UI? I guess since north did not start asking questions until after 3♦ then east did not have any UI at the time they bid 3♦ about a possible misunderstanding of which suits 2NT was showing.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2010-November-25, 05:04, said:

N/S play Roman Club. 1♣ is not neccessarily natural. 2NT was alerted but no one asked. After 3♦ South asks East what 3♣ meant and receives a non-courteous answer of to play; South now asks West what 3♦ was and West kindly explains that 2NT shows the two unbid minors but that as 1♣ is not natural it could mean something else (West claims she said it could be ♣+♦ or ♦+♥). North doubles 3♥, in her own words 'based on HCP's'. After the lead is made the Director was called, the hand was played and made and North claims she wouldn't have doubled if she had been told 2NT was any two-suiter and/or a strong hand, she would have liked to be told the complete information about the bid for then she wouldn't have doubled. What shall the Director/Appeals committee decide?

---

West explained that 2N shows the two unbid minors but that as 1♣ is not natural it could mean something else (West claims she said it could be ♣+♦ or ♦+♥). But was 3♦ alerted? Presumably, West knew that 3♦ showed ♦ and ♥. IMO, if so, 3♦ should have been alerted. Some may consider that to be general Bridge knowldge. But was it clear to North? Without an alert? IMO, it is not plausible to argue that North should protect herself by asking again, about an unalerted call, in an auction where opponents have already admitted that they have no definite understanding. I suppose that 3♥ could require an alert, too, but that is less clear-cut

[paulg]

nige1, on 2010-November-25, 06:43, said:

West explained that 2N shows the two unbid minors but that as 1♣ is not natural it could mean something else (West claims she said it could be ♣+♦ or ♦+♥). But was 3♦ alerted? IMO, it should have been. Presumably, West knew that 3♦ showed ♦ and ♥. Some may consider that to be general Bridge knowldge. But was it clear to North? Without an alert? IMO, it is not plausible to argue that North should protect herself by asking again, about an unalerted call, in an auction where opponents have already admitted that they have no definite understanding. IMO 3♥ may require an alert too but that is less clear-cut

If EW have no clear understanding, then there is no requirement to alert.

[Free]

paulg, on 2010-November-25, 06:52, said:

If EW have no clear understanding, then there is no requirement to alert.

What?!? Is this really the normal procedure?

Suppose you play something artificial (say suction) against artificial 1♣ openings. The auction starts 1♣-2♥ where 1♣ shows 2+♣ in a 5542-frame. Some people consider this an artificial 1♣, some consider this natural. If you're not sure what your partner thinks about this opening, and you don't alert 2♥, don't you think there will be a big problem when partner has the minors or ♠ instead of the normal length in ♥?

[barmar]

I don't know what the rule in Venezuela is, but in ACBL you're required to alert if you think the call is alertable, even if you can't remember the specific meaning.

[iviehoff]

Hanoi5, on 2010-November-25, 05:04, said:

[After 3♦ South asks East what 3♣ meant and receives a non-courteous answer of to play

I think you mean it was an inaccurate answer, rather than discourteous. I suspect you mean that he should have said it was "pass or correct". In which case "to play" is clearly misleading. Would North have doubled a bid described as "pass or correct"? Would East have bid 3D over a bid he described as "to play" if undoubled?

[Hanoi5]

When I say discourteous I mean it went something like:

-What's 3♣?
- What do you think it is? To play!

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2010-November-30, 04:34, said:

When I say discourteous I mean it went something like:
- What's 3♣?
- What do you think it is? To play!

Discourteous and implying a misbid or misinformation

[bluejak]

I think this depends somewhat on North's ability. If North is an expert I see no damage whatever. He had all the information, it was obvious what East had, and his double was a complete and very clearly ill-judged gamble.

If North is a novice then he has a right to have the agreements and nuances carefully and fully explained so there is no question of him making a mistake partly through not knowing his opponents' agreements.

Probably North is in between the two, so whether I adjust might depend on which end of the scale he is nearer.