[lamford]

---

The above hand, from the Monday IMP game at the Royal Overseas League last night, seemed familiar, but I cannot quite put my finger on why. Perhaps I am just imagining it.

Nothing was alerted. Apparently, North-South were playing transfers over the takeout double, and 1S was a hand that would respond 1NT in simpler methods. Declarer was a very strong player, and T-shirts with his name on are much sought after, but he was in an occasional partnership. He took the restricted choice line in diamonds after getting to hand later with a heart and made his contract - an unsurprising +11 IMPs on these limited values. North had advised East before the opening lead of the failure to alert, but there was no defence.

North was asked why he did not raise to 4S, and he replied that this partnership did not play 3S as natural (2S would have been forcing after a "1NT" response) and he treated it as a fragment, and he was uncertain whether fragments should be alerted. He was asked why 3S could not be a self-splinter for diamonds, and he indicated that the pair did not play splinters in competition. South was asked why he did not correct to 4S and he said that he was worried there would be four top losers there, and the pair did not play serious or non-serious slam tries. In fact they were neither a serious nor a non-serious partnership. The CC was silent on the meaning of 3S. How do you rule?

[campboy]

Shouldn't it be the Royal Overseas Foreign League? Anyway, like the other case, I guess it depends whether the TD believes the assertions about the system. What would 1♦ p 1NT p 3♠ be?

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-February-22, 10:24, said:

Shouldn't it be the Royal Overseas Foreign League? Anyway, like the other case, I guess it depends whether the TD believes the assertions about the system. What would 1♦ p 1NT p 3♠ be?

No, the Royal Over-Seas League, to be precise. And the auction you give was also not on the convention card, and was probably undiscussed.

[blackshoe]

How many auctions do you think should be listed on the SC? One? One hundred? One thousand?

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

. I shall not reply to this thread again.

I have to agree that, technically, starting another thread on exactly the same hand is not replying to the thread.

[Chris L]

Easiest problem of the decade; adjust to 7♠x minus several, maximum permissible PP to NS and, assuming the Monday IMP game at the Royal Over-Seas League falls under the auspices of the EBU, haul NS off to the L&E for a good disciplinary seeing to. Surprised you even needed to ask.

[Bbradley62]

Were they playing one-way transfers?

[mrdct]

North has UI from his partner's failure to alert 1♠, but he also has quite a lot of AI that south can't really hold a 5-card ♠ suit as that would give him a 6-5 in ♦&♠ with the opponents never finding their ♥ fit. In any case, if south does happen to hold the 6-5, one would expect him to bid 4♠ himself over 3NT so it seems perfectly reasonable to proceed cautiously with a practical 3NT bid.

I think the best the EW could hope for is an adjustment back to 3NT undoubled.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-February-22, 19:55, said:

North has UI from his partner's failure to alert 1♠, but he also has quite a lot of AI that south can't really hold a 5-card ♠ suit as that would give him a 6-5 in ♦&♠ with the opponents never finding their ♥ fit. In any case, if south does happen to hold the 6-5, one would expect him to bid 4♠ himself over 3NT so it seems perfectly reasonable to proceed cautiously with a practical 3NT bid.

I think the best the EW could hope for is an adjustment back to 3NT undoubled.

If South has 5-2-6-0, the opponents will have bid their ten-card club fit, rather than their eight-card heart fit, which does not seem that surprising, surely. As South does not have UI, I presume we are all happy with the pass of 3NT and 3NT doubled.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-22, 15:55, said:

I have to agree that, technically, starting another thread on exactly the same hand is not replying to the thread.

I suggest you look again, particularly at the North and East hands, which bear no resemblance to the thread to which I think you are referring. And the issues in this hand are different, in that there is no misbid by North, so the question of a fielded misbid does not arise. Also the potential meanings of South's second call are certainly not the same.