[rduran1216]

---

There was no alert on 3H, the player who bid it intended it as a splinter, responder, who's an A player didn't take it that way, as they had no specific agreement. Before opening lead, the player told the opponents there was a failure to alert. After the hand, when declarer made 6, the director was called because there was a failure to alert 3H as a splinter.

How do you rule?

[Cascade]

rduran1216, on 2011-June-14, 23:00, said:

---

There was no alert on 3H, the player who bid it intended it as a splinter, responder, who's an A player didn't take it that way, as they had no specific agreement. Before opening lead, the player told the opponents there was a failure to alert. After the hand, when declarer made 6, the director was called because there was a failure to alert 3H as a splinter.

How do you rule?

Since he was informed before the opening it seems unlikely there was any damage in the play.

South responded to Blackwood after the splinter and then corrected 5♥ to 6♣. It might be that there is a logical alternative to 6♣ in which case south should choose the alternative call. Without further information however I am not willing to say that there has been any damage.

[rduran1216]

---

[jonottawa]

If there was no agreement, there was no failure to alert. But there was UI.

It seems to me that e/w earned their result when w doubled. Seems like a 2-way shot and I suspect w knew what was going on.

I'm torn what to do with n/s. On the one hand you could argue that the 5♥ call itself (perhaps in conjunction with the ♣Q S is looking at) was strange enough (from South's perspective) that it revealed the earlier misunderstanding. On the other hand you could argue that in a cramped auction with ♣ trump, 5♥ must mean SOMETHING here (perhaps a specific K ask? perhaps an attempt to get out in 5N off 2 keys (if matchpoints)?) and that whatever it asks/shows, 6♣ isn't the answer it's looking for.

I'm glad I'm not on the committee. I think most committees would let the result here stand.

[Cyberyeti]

jonottawa, on 2011-June-15, 01:50, said:

If there was no agreement, there was no failure to alert. But there was UI.

It seems to me that e/w earned their result when w doubled. Seems like a 2-way shot and I suspect w knew what was going on.

I'm torn what to do with n/s. On the one hand you could argue that the 5♥ call itself (perhaps in conjunction with the ♣Q S is looking at) was strange enough (from South's perspective) that it revealed the earlier misunderstanding. On the other hand you could argue that in a cramped auction with ♣ trump, 5♥ must mean SOMETHING here (perhaps a specific K ask? perhaps an attempt to get out in 5N off 2 keys (if matchpoints)?) and that whatever it asks/shows, 6♣ isn't the answer it's looking for.

I'm glad I'm not on the committee. I think most committees would let the result here stand.

5♥ to me is a grand slam try, if partner was interested in Q♣ he could have asked for it with 5♦, so presumably he has a 6th one and doesn't care, so superficially the only answer is 6♣ as whatever he wants in hearts, you haven't got it, but if you consider x, AQx, Axx, AKxxxx which is the sort of hand he should have for this bid, 7♣ is cold.

This is an awkward one for the appeals committee, 5♥ could mean any number of things, and you'd need to probe their agreements, to play 5N or "is the splinter a void" are 2 other possibilities.

I have a little sympathy with EW, they know a wheel has come off in the auction, they wouldn't even think of doubling with correct information, but it does sound like partner is ruffing the opening heart lead (and he's not going to lightner in case 6♥ does make)so I wouldn't consider the double SEWoG.

Depending on the agreements if any about 5♥, i'd probably adjust to 6♥ undoubled, possibly with a part of 7♣-1 if I'm allowed to make a weighted ruling (which depends on where I am) and think 5♥ was a grand slam try looking for the K♥.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-15, 04:41, said:

I have a little sympathy with EW, they know a wheel has come off in the auction ...

How do they know that?

[rduran1216]

South claimed that their agreements were relatively undiscussed, so he bid 6C, a bid he says he was heading for after N's 2C bid. West said he was damaged because he's expecting to give his partner a heart ruff after winning the A of trump.

My thoughts were, there is no guarentee that E holds more than 1 trump, and given south's hand, its reasonable for him to head for a 6C contract in this auction.

Thoughts?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-June-15, 07:46, said:

How do they know that?

Because one player has made a 5♥ bid which on the auction so far with no alert of 3♥ should be the last bid of the auction, and his partner has bid on. Maybe he has a useful void or has discovered a spare ace, but 99.9% of auctions that have gone this way to 5♥ stop there.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-15, 04:41, said:

I have a little sympathy with EW, they know a wheel has come off in the auction, they wouldn't even think of doubling with correct information, but it does sound like partner is ruffing the opening heart lead (and he's not going to lightner in case 6♥ does make)so I wouldn't consider the double SEWoG.

lamford, on 2011-June-15, 07:46, said:

How do they know that?

As usual, I have less sympathy for offenders than for their victims. In these fora, directors often judge aggressive actions to be SEWOGs, Should a player ignore his own instincts if he thinks his (normally automatic) action will clash with the director's likely judgement? He risks losing redress if there has been an infraction..

[bluejak]

So do we really believe partner has a void hearts when opponents bid hearts [both of them], apparently agree hearts, and then play in another suit? This strikes me as pretty naive.

I should like to know the quality of the E/W pair.

Incidentally, two posters have basically suggested that E/W earned their result. But does that mean you do not adjust? Under which Law?

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-June-15, 18:21, said:

So do we really believe partner has a void hearts when opponents bid hearts [both of them], apparently agree hearts, and then play in another suit? This strikes me as pretty naive.

Is this auction not possible with something like: (not checked the small cards against the doubler's hand)

---

Not saying I approve of bidding it like that, but have seen the gamble that the right void is held taken before.

[vigfus]

Table score stands for E/W Law 12.C.1.b. The double is nonsense. It gives the opps to run into 6NT easily, and disclousures the position of ♥J for declarer in 6NT. (If N/S have 8 heart fit.)
For N/S the score is 6♣ not doubled.

[AlexJonson]

6♣ undoubled for both sides seems a sensible outcome. I wouldn't judge the double as wild or gambling.