[VixTD]

---

Multiple teams-of-eight, IMPs -> VPs
1♣ was prepared (might be only a 3-card suit)
1NT was alerted and explained as the unbid suits
Result: 2♠(E)=, NS-110, lead ♣3

I was called when dummy was displayed. I asked EW what their agreement was about 1NT. West said he thought it was natural, but neither he nor East could provide convincing evidence that their interpretation was the correct one. I asked West why he had not called the director to correct the misexplanation before the opening lead was faced. He apologised for the omission.

At the end of play I was recalled by EW, who wanted to know whether West could legitimately pass 2♠, and also thought that South might have led a trump had the explanation been corrected in time. EW play full transfers over 1NT openings (2♠ -> ♣); their convention card states that their responses to 1NT overcalls are as over 1NT openings.

How do you rule?

[RMB1]

I rule that unless EW have an explicit agreement that 1NT is natural and 4-suit transfers are "on" after a sandwich 1NT then treating 2♠ as a transfer is not a logical alternative and there is no logical alternative to Pass.

[jcrosa]

Under the circumstances one has to assume MI, not only by East (by alerting and describing 1NT as unusual), but also by West (by failing to alert - or announce - 2♠ as showing clubs).

Of course there is also UI, and East was obviously at fault by passing 2♠ when his only possible systemic rebid would be 3♣ (or 2NT if per chance that would show a negative hand for clubs - unlikely). Furthermore, over 3♣ (or 2NT) by West, pass would not be a LA for East, given that, whatever the specific meaning of the rebid, his partner would be showing a strong ♦/♠ two-suiter. Further E/W bidding would not be a pleasant thing to watch, but some high contract would be reached (West overriding East's attempts to play in ♠, and East reluctant to play in a different strain after his partner's initial two-suited bid).

(No need to delve much into the defensive play in 2♠).

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2011-June-20, 07:05, said:

EW play full transfers over 1NT openings (2♠ -> ♣); their convention card states that their responses to 1NT overcalls are as over 1NT openings.

Absent convincing contradictory evidence, the director should trust the E-W convention card. Hence I agree with jcrosa. Probably West should alert the 2♠ "transfer". But anyway, the director should rule that when West passed the "transfer", he is likely to have used UI from his partner's alert and explanation. In the EBU, the ruling weights will depend on the sympathy the director feels for victims of this kind of farrago of infractions, In general, it seems, not much

[FrancesHinden]

This has come up before, just because you fill in the space on the convention card about agreements after a 1NT overcall, there is NO reason to assume this applies after a 1NT sandwich overcall.
I don't play system on after 1X P 1Y 1NT and neither do some other people I know, although I do play it after 1x 1NT P. The positions are completely different and I would rule on the basis that there is no evidence from the card as to their agreements in this auction.

Did North cover the queen of clubs on the lead? If he did, then I agree that a trump lead might do better, but it's still going to make some of the time I think.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-June-21, 13:13, said:

Absent convincing contradictory evidence, the director should trust the E-W convention card. Hence I agree with jcrosa. Probably West should alert the 2♠ "transfer". But anyway, the director should rule that when West passed the "transfer", he is likely to have used UI from his partner's alert and explanation. In the EBU, the ruling weights will depend on the sympathy the director feels for victims of this kind of farrago of infractions, In general, it seems, not much

I really do not like this sort of comment which is coming very close to abusive. If you cannot keep it fair we shall have to take steps.

TDs are required to weight based on what he considers might have happened after consultation and consideration. They do not weight solely based on their personal feelings.

Everyone who has been reading this forum knows your opinions on the way the game is ruled. As you know perfectly well, stressing it every other time you post is counter-productive. Please resist.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-June-22, 07:21, said:

I really do not like this sort of comment which is coming very close to abusive. If you cannot keep it fair we shall have to take steps. TDs are required to weight based on what he considers might have happened after consultation and consideration. They do not weight solely based on their personal feelings. Everyone who has been reading this forum knows your opinions on the way the game is ruled. As you know perfectly well, stressing it every other time you post is counter-productive. Please resist.

I won't retaliate in kind to insolence. I avoid ad hominem attacks and personal abuse. I'm grateful for the work done by directors under difficult circumstances. I don't abuse directors and certainly not individual directors. I think the rules of Bridge are the problem. Like other posters, I sometimes constructively criticise them. I judge that collective bodies like the EBU, ACBL, and WBF are legitimate targets for comment.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2011-June-21, 13:13, said:

In the EBU, the ruling weights will depend on the sympathy the director feels for victims of this kind of farrago of infractions, In general, it seems, not much

If that's not a criticism of EBU directors, I don't know what is. As for insolence, I see none in David's post. Perhaps you need to rethink your position.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-22, 09:29, said:

If that's not a criticism of EBU directors, I don't know what is. As for insolence, I see none in David's post. Perhaps you need to rethink your position.

I meant that I don't abuse directors (corrected above). Like others in the laws forum, I sometimes criticise their rulings. Directors are human. The EBU provides guidelines as to how they should make (what I think are unnecessary) subjective judgements.

As previously explained to blackshoe (when I tried to defend another poster) I'm learning to tolerate abuse. I don't believe that other posters are liars or idiots or mad or sock-puppets or cheats or psychotic.... Hence I don't retaliate in kind. On the contrary, I was brought up to believe that resorting to ad hominem attacks is an admission of defeat in argument.

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-June-21, 23:38, said:

This has come up before, just because you fill in the space on the convention card about agreements after a 1NT overcall, there is NO reason to assume this applies after a 1NT sandwich overcall.

I fully agree.

However if a pair do not agree on whether they play sandwich notrump or not, then discussion of their follow-up methods seems moot. My experience of random pairs who agree to play sandwich notrump without further discussion is that they will default to the same follow ups as a one notrump overcall, despite the inferiority of these methods in that position.

[barmar]

If a pair plays sandwich notrumps, then they're presumably NOT going to use their standard 1NT responses to it, since it's an artificial convention asking partner to pick one of the other two suits.

The issue is regarding pairs that DON'T play sandwich NT, but play 1NT in the sandwich position as natural -- do they use the same response structure as they do with a direct 1NT overcall? I would judge that unless they can produce evidence that they treat the two situations differently, they're assumed to play the same system in both positions.

[RMB1]

Where I play "Sandwich NT" is not a convention, it simply means a NT bid in the sandwich position.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2011-June-22, 11:26, said:

Where I play "Sandwich NT" is not a convention, it simply means a NT bid in the sandwich position.

Neither the Laws nor the OB, as far as I can see, define a convention. Wikipedia states:

A bridge convention is a system of calls made during the auction phase of a contract bridge game which conveys a coded meaning about the players' card holdings. The calls may be "natural" (that is, show a feature of the named denomination,[1] such as the length of a suit) or "artificial" (show a feature unrelated to the named denomination).

So, it is reasonable to assume that any bid which is part of a partnership agreement is a convention. And it is reasonable to assume that East-West had no agreement on what 2♠ meant in reply. The UI (the alert of 1NT) does not make Pass demonstrably suggested over the LA of 3♣. Partner might easily prefer spades to diamonds, and yet that could still be a silly contract. It almost was. And I don't think it matters whether North covers the club lead; the damage has already been done.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I can't find any defence to 3C by West.

[bluejak]

RMB1, on 2011-June-22, 11:26, said:

Where I play "Sandwich NT" is not a convention, it simply means a NT bid in the sandwich position.

Unfortunately, when most of us play "Sandwich NT" that means we play it as showing a two-suiter. I really think that is the common understanding of the term. Certainly I have seen "Sandwich NT" on SCs and it always means playing it as takeout.

[barmar]

If osmeone says "We play Sandwich NT", what could they mean other than a convention? What does it mean to "play" a NT bid in the sandwich position?

It's similar to "balancing NT" or "balancing double". Taken literally, these just mean a NT or double in the pass-out seat, but we all know that in the context they're generally used, they mean a NT or double that may be weaker than in the direct seat.

[blackshoe]

People say "we don't play reverses". Then they get really confused when I respond "so you never reverse?"

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-22, 17:27, said:

Unfortunately, when most of us play "Sandwich NT" that means we play it as showing a two-suiter. I really think that is the common understanding of the term.

I don't think this is true. I play this bid as natural, but I would still refer to it as "sandwich NT".

[nige1]

barmar, on 2011-June-26, 21:27, said:

If osmeone says "We play Sandwich NT", what could they mean other than a convention? What does it mean to "play" a NT bid in the sandwich position? t's similar to "balancing NT" or "balancing double". Taken literally, these just mean a NT or double in the pass-out seat, but we all know that in the context they're generally used, they mean a NT or double that may be weaker than in the direct seat.

Meaning does depend on context. For instance...

• 'What does your "sandwich-notrump" (or "balancing-notrump") mean?' Our answer would be that we play them both as natural: strong flat hands with stops in opponents' naturally bid suits.
• 'Do you play "sandwich-notrump" (or "balancing-notrump")?' That question may well imply some kind of conventional or artificial meaning.

[blackshoe]

Several years ago, playing with a novice partner, we heard opponents discussing, as they came to the table, the convention "Sandwich NT", which we did not play, and of which I'm pretty sure my partner had never previously heard. First board, RHO deals and opens 1X, I pass, LHO bids 1Y. Partner gets this weird look on her face, and sure enough, out comes 1NT. Turns out she had 4-4 in the other two suits and about six points.

[mgoetze]

nige1, on 2011-June-22, 09:44, said:

I don't believe that other posters are liars or idiots or mad or sock-puppets or cheats or psychotic....

Presumably because you don't play bridge with them, as this seems to be what you assume of anyone sitting down at a card table with you.