[bluejak]

An easy one from Leeds - well, I thought it was easy!

---

West was about to bid 2♠ over 2♣ but decided to ask about 2♣. "Both majors" he was told! So he passed.

After South bid 2NT North said she had realised she had misdescribed the 2♣ bid which was "Collins", showing both minors. The TD was called, failed to give East her last pass back, and the bidding proceeded.

While the defence missed its diamond ruff, declarer misguessed the diamonds so it went one off.

Now the TD was recalled: the defence suggested that the 2NT bid was affected by UI. The TD did not cover himself in glory by ruling at the table without consideration or consultation, but anyway, how would you rule?

[paulg]

I'd have to ask the meaning of 2♥ over 2♣ - it does not appear to be alerted but perhaps they have some idea about the likely values. It would seem unlikely to be just a five-card suit so raising hearts is probably going to be a LA, so I can imagine eventually getting to a ruling of 4♥ by North down three or four. Hard to see that anyone will double.

I don't regard 2NT as gross misuse of UI so would not be considering any PPs. It is very close to being the best call over 2♥, but it is suggested over 3♥ as it is less likely to end badly.

[campboy]

Firstly, the MI. If West gets the correct explanation he would bid 2♠; North (who still believes partner has shown the majors) will presumably pass. Since 2♠ won't make, there is no damage from MI.

Secondly, the UI. As Paul says, we need to know more about 2♥. Depending on the values shown it may be that pass is an LA; I find it harder to believe that 3♥ is an LA, but if either of them is 2NT is suggested and there is damage.

[bluejak]

I am sure with this level of player that if you ask what 2♥ means you will be told one of two things: "She wants to play there" or "She has forgotten the system: she is meant to bid a minor".

[pooltuna]

roll it back 2♥-1

[sfi]

bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 09:29, said:

Now the TD was recalled: the defence suggested that the 2NT bid was affected by UI.

Do we have a penalty double available? If so, I have a maximum balanced hand without a fit for partner's suit. 2NT looks obvious to me (and I got a *shrug* 2NT answer from the one person I polled).

Even if we don't have a penalty double initially, it looks pretty clear.

However, West was given MI and is much more likely to bid 2♠ with the correct explanation. Nobody seems to have a bid after that, so I would be inclined to adjust to 2♠-1 had there been any damage. In short, table result stands.

[bluejak]

The question was not asked. But my understanding of Collins is that everything is natural except 2♣ for the minors and 2♦ for the majors so I expect there was a penalty double.

This pair was not top class, and there is quite a school of thought in England that you need the same values to double a mini NT as a weak NT, so it is quite possible that while she had a penalty double available she is not strong enough to use it.

[AlexJonson]

I can only admire Directors dealing with a hand like this.

[campboy]

Unless there is an agreement that 2♥ is constructive (or agreement about another relevant situation, such as (1NT) 2♥-2♠) I think pass is an LA. Six or seven tricks are plausible, weighty weighty.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-October-06, 15:38, said:

I can only admire Directors dealing with a hand like this.

I can only despise Directors failing to give anyone her last call back, if they should, and ruling at the table on a fairly complicated MI and UI situation without discussion. I presume it was East's first, or most recent, pass that the TD failed to give back, not her last.

As for the ruling, paulg's seems spot on. I think three off is normal however, and there is no way to beat it four. So 100% of 4H-3 for N/S gets my vote. 2NT is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. I bet you North would not have woken up if South had raised to 3H. I would expect 2H to be constructive over Collins, but if they can show it is non-forcing, then Pass by South becomes obvious.

[bluejak]

What actually happened is that the TD decided that "2NT was a reasonable bid" and the result was unchanged. He later came to E/W and said that having considered a bit more he thought he was wrong and should have disallowed the 2NT bid.

However, it does not seem that easy to take more than six tricks defending 2♥ so an adjustment from 5♣ -1 to 2♥ -1 seemed fairly pointless, especially as it was discovered that E/W had already obtained a 97% board.

Just to keep Stef happy I won't tell you where Leeds is.

[blackshoe]

It's in Alabama. Or maybe Maine. Or Utah. Or Canada. Or Kent. Or…

http://en.wikipedia....sambiguation%29