[schulken]

I continue to try to get the rulings right and LA and BIT are the toughest to judge, IMO. I will present here one of two rulings we made last week for your input. Shortly, I will present the other, which I will cleverly call LA - Third Event. I was the floor director and consulted with the DIC, who is very senior and experienced. In both cases, I shared the auction with a number of other experienced players and directors and received a mixed bag of responses, some of whom concurred and some of whom thought we were off base. As always, your reasoned judgment and conclusions are appreciated. I will provide any other information deemed pertinent.

---

After leading 9♣, N called to express concern about the hand E held and the bidding. During the bidding, W hesitated before making the 3 NT call. E stated she believed they were playing Bergen raises with overcalls, but her partner confirmed they were not. W had not alerted the 3♣ bid. We concluded that E came to the realization that she had misbid when her partner did not alert her call and her subsequent bidding must reflect that her bid meant she had a good raise with a long ♣ suit, which her partner and opponents understood that she had. After her partner bid 3 NT, we concluded that she did not have another bid and scored the hand at that contract by W, off 3. We believed that W's failure to alert was extraneous information from partner under L16B.1.

Some players have told me they strongly believe you have the right to bid your hand as you choose. Indeed, 3♣ could have been a psyche which she intended to correct to 4♠ at her next opportunity, although my conversation with her indicated otherwise. The question comes down to whether you can make a bidding mistake and later correct it. L16B.1. seems to allow it if you weren't alerted to your mistake by extraneous information from partner. In this case, we believed she was influenced by W's hesitation and failure to alert and was therefore not allowed to correct.

[billw55]

Holding four spades and ♦xx, I do not think that passing 3NT is a logical alternative. Table result stands.

Could depend on the level of the players I suppose.

[Trinidad]

I don't really understand this. If I understand you correctly, East tried to make a Bergen raise by bidding 3♣. West didn't alert and that woke East up that partner had not understood the intended Bergen raise. So far, I get it. But then you go on to state that East thought partner must have interpreted 3♣ as a spade raise with a good club suit.

But isn't this kind of a fit jump alertable as well? If so, how can East than conclude -on the basis of the non alert- that West interpreted 3♣ as fit showing?

Rik

[wyman]

Would help to know what their agreements are outside of competition. If 3N is to play after the Bergen raise, I think pass is a LA to 4S, and the lack of alert suggests 4S instead of 3N, so I'd roll this to 3N.

If 3N shows extras, E certainly has a max, even without keys, and will likely bid 4C if their cuebidding style permits it. W may bid 4N to play, after which E will answer KC, I assume. If 1430, east will bid 5D, and any west will figure out what's going on and retreat to spades. I'd rule 5S-1. If 3014 or straight BW, however, 5C down a bunch seems right.

PP to an east who should know better (or at least a clear explanation of the laws for one who shouldn't be expected to know better) for blatantly using the UI though.

[phil_20686]

East has to bid as if her bid was understood, she cannot reason from the failure to alert, nor choose an action suggested. But what action is suggested here? Pass cannot be suggested imo unless you have specific agreements about this sequence, since its not at all obvious that 3N is to play over a four card raise. Its even harder to believe that its to play when you are holding KQx of hearts. Even if it is it will rarely be right to pass it, as you probably ahve too much value concentration in the majors to play well in trumps.

Obviously you should ask east why she bid 4S, but any answer along the lines of she thought spades were agreed would be satisfactory to me.

[phil_20686]

 wyman, on 2012-July-24, 13:58, said:

If 3N shows extras, E certainly has a max, even without keys, and will likely bid 4C if their cuebidding style permits it. W may bid 4N to play, after which E will answer KC, I assume. If 1430, east will bid 5D, and any west will figure out what's going on and retreat to spades.

Its hard to argue that its a max without knowing which way round they play their bergen raises, but with KQx under the bidder, it doesnt feel like a good hand to me. Also, they might not be playing cuebids.

[wyman]

 phil_20686, on 2012-July-24, 14:00, said:

Its hard to argue that its a max without knowing which way round they play their bergen raises, but with KQx under the bidder, it doesnt feel like a good hand to me. Also, they might not be playing cuebids.

I assume that when someone plays Bergen raises that are inverted, the OP will describe the agreement as "reverse Bergen" or "inverted Bergen." Further, I don't really question that 3C is a constructive Bergen raise when the hand in question holds a not-particularly-shapely 8HCP.

Obviously more system inquiries are required if EW don't cuebid. But if they don't cue, we're not likely in this situation, as 3N is probably not slammish in spades then either.

[Phil]

Partner has given me a choice between 3N and 4♠. I have ♥KQx that is a problem because it makes it more likely we are wide open in diamonds.

3N fits a hand like AKxxx AJx Kxx Qx. I don't think passing is a LA even if its suggested by the UI.

[ahydra]

Do the pair play Bergen raises over opening bids, and if so, after 1S-(p)-3C*-(p) what is 3NT? What range did East think 3C showed?

Consider the 3NT bid from East's point of view. Partner probably has something like a 15-count semi-balanced with 5 spades and a heart stop. West's major holdings might be the ♠AKQ ♥J10xx, in which case passing 3NT is an LA; or they might be ♠AK ♥A, leaving at least one of diamonds and clubs wide open, so there's no LA to 4S.

Here's a key question for me I think I would like answered before I make a judgement in this case. We're taught by L75C that the TD should presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call if there's not solid evidence to the contrary. But what about in UI situations - should the TD presume that a "half-LA" like this is an LA, or not?

I notice L16B1a says "could demonstrably have been suggested" (yay for vague wording), and so I think I'd like to hear a convincing argument from East as to why passing 3NT is not an LA before allowing the table result to stand. It would have to be a lot more solid than just "partner has spades". FWIW I don't agree with wyman that East should make a slam try.

ahydra

[RMB1]

We know (or we find as fact) that East intended 3♣ to show a spade raise, so all this talk that 3♣ could have been a psyche and East is allowed to bid how he likes is so much noise. East did not psyche, he intended 3♣ as a bid with an alertable meaning, and there was no alert, so he has UI and so he is not allowed to bid how he likes - Law 16 constrains his actions.

By numbers:

• Was there UI? Yes, as above.
  
• Were there damage? Yes, 4♠ scores better than 3NT.
  
• Were there logical alternatives? This is the only difficult question.
  
• Was the action taken suggested? Yes, the lack of alert suggest West does not know East has ♠, this suggests East bids ♠.

I feel East should just put dummy down when partner bids 3NT but I think a poll would show that not enough players would pass 3NT to make Pass a logical alternatives.

[phil_20686]

 wyman, on 2012-July-24, 14:11, said:

I assume that when someone plays Bergen raises that are inverted, the OP will describe the agreement as "reverse Bergen" or "inverted Bergen." Further, I don't really question that 3C is a constructive Bergen raise when the hand in question holds a not-particularly-shapely 8HCP.

Obviously more system inquiries are required if EW don't cuebid. But if they don't cue, we're not likely in this situation, as 3N is probably not slammish in spades then either.

Sure, but even if that was the case, werent they originally defined as 7-10? Just a bit less than a limit raise?

[wyman]

 phil_20686, on 2012-July-24, 14:53, said:

Sure, but even if that was the case, werent they originally defined as 7-10? Just a bit less than a limit raise?

Something good to ask them, I guess; when I've played them, it's usually good 6-9 // 10-bad 12

... but we were (are?) biddin' fools.

[blackshoe]

 ahydra, on 2012-July-24, 14:42, said:

We're taught by L75C that the TD should presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call if there's not solid evidence to the contrary.

No, we're not. The relevant part of 75C is

Quote

…the director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Nothing in there about "solid". What it really says is that you can't rule mistaken call unless you have some evidence that it was a mistaken call, and that if you do have such evidence, you can't just rule it was a mistaken explanation — you have to consider all the available evidence. How to weight that evidence — how much weight to give to evidence of mistaken call, and how much to evidence it was mistaken explanation — is left up to the director.

[TimG]

I agree with others: East is in possession of UI based upon the failure to alert; 4♠ is suggested over Pass; and that the real question is whether pass is a LA.

Without special agreements about an uncontested 1♠-3♣-3N that might change my mind, I would be of the opinion that Pass is a LA.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm of the opinion that very few non experts ever consider playing in 3N with a known 5-4 major suit fit so 4♠ is auto, passing 3N is not a LA.

Could it be a 4 card overcall ? did 3♣ guarantee 4 spades, only if the answers are yes and yes can I see any possible case for passing 3N.

[bluejak]

There seem to be some irrelevant posts here. Robin's post clarifies the issues, which basically come down to is pass of 3NT an LA, no other matters worth discussing. I don't think it is, but just poll fellas, and there you are.

[phil_20686]

 bluejak, on 2012-July-24, 17:24, said:

There seem to be some irrelevant posts here. Robin's post clarifies the issues, which basically come down to is pass of 3NT an LA, no other matters worth discussing. I don't think it is, but just poll fellas, and there you are.

Some slam tries could conceivably be LA's also.

[c_corgi]

 bluejak, on 2012-July-24, 17:24, said:

There seem to be some irrelevant posts here. Robin's post clarifies the issues, which basically come down to is pass of 3NT an LA, no other matters worth discussing. I don't think it is, but just poll fellas, and there you are.

It sounds from OP like they do play Bergen over opening 1M and East was extending this to overcalls. In that case ahydra is correct, the meaning of 3NT over Bergen in uncontested auctions is extremely relevant. If they use it as an option to play then clearly pass is an LA. If not then they probably play it as serious or non-serious or something else, in which case it may get complicated, but pass would not be an LA.

[Yu18772]

Personally I play that when we showed a 9 card major fit (Bergen, Jacoby, supperaccept od transfer, etc) NT is not a possible alternative (unless 6 or 7).
3NT may show extras or something else, but we are bound to play the major. However it looks like the only relevant info here is how that pair plays 3NT?


Yu

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-24, 16:20, said:

I'm of the opinion that very few non experts ever consider playing in 3N with a known 5-4 major suit fit so 4♠ is auto, passing 3N is not a LA.

Yet his partner did bid 3NT. So as others have said, this hinges on whether they have a special agreement that 3NT is artificial after a Bergen raise. If not, he has to allow that his partner has chosen to play 3NT knowing about the fit. That would make pass an LA, and since the UI suggests bidding we would have to adjust.