[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Today my partner opened 1 heart and I bid 2NT(Jacoby). Partner didn't
alert and bid 3NT. I corrected to 4 hearts and the director was
called by the OPS. The director said we had to play at 3NT but he
couldn't site the ACBL law that dictated this decision.

Was he right and what is the law?

Thanks for any reply.

Jerry D.

[Phil]

jerdonald, on 2015-June-26, 22:07, said:

BBO forum,
Today my partner opened 1 heart and I bid 2NT(Jacoby). Partner didn't
alert and bid 3NT. I corrected to 4 hearts and the director was
called by the OPS. The director said we had to play at 3NT but he
couldn't site the ACBL law that dictated this decision.

Was he right and what is the law?

Thanks for any reply.

Jerry D.

What was your hand? its probably relevant.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
The director never looked at my hand however it was:

S. K964
H. AQJ8
D. 64
C. KJ2

The hand made the 3NT.

Jerry D.

[blackshoe]

jerdonald, on 2015-June-26, 22:07, said:

BBO forum,
Today my partner opened 1 heart and I bid 2NT(Jacoby). Partner didn't
alert and bid 3NT. I corrected to 4 hearts and the director was
called by the OPS. The director said we had to play at 3NT but he
couldn't site the ACBL law that dictated this decision.

Was he right and what is the law?

No, he was not right. The relevant laws are:

Quote

16B1{a}: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by… an unexpected alert or failure to alert… the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

You have UI from partner's failure to alert that indicates that he did not understand your 2NT was a heart raise. This suggests that you correct 3NT to hearts. By this law, you can't do that.

Quote

16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends*. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

The director should have allowed the hand to be played in the contract achieved in the bidding — there is no provision in law for changing the auction in this case. Then, if the opponents were damaged (they got a worse score in 4♥ then they would have in 3NT), the director shall adjust the score.

Given this situation, if the director's error is called to his attention before the end of the correction period which per Law 79 is typically 30 minutes after the score is posted, but clubs often extend this to the beginning of the next session. Now the director will apply

Quote

Law 82C: If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

In this case, he would probably award the score for 4♥ making whatever to the declaring side, and the score for 3NT making (or going down) whatever to the defending side. Any score adjustment depends on the actual hands, though.

[zasanya]

jerdonald, on 2015-June-26, 22:07, said:

BBO forum,
Today my partner opened 1 heart and I bid 2NT(Jacoby). Partner didn't
alert and bid 3NT. I corrected to 4 hearts and the director was
called by the OPS. The director said we had to play at 3NT but he
couldn't site the ACBL law that dictated this decision.

Was he right and what is the law?

Thanks for any reply.

Jerry D.

The question has already been answered and I ask this question just to satisfy my curiousity. Did 3 NT by Opener after a Jacoby 2NT response carry any specific meaning?

[jerdonald]

zasanya,
Opener's 3NT bid over a Jacoby 2NT should show 15-18 balanced but in
this case the opener didn't recognize the Jacoby 2NT. Opener thought
it just showed points.

Jerry D.

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-26, 22:27, said:

You have UI from partner's failure to alert that indicates that he did not understand your 2NT was a heart raise. This suggests that you correct 3NT to hearts. By this law, you can't do that.

That assumes that passing 3NT with OP's hand is a logical alternative. Assuming even further that a 3NT rebid after Jacoby is natural, I wouldn't consider passing a LA with a small side doubleton and 4-card support. Hearts is likely to play at least one trick better than notrump.

If 3NT is not by agreement a suggestion to play, then now the UI is that 3NT is not a forward-going bid, and it actually suggests passing rather than bidding (though again with OP's actual hand pass is not an LA IMO).

[blackshoe]

Well, yes, you can play all kinds of games with what is suggested here. It seems to me the scenario I suggested is most likely.

Note also that what you would do (for any value of "you") is not relevant unless you are a peer of the responder in this case.

[weejonnie]

Wouldn't you have to proceed on the basis that partner is showing by his 3NT bid exactly what he should be showing had he alerted the 2NT Jacoby bid?

In this case 3NT shows a balanced 14-15 with 5 hearts, not specifically a desire to play in 3NT. That is AI.

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2015-June-27, 04:42, said:

Wouldn't you have to proceed on the basis that partner is showing by his 3NT bid exactly what he should be showing had he alerted the 2NT Jacoby bid?

In this case 3NT shows a balanced 14-15 with 5 hearts, not specifically a desire to play in 3NT. That is AI.

Does it, in their methods?

[sanst]

jerdonald, on 2015-June-26, 23:04, said:

Opener's 3NT bid over a Jacoby 2NT should show 15-18 balanced but in this case the opener didn't recognize the Jacoby 2NT. Opener thought it just showed points.

More important is what you thought the bid showed. According to your post it shows systematically 15-18 balanced and with your hand I would consider a simple raise to 4H an underbid. Depending on your methods you could have cued or whatever to find out whether a slam is possible. To find out what is a LA the TD should poll, if possible. But to me, although we don't have the hands and don't know your methods, it's quite likely you would have ended in 5H or 5NT or even in slam.
If, and that's a big if, you concluded from the non-alert that your partner was 12-14, you have made use of UI, which most certainly is a serious infraction. In cases like this it's a a good idea to put a virtual screen across the table, so that you don't see partner's alerts and don't hear whatever is asked and answered. What would you have done in that situation?

[weejonnie]

Is 15- 18 worth a slam try?

S. K964
H. AQJ8
D. 64
C. KJ2

Give partner the perfect 15 points (standard rule for investigating slam):

S: AX
H: KXXXX
D: AQX
C: QXX

Then a slam is possible - so it should be investigated.

[Phil]

Also - was it matchpoints? I can easily see a nine card fit getting played in 3N because you might think it scores better. So pass can easily be logical alternative, but you would need to poll the player's peers to be sure.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2015-June-27, 04:42, said:

Wouldn't you have to proceed on the basis that partner is showing by his 3NT bid exactly what he should be showing had he alerted the 2NT Jacoby bid?

In this case 3NT shows a balanced 14-15 with 5 hearts, not specifically a desire to play in 3NT. That is AI.

blackshoe, on 2015-June-27, 06:23, said:

Does it, in their methods?

If someone does not recognize a Jacoby 2NT response, the chances of them having an agreement for a 3NT rebid are about as high as those of Tottenham winning the Premiership in England. I think that 3NT is clearly "undiscussed", and we have a 7-loser 14-count opposite an "undiscussed" 3NT and we have already forced to game. I would sign off in 4H. Passing would be silly if partner was making a serious or non-serious slam-try, although the chance of that is slim. As John McEnroe would say, "You cannot be serious!" And it seems that if we bid 4C, the only other LA, partner will bid 4H himself.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2015-June-27, 10:21, said:

If someone does not recognize a Jacoby 2NT response, the chances of them having an agreement for a 3NT rebid are about as high as those of Tottenham winning the Premiership in England. I think that 3NT is clearly "undiscussed", and we have a 7-loser 14-count opposite an "undiscussed" 3NT and we have already forced to game. I would sign off in 4H. Passing would be silly if partner was making a serious or non-serious slam-try, although the chance of that is slim. As John McEnroe would say, "You cannot be serious!" And it seems that if we bid 4C, the only other LA, partner will bid 4H himself.

There is an agreement for a 3NT over a Jacoby 2NT: 15-18 balanced (see post #6). So, there is still hope for the Spurs, my favorite English team about sixty years back. Didn't know a thing about football then and that hasn't changed since. Just liked the name...

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

Thanks for all the replies.

The opener is relatively new to bridge(a couple of years) and Jacoby 2NT
hasn't come up very often. As Lamford speculated this convention is
mostly "undiscussed" so the opener probably didn't know what 3NT
was supposed to show. The confusion in this bidding sequence is
our fault for not knowing all the partnership agreements. I really
just wanted to know about the ruling.

According to the hand out sheet it makes 3NT or 5 Hearts.

Jerry D.

[Mbodell]

What bids would you have considered if partner was allowed to legally announce that his 3nt showed around 15-17 with no shortness? Would you have considered 4♣? If you have that standardish agreement (that 3nt is a middle strength hand with no shortness - some might say 15-18 or 14-16 or whatever, but stronger than 4♥ and weaker than 3♥) then I don't think pass is a LA. But, likely 4♥ is suggested by the lack of alert over doing something else that could confuse partner. If you bid 4♣ as a cue bid with hearts already agreed, your partner might have been confused, and the rails might have come off. If he raised 4♣ to 5♣ that might lead to a 5♥ call and safety. If instead he retreated to 4nt (thinking it is to play) but actually it would be keycard (assuming you play keycard) you'd now have to bid 5♠ and you are too high. If he bids 4♦ now you can keycard with 4nt, but he might pass or not be sure what to bid.

[jerdonald]

Mbodell,
We play that 3NT by the opener would show 15-18 balanced. With 6
losers and no singleton my hand doesn't look good enough for slam
unless partner has 3 aces. Four clubs would be Gerber at this
point(following a NT bid by partner) and no matter what partner
bids I would have the option of bidding on or stopping at 4 or
5 Hearts.

I don't play 1430 with this partner.

This whole sequence would be much simpler if I had a void or singleton
so I could bid a splinter and let the opener take over.
Jerry D.

[helene_t]

The director can't force you to play 3nt, even if he was correct that you should have passed 3nt. Once you have bid 4♥ that contract stands and your p will have to play it.

Opps can call the TD afterwards and ask for an adjusted score.

The TD would then have to consider what might have happened if you had not noticed your partner's failure to alert and therefore assumed that p had understood your 2nt bid correctly. The TD might then for example say that you might have passed 3nt, or that you might have bid 4♥ anyway, or that you might have used Gerber which might have led to a slam, or that you might have made a cuebid of 4♦ which might have led to some silly contract. And then he would determine the worst score for you among those scenario, and he might come to the conclusion that for example 6♥X-1 is the worst score you could have obtained. And then he would adjusted to that.

[aguahombre]

One thing is absolute, here. An adjustment to playing exactly 3NT is not from this planet.

The only question is whether, with the authorized but incorrect information that Opener has 15+ points, Responder signing off in 4H is to be allowed. I would rule that the 4H signoff could have been suggested by the failure to alert.

Then, as TD, I would have to divine what the final contract would be when responder starts exploring for slam over 3NT. My guess is 5H or 6H.

BTW. "4C would be Gerber" should not be allowed as an excuse for responder to merely bid 4H. His authorized information is that Opener knows they are in a heart-fit auction not a notrump auction. A 4C control bid and a 4S continuation where Opener thinks he is showing two aces, but Responder must assume it denies a Diamond control might get them to a righteous and legal 5H.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2015-June-28, 20:25