What's your plan?
I usually play weak NTs, which makes it certain that 2NT is forcing. Still, it should be forcing in theory in everyone's methods.
One thing that's interesting is that nearly everyone either
committed to slam or chose to stop in game. Given that we
are at the two-level, one might hope to gain some further
information about how to make that choice, but only Ed suggests
a way; he thinks that with all minimums, partner would bid
a) Do you pass the first time?
b) How about now?
b) They suckered me---I'll bid
The downside is that I'd go for a number plenty; particularly if LHO is jobbing me with his raise or if RHO is 4-5 in the blacks, but if partner has spade help their club partscore looks like a winner for them. I can see it now, LHO is 2353 and RHO is 4315, and bidding goes for sticks and wheels. If partner really has that stiff club, he might have doubled. Or bid. Or something. The upside is limited by the vulnerability - where if either side goes down 2 it is right to pass. I'll take a chance at getting a plus score here and lead a trump.
The play in
In theory, I am barred. [Not true. In fact, bidding
They could (very rarely) get to a slam. Partner could decide to double
All in all, it looks like
Dbl promised some values, but denied as many as four spades.
Two good players, asked what they would do without UI at the tournament said they'd pass. One changed his mind after thinking about it, which I think hits the nail on the head.
What does that mean? With UI that suggests
What's your plan?
Clubs broke: -1400.
Apportion the blame between North and South for this debacle of more than fleeting magnitude.
On the whole, I would assess 2 blame points to north for
(X) - Pass "I can't control the second round"
7NT - "With you holding the
HUH?? It still looks like South 100%
If partner really held heart support [If you define "support" as "at least a void, which is all North has shown in hearts. --Jeff] and the
"Young man, did you just bid 7NT?"
"Am I on lead?"
"Then I double!"
I'm going to stick with 80/20. There's no reason for South
to guess that North has a club void. He denied it in the
bidding and appears otherwise to have about a 10-count tops.
Since North could have bid
Of course, I was South. Oh, well.
You lead the
Signals are standard.
Over to you.
1NT was 10-12 systemically, but not announced.
If 1NT was strong,
1NT was not announced.
How do you rule? Be careful, this may be a little trickier than it looks.
There are two issues: (1) Misinformation (MI), and (2) Unauthorized Information (UI).
Misinformation turns out to be pretty much irrelevant. The system over weak NTs was as described; only the failure to announce 1NT's range was an error. I don't see how (a) East didn't know that after the pass of 3H, and (b) how it mattered otherwise, so we are left with the UI issues. They are not trivial.
North has UI about his mistaking the vulnerability upon
hearing the explanation of
Clearly, there is no uniformity of opinion about
If North bids 3NT, East will double. South will happily pass
and North will run to
If North bids
Call #3. Now we come to East's final choice. Does he double
This is probably the hardest call of all. I don't know the answer,
and neither does the rest of the panel. I'm going to guess that
East's double is "at all probable" but not "probable." In that
case, we decide the final contract as
Call #4. What's the final result? This isn't trivial, either. N/S will take somewhere between 7 and 9 tricks in diamonds. Mike is the only one to address this issue.
Call #5. North blatantly took advantage of UI. That's not allowed. North was an experienced Flight A player. Those people need to be told they can't do that. What should we do?
Fortunately, I have some experience with this. Lynn's choice is far too severe. This sort of thing happens fairly often, and we just can't do C&E every time, even if we wanted to. And we don't want to. North's action was bad, but would we want even to consider suspending him for it? Of course not. But we want him to think about his responsibilities next time. So some sort of "punishment" is called for. Note that the score adjustment is designed to provide redress for the NOS and to maintain the correct score for the OS in a multiple-contestant event---that's not a punishment (although -800 on a partscore hand might feel like one). No matter what we rule, I think a small procedural penalty (PP) is due to N/S. How big is pretty much up to experience; in this case, I'd make it 1 VP. That's consistent with others I've seen; this isn't all that much more egregious than most of these cases.
This was a tough ruling. The directors had no idea what to do.
I suggested that on first glance a normal result was
It also inspired three questions from the panel.
I agree with you. It doesn't make sense. But that's because the prohibition against opening 1NT with 9 HCP doesn't make sense. To the best of my understanding, the prohibition was a political coup that the ACBL jammed down the throats of the WBF Laws Commission. Personalities appear to be involved. Someday, the ACBL will no longer have to deal with the politics in question and the 9-point law will probably go away.
Two asked in general: "North has UI. Sometimes the choices are not so clear. What should I, if I'm in the position North is, do?" The rules are express on this topic, so here are the steps:
Phew. This was long, even after editing down lots of input from the panel. --Jeff