[kaustabh]

Screen was not present and all the bids made by E were alerted by W and provided the explanation shown below.NS called the director as they could not understand how W can pass 4S doubled( and also how he elected 3NT over 3S ) with doubleton S and 4C knowing E has longer C than S.Director allowed the table result to stand.NS appealed against the ruling provided by the director but appeal committee also agreed to the directors ruling and NS money was forfeited as appeal committee did not find any relevance of the appeal.
Want to hear some opinions on this, and please let me know if the ruling u r thinking of, would change in presence of a screen.

Another point I should mention, E did not alert W 3C bid and he was not asked about that neither by the director nor by the appeal committee.

---

[RunemPard]

Just a little joke...I don't think you need to mention that there are no screens involved...the bidding speaks for itself in that regard. Any pair that cannot remember their basic replies to NT, even after X interference, is absolutely not playing in an event using screens...

If the 4♠ bid shows 6/5 as you say, then yes west has every right to choose to play in a 5/2 fit at the 4 level over a 5 level minor game IMO. Another key factor is the scoring type...If this is MPs the major game may be your best score. Although the bidding here seems to reflect a minor slam, although there is no rule against misjudging the bidding. I do not know much about the laws...but to me it seems that N/S are trying to buy a good score and refuse to shut up. If the play was affected by the MI, then maybe there is a case.

[blackshoe]

This would have been better asked in "Laws and Rulings". Perhaps an admin will move it.

[barmar]

Moved.

FYI to the OP: "BBO Tournament Directors Forum" is specifically for issues related to running tournaments on BBO, not f2f tournaments.

[Bbradley62]

Does jurisdiction affect alertability of 3♣? OP's BBO profile says he's in India.

I think the 3♣ bid itself tells East that there was a miscommunication, so I don't think there are any UI issues. Agree with ruling(s).

[blackshoe]

Jurisdiction always affects whether a call requires an alert.

I don't know Indian alerting rules.

[kaustabh]

Please assume that the Indian alerting rule is same as what is used in WBF tournaments

[barmar]

I assume, since it wasn't mentioned in the OP, there were no facial expressions or other signs of distress from East that might suggest to West that East didn't have what his bids showed.

Some questions:

What is EW's actual agreement?

The only possible UI West has is the non-alert of 3♣. Is this actually alertable in this jurisdiction (BTW, what is the jurisdiction)? Many places don't require an alert for accepting a transfer. But this UI obviously didn't suggest East's actual holding to him, or he wouldn't have bid 3NT.

East has UI that his bid was misunderstood, which suggests that West might not have good clubs (again, the UI is wrong). But is passing 3NT an LA for East? He knows from AI that they don't have enough combined strength for 3NT. 4♠ probably won't make, either, but with his extra shape it could go down less.

I feel sorry for NS. EW had a huge misunderstanding, and somehow managed to land in a decent contract. It can be set on a ♥ lead, but how obvious is it to lead your singleton when you have length in declarer's suit?

[gordontd]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-26, 10:23, said:

I think the 3♣ bid itself tells East that there was a miscommunication, so I don't think there are any UI issues. Agree with ruling(s).

I'm not so sure. After 3♣, whatever it might mean, East could have bid 3♦, but instead bid his five-card
spade suit a second time, just to make sure his partner got the message, having heard from the explanation (UI) that he and partner were not on the same wavelength.

And if he does believe 3♣ to be an impossible call, might he not have passed it on the basis that it can only reveal a psyche... except that the UI tells him that's not the case?

[blackshoe]

What was the table result?

[paulg]

gordontd, on 2012-December-26, 10:47, said:

I'm not so sure. After 3♣, whatever it might mean, East could have bid 3♦, but instead bid his five-card
spade suit a second time, just to make sure his partner got the message, having heard from the explanation (UI) that he and partner were not on the same wavelength.

And if he does believe 3♣ to be an impossible call, might he not have passed it on the basis that it can only reveal a psyche... except that the UI tells him that's not the case?

In addition, why would you want to bid four spades over three notrump opposite:

♠xx
♥Kx
♦QJ
♣AKQ10xxx

East has definitely used UI in my opinion.

Added: Like others haven noted, I should really find out whether three clubs is normally a transfer break or an impossible call. My reasoning above was triggered by disliking the impossible call argument, as I think it is entirely possible even if you do not play transfer breaks.

This post has been edited by paulg: 2012-December-26, 11:27

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2012-December-26, 10:47, said:

I'm not so sure. After 3♣, whatever it might mean, East could have bid 3♦, but instead bid his five-card
spade suit a second time, just to make sure his partner got the message, having heard from the explanation (UI) that he and partner were not on the same wavelength.

And if he does believe 3♣ to be an impossible call, might he not have passed it on the basis that it can only reveal a psyche... except that the UI tells him that's not the case?

Um. Does the UI tell him that? If West psyched 1NT, is he not obligated to alert and explain his partner's subsequent bidding according to their agreements over a 1NT opening, irrespective of what's in his hand? IOW, he would alert 2♠ and explain it as a transfer to ♣ whether he had psyched 1NT or not. I suppose if he'd psyched he might then have bid something other than 3♣ at his next turn, but that's a different issue.

I do think that 3♠ is "unauthorized panic".

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-December-26, 10:47, said:

I'm not so sure. After 3♣, whatever it might mean, East could have bid 3♦, but instead bid his five-card
spade suit a second time, just to make sure his partner got the message, having heard from the explanation (UI) that he and partner were not on the same wavelength.

And if he does believe 3♣ to be an impossible call, might he not have passed it on the basis that it can only reveal a psyche... except that the UI tells him that's not the case?

I think that 3♣ shows a big spade fit, as East intended 2♠ as terminal. There is no reason whatsoever to assume West has psyched, no more so than if partner broke a transfer to spades with 3♣ when "not playing transfer breaks, can't stand them pard". 3♠ is therefore the only logical alternative (anything else would be a game try). And over 3NT, which might be something like AQxx Kx Axx Axxx, there is no alternative to 4♠.

And what about East's final pass? He has a great hand for the auction to date, but redouble would have been more successful, so cannot be imposed. And West appears to have no UI, so he can bid what he likes, assuming there was no mannerism from East of which we have not been told. I would keep the deposit too, and leave the table result.

And FWIW, one never rules because there is "unauthorised panic". We just decide on the LAs, and "impose" the worst one that is demonstrably suggested.

[kaustabh]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-26, 10:58, said:

What was the table result?

down 2 i.e. +300 for NS

[kaustabh]

barmar, on 2012-December-26, 10:40, said:

I assume, since it wasn't mentioned in the OP, there were no facial expressions or other signs of distress from East that might suggest to West that East didn't have what his bids showed.

Some questions:

What is EW's actual agreement?

The only possible UI West has is the non-alert of 3♣. Is this actually alertable in this jurisdiction (BTW, what is the jurisdiction)? Many places don't require an alert for accepting a transfer. But this UI obviously didn't suggest East's actual holding to him, or he wouldn't have bid 3NT.

East has UI that his bid was misunderstood, which suggests that West might not have good clubs (again, the UI is wrong). But is passing 3NT an LA for East? He knows from AI that they don't have enough combined strength for 3NT. 4♠ probably won't make, either, but with his extra shape it could go down less.

I feel sorry for NS. EW had a huge misunderstanding, and somehow managed to land in a decent contract. It can be set on a ♥ lead, but how obvious is it to lead your singleton when you have length in declarer's suit?

According to the actual agreement 3C is good clubs, 2NT is bad clucbs.Yes the 3C bid is alertable in Indian National Championship.

[aguahombre]

Lamford's post works for me. Now, to the forfeited money:

If the OP has stated the situation accurately, the appeal indeed had no relevance. N/S made no assertions pertaining to UI, convention disruption, or anything else. They merely contend that they don't understand; that is not how I view an appeal with merit.

[kaustabh]

lamford, on 2012-December-26, 11:07, said:

I think that 3♣ shows a big spade fit, as East intended 2♠ as terminal. There is no reason whatsoever to assume West has psyched, no more so than if partner broke a transfer to spades with 3♣ when "not playing transfer breaks, can't stand them pard". 3♠ is therefore the only logical alternative (anything else would be a game try). And over 3NT, which might be something like AQxx Kx Axx Axxx, there is no alternative to 4♠.

And what about East's final pass? He has a great hand for the auction to date, but redouble would have been more successful, so cannot be imposed. And West appears to have no UI, so he can bid what he likes, assuming there was no mannerism from East of which we have not been told. I would keep the deposit too, and leave the table result.

And FWIW, one never rules because there is "unauthorised panic". We just decide on the LAs, and "impose" the worst one that is demonstrably suggested.

And if we assume that that 3C should be C value and S raise is the E hand not worth for a 3D trial if not for a 4S bid ( for an example against KQxx Jxx Kx AKxx or AQxx Kxx Jx AQxx or Qxxx Qxx Ax AKQx )

No evidence of UI, but NS felt that E almost took no time to make 3S and 4S bids.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2012-December-26, 11:07, said:

I think that 3♣ shows a big spade fit, as East intended 2♠ as terminal.

Well that's your understanding, but it's not the only possible one.

lamford, on 2012-December-26, 11:07, said:

There is no reason whatsoever to assume West has psyched, no more so than if partner broke a transfer to spades with 3♣ when "not playing transfer breaks, can't stand them pard".

If a partner of mine had said that, and then broke a transfer, the one thing I wouldn't assume my partner to have is a fit for my suit.

[lamford]

kaustabh, on 2012-December-26, 11:53, said:

And if we assume that that 3C should be C value and S raise is the E hand not worth for a 3D trial if not for a 4S bid

The problem is that 4S is cold, so while East might make a game-try, despite the duplication of values in clubs from his point of view, there would be no adjustment.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2012-December-26, 12:01, said:

If a partner of mine had said that, and then broke a transfer, the one thing I wouldn't assume my partner to have is a fit for my suit.

Then you fall into the same category as a bridge friend of ours, otherwise a strong player, who passed an obvious Exclusion Blackwood, "because I don't play Exclusion Blackwood." If you assume a partner had psyched, and passed, because partner broke a transfer because you "weren't playing them", then you should be ruled against if partner had indeed psyched. Your duty, when in possession of UI, is to assign a meaning to 3C consistent with a weak NT. Logical alternatives are decided "using the methods of the partnership". And that is a 15-17 NT with an undiscussed 3C. Not a psyche of 1NT with an undiscussed 3C.