Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:47:00 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:
: Avi Roy Shapira posted this hand, from the national championships in Israel.
:
: +>              Qxx,                       North   South
: +>              AJTxx                              1 D (0)
: +>Jxx           KTxx             KTxx      1 H     1 NT(1)
: +>xxx           x                xxx       2 D (2) 2 H (3)
: +>Ax                             xx        2 NT(3) 3 C
: +>KJxxx         Axx              Qxxx      3 NT *  4 D
: +>              KQ                         4 H     6 D
: +>              QJxxx                      Pass
: +>              Axx
:
: +> 0) better minor
: +> 1) 15-17
: +> 2) transfer
: +> 3) shows 5H & 4D and requests opener to bid 3C, after which N should show
: +>    a feature, usually a singleton
:
: +>The irregularity occured on the 3NT call.  On SW side of the screen, 3Nt was
: +>not alerted. The bid was described as natural in reply to West's Querry.
:
: +>On the NE side of the screen, 3NT WAS alerted, and explained as showing
: +>a singleton club. North added that this was the first time the bid occured
: +>since they started playing the system, and that he were not sure South would
: +>remember.
:
Staff deleted ...


+>The second committee ruled that West was not damaged by the failure to alert,
+>and allowed the score to stand. (ie 6D made)
+>The committee gave a procedural penalty of 1 victory point to the NS team
+>for failing to alert 3NT.
:
: The question now is: do you believe that NS play the convention described
: in the BW article?
:
: If you do then 3NT is natural, does not have to be alerted and there is
                        ^^^^^^^
: no damage to EW. The result should stand. BUT why does the committee give
: a penalty to NS? For not alerting a bid that does not have to be alerted?
:
3NT is NOT natural. It shows specifically 2542. So it should be alerted,
and the procedural penalty is justified, IMHO.

: If you don't then 3NT is conventional and a case can be made for either
: a club or spade lead by west. The choice is clearly affected by north's
: distribution (3541 or 2542) and the score should be adjusted. Again
: you don't have to give NS a procedural penalty, adjusting the score is
: already a penalty.
:
: Now, do I believe NS? I wouldn't because the sequence does not make sense to
: me: First North asks partner to bid 3C so that he can show a feature and then
: his next bid denies a feature. But then there is no reason to bid 2NT in
: the first place. You would just bid 3NT and let partner make the final
: decision.

If you just bid 3NT you don't tell partner about the 4 card diamond support.
But you are right. The question is Do you believe NS?

:No, my guess is that NS saw the idea of 1D-1H-1NT-2D-2H-2NT in the
:BW and decided to use it in a slightly different way. I would change the score
:into 6D, down one.
:
:Nobody forces you to play a complicated system but if you do, you should
:know your system.
:
:
Avi.




--
Aviel Roy-Shapira, M.D.         Ben-Gurion University Medical School
Dept. of Surgery A.             POB 151, Beer Sheva, Israel
avir@chen.bgu.ac.il             AVIR@BGUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge