2NT barrage...

West Opens 2NT and East alerts barrage for!c (no continuation). East bids 3!c and West with 19 hcp (4-3-3-3) now bids 3NT! East with 13 hcp and (2-4-5-2) bids 6NT, just made. No screens, pair event.
Your ruling please?

(If you interested and ask EW, they don't play puppet stayman, they play straight stayman).

«1

Comments

  • Assuming there was no squirming, sighing, anxious fidgeting, etc, from West, East has no unauthorised information, only the actual information from the bidding. He can legitimately work out that West forgot that they play barrage 2NT and then take a shot at 6NT.

    On the other hand, West does have unauthorised information from the alert and explanation given by his partner and I would rule that he has taken advantage of that information. I might be strongly inclined to give a penalty for that and then further rule that 3NT is an illegal bid, leaving them with an adjusted score based on playing in 3C.

    Regarding Stayman, if their agreement is that 2NT is a barrage bid in clubs, then they clearly don't play Stayman over a 2NT opener. This has become moot, though, with West bidding 3NT in an attempt to recover from partner's explanation. If West had responded to the 3C bid as Stayman then we'd have a different situation but he didn't.

  • @Tag said:
    Assuming there was no squirming, sighing, anxious fidgeting, etc, from West, East has no unauthorised information, only the actual information from the bidding. He can legitimately work out that West forgot that they play barrage 2NT and then take a shot at 6NT.

    On the other hand, West does have unauthorised information from the alert and explanation given by his partner and I would rule that he has taken advantage of that information. I might be strongly inclined to give a penalty for that and then further rule that 3NT is an illegal bid, leaving them with an adjusted score based on playing in 3C.

    Regarding Stayman, if their agreement is that 2NT is a barrage bid in clubs, then they clearly don't play Stayman over a 2NT opener. This has become moot, though, with West bidding 3NT in an attempt to recover from partner's explanation. If West had responded to the 3C bid as Stayman then we'd have a different situation but he didn't.

    I don't think we can expect West to pass 3C, but if 4333 indicates four spades, we should consider how the auction might have continued after a 3S rebid.

  • Yes, I considered that, Gordon, but where does it take us? From East's point of view, West has opened 2NT to show clubs or, maybe, as a puppet to clubs and then has bid spades. Can East "wake up" now and bid 6NT? I can't see how we avoid some fantasy sequence of examining both hands and making up bids for each side. If they can logically now make their way to 7S, making, do we now allow the 6NT making?

    We still need to consider the use of UI from West with regards to a penalty.

  • But if I am correct to assume that the 3!c response shows a hand that doesn't want to go any higher opposite a pre-empt with a club suit, then a 3!s rebid by opener is just as unexpected as is a 3NT rebid. It may or may not be harder to project an auction that allows E/W to recover to 6NT over a 3!s rebid.

    I don't think it is relevant to say that "they clearly don't play Stayman over a 2NT opener". They presumably play (for example) 2!c -2!d -2NT as strong balanced and I think that it is reasonable to assume that they would play the same over a natural 2NT opening, if they played one, as they do over that (ordinary Stayman per the OP).

    To decline to show a major when holding one smacks of "3NT is more likely to wake partner up" and is therefore not in the spirit of "must carefully avoid taking any advantage", so I would be inclined to penalise W for a breach of Law 73C.

  • TagTag
    edited February 19

    After further thought, I realise that when we are examining sequences resulting from a 3S Stayman response, we never allow East to "wake up".

    We follow logical outcomes from West assuming that East has invoked a Stayman response to 2NT and East trying to make Bridge sense of West's bids consequent to having opened with a 2NT barrage bid in clubs. We decide on likely outcomes from the bidding mixup and assign a weighted score from amongst them. Also, provided it's ever worse for EW, we consider the NS hands for when doubles start to happen after EW get into seriously silly territory and whether East or West would reasonably redouble, to their own further detriment.

  • @Tag said:
    After further thought, I realise that when we are examining sequences resulting from a 3S Stayman response, we never allow East to "wake up".

    I'm not sure that that is correct. We no longer have automatic adjustments for fielded misbids, so any adjustment in that scenario must be tied to some infraction, normally UI.

    As I said in another thread, it is rare that the misbidder can avoid passing UI in situations of this sort, and he really ought to take time to think over the implications of the UI he has, so there will be a break in tempo, albeit one which may not demonstrably suggest anything, but if you really believe that there was no UI, then E can do what he likes, including punting 6NT at some point.

  • TagTag
    edited February 19

    Are we typing at cross-purposes, Abbeybear? I was referring to a situation where NS call the TD, after the hand is over, having just defended against 6NT making, and the TD has to determine an adjusted score. In assessing a likely outcome arising from plausible sequences after a 3S Stayman response, do we ever allow the East hand to "wake up" to the fact that West opened a strong 2NT bid. I think that we don't.

    The hand is over and everything now is in the hands and minds of the TD and any participants to any ensuing polls.

  • @Tag said:
    Are we typing at cross-purposes, Abbeybear? I was referring to a situation where NS call the TD, after the hand is over, having just defended against 6NT making, and the TD has to determine an adjusted score. In assessing a likely outcome arising from plausible sequences after a 3S Stayman response, do we ever allow the East hand to "wake up" to the fact that West opened a strong 2NT bid. I think that we don't.

    The hand is over and everything now is in the hands and minds of the TD and any participants to any ensuing polls.

    If E has UI, you are of course perfectly correct. If E has no UI (and you will have realised that in my personal opinion that will normally be a big if), then what is the infraction which forms the basis for disallowing a successful 6NT bid or other action of E's?

  • Thank you all for your replies but...

    Eventually what is your proposed ruling, apart from penalizing West for his 3NT bid?
    Does the result stands or not?
    (If result does not stand, do you need a hand record to decide?)

    P.S Is there any difference if the pair plays puppet Stayman than ordinary Stayman?

  • TagTag
    edited February 19

    @Abbeybear said:

    @Tag said:
    Are we typing at cross-purposes, Abbeybear? I was referring to a situation where NS call the TD, after the hand is over, having just defended against 6NT making, and the TD has to determine an adjusted score. In assessing a likely outcome arising from plausible sequences after a 3S Stayman response, do we ever allow the East hand to "wake up" to the fact that West opened a strong 2NT bid. I think that we don't.

    The hand is over and everything now is in the hands and minds of the TD and any participants to any ensuing polls.

    If E has UI, you are of course perfectly correct. If E has no UI (and you will have realised that in my personal opinion that will normally be a big if), then what is the infraction which forms the basis for disallowing a successful 6NT bid or other action of E's?

    Indeed, in my first post, I also stated that East has no UI and that his bid of 6NT was perfectly reasonable, assuming no sighing, fidgeting, glaring etc from West to give UI. The infraction came from West's use of UI in making the 3NT bid.

    If we "make up" an auction following from the 3C bid, after which West bids 3S, Stayman, at what point do we judge that East comes to realise, or, more accurately, deduce from the AI of the auction, that partner has opened on a big 2NT hand, rather than a clubs hand. Could you weigh in on this @gordonrainsford, please?

    @milton... hand records at this point might be useful if you wish us to muse further on this.

  • @milton said:
    Thank you all for your replies but...

    Eventually what is your proposed ruling, apart from penalizing West for his 3NT bid?
    Does the result stands or not?
    (If result does not stand, do you need a hand record to decide?)

    The feeling seems to be that the 3NT bid is an infraction of L16B1 (3!s being a non-suggested logical alternative), as well as an infraction of L73C. We therefore need to explore the possible auctions after a hypothetical 3!s rebid. For this purpose we really need to know whether E had any UI (did W show consternation at the alert or the explanation, for example?).

    @milton said:
    P.S Is there any difference if the pair plays puppet Stayman than ordinary Stayman?

    There are various versions of Puppet Stayman, but 3NT would not be a normal response with a 4-card major, so if 3NT is an infraction playing normal Stayman, it is still an infraction playing Puppet. The difference is that we would be evaluating a hypothetical auction over a presumed 3!d response, rather than 3!s .

    @Tag said:
    Indeed, in my first post, I also stated that East has no UI and that his bid of 6NT was perfectly reasonable, assuming no sighing, fidgeting, glaring etc from West to give UI. The infraction came from West's use of UI in making the 3NT bid.

    If we "make up" an auction following from the 3C bid, after which West bids 3S, Stayman, at what point do we judge that East comes to realise, or, more accurately, deduce from the AI of the auction, that partner has opened on a big 2NT hand, rather than a clubs hand.

    I do not believe that when we are considering a hypothetical auction over a 3!s rebid, we restrict E's hypothetical actions in any way unless we can point to them being an infraction. If it was legitimate for E to punt 6NT in the actual auction, then it is likely to be legitimate for him to do the same or something similar over 3!s . But at every round of our hypothetical auction we have to assess W''s actions in the light of non-suggested logical alternatives that may be available.

    I think it very likely that we would weight the score between a result predicated on E having woken up and concluded that W had a strong balanced hand, and a result based on the conclusion that W had some sort of unusual species of club pre-empt, in which case the hypothetical auction might involve E giving club preference (or raising diamonds in the Puppet scenario) and seeing where that takes us. Having concluded that it is legimimate for E to punt, we have to assess how likely we feel it is that he would actually have done so.

  • @Tag said:
    hand records at this point might be useful if you wish us to muse further on this.

    Ok, I attach the link with the hand of board (8), and it's results : https://results.hellasbridge.org/109371/board/8

    @Abbeybear said:

    For this purpose we really need to know whether E had any UI (did W show consternation at the alert or the explanation, for example?).

    No, there was no consternation stated from opponents. If there was, how does ruling change?

  • I think we need to establish whether the player's shape was exactly 4333 (ie four spades) and if so to enquire whether 2NT-3C-3S would have any agreed meaning within their agreed framework (or 2NT-3C-3D is if turns out they are actually playing Puppet Stayman). It might for example show a void and extra offence, but I think it's more likely that it really is a bid that has no meaning at all and so will simply wake up partner to the misbid.

    So, although I think we need more information to rule, the most likely outcome is that the result stand but the 3NT bidder be fined for using UI.

  • Thank you, Gordon.

  • @gordonrainsford said:
    I think we need to establish whether the player's shape was exactly 4333 (ie four spades)

    I have attached the exact hand in my last post with a link: https://results.hellasbridge.org/109371/board/8

    Players were playing puppet (not ordinary stayman), with 3!d response being 1 or both 4 card majors.

  • edited February 21

    With 3D being the 'correct' response to puppet Stayman, we should disallow the 3NT bid by West (& apply whatever penalty we think appropriate), and then consider how the auction would have continued after a 3D response:
    If the partnership agreement (according to East) is that 2NT is "Weak with Clubs", then 3D is an impossible bid, and I think that East is entitled to 'wake up' to the fact that there has been a misunderstanding of some sort. In principle, I don't believe he is entitled to assume that the misunderstanding is that partner intended 2NT as strong, if there are other potential meanings attributable to 2NT (e.g. pre-empt in undisclosed minor, or both minors) that might be consistent with a 3D continuation. However, given East's actual hand, the alternatives would appear unlikely.
    So, I would be prepared to let the table result stand (having been reached by a different auction), and an appropriate P.P. to West for use of UI.

  • what would an appropriate penalty be?

  • @Martin said:
    what would an appropriate penalty be?

    Firstly, you should be satisfied that the offender was aware that what he was doing was wrong.
    It's worth reading paragraph 2.8.3.2 of the White Book, and some of the surrounding paragraphs.
    The 'standard' amount would be 10% of a top (or the equivalent in whatever form of scoring you use - see paragraph 8.12.3 of the White Book). But you could double this (or more) if you felt that the offence was particularly heinous.

  • This sort of "unauthorised panic" is not particularly heinous except in the hands of experienced players who should know better. What you really want is for them not to do it again.

    If the players are inexperienced, then improving their knowledge of their responsibilities under the Laws them is IMO more important than penalising them. So explain, and tell them that you would have penalised them had they been experienced.

    If W was experienced but not a serial offender, penalty of the standard amount. Increase as you see fit for a serial offender.

    Otherwise I agree with Mitch.

  • I think I'd be disinclined to give them their full 6NT result. I'd factor in some percentage of 4D and 5D being the final contract.

  • @Tag said:
    I think I'd be disinclined to give them their full 6NT result. I'd factor in some percentage of 4D and 5D being the final contract.

    I think you would need to provide sensible routes to each of those contracts.

  • @milton said:
    West Opens 2NT and East alerts barrage for!c (no continuation). East bids 3!c and West with 19 hcp (4-3-3-3) now bids 3NT! East with 13 hcp and (2-4-5-2) bids 6NT, just made. No screens, pair event.
    Your ruling please?

    (If you interested and ask EW, they don't play puppet stayman, they play straight stayman).

    Presumably there was no System Card that would have said what the 2NT opening was supposed to be? Just asking.

  • @gordonrainsford said:

    @Tag said:
    I think I'd be disinclined to give them their full 6NT result. I'd factor in some percentage of 4D and 5D being the final contract.

    I think you would need to provide sensible routes to each of those contracts.

    2NT-3D-4D seems one such route.

  • Wouldn't that be 2NT - 3D - 3H?

  • TagTag
    edited February 22

    No. A that stage, we can reasonably judge that he's still confused regarding the 2NT, 3D sequence from partner, not yet with enough actual evidence to know that partner has forgotten they play barrage-2NT and actually has a rock-crusher 2NT hand. A 6-6 minor two-suiter (or something similar) with sub-opening values is surely one plausible hand for the sequence.

  • Am I missing something tag? The 2NT opener opened with 20-22, as such, 3D would be a transfer to H?

    Ah, perhaps you meant 2NT - 3C - 3D - 4D?

  • Yes, apologies for the lack of clarity.

  • @SDN said:
    Presumably there was no System Card that would have said what the 2NT opening was supposed to be? Just asking.

    No there was not a system card. Existence of a system card is very very rare phenomenon in Greece =)

    But we believe the particular person to play in that session 2NT as club barrage and ordinary puppet stayman. This person plays various gadgets and that's why he usually mixed up. We can say he is a serial offender..

  • @Tag said:
    I think I'd be disinclined to give them their full 6NT result. I'd factor in some percentage of 4D and 5D being the final contract.

    That was my initial instinct, too, but if you're having E raise diamonds on the footing that West has some sort of skewed club pre-empt with some diamonds on the side, N/S's silence with half the pack and a million spades is curious, to say the least.

    And even if you project an auction starting 2NT-3!c -3!d -4!d , W is going to interpret that in the light of its meaning in a Puppet Stayman sequence (for me it would show 5 spades and 4 hearts) and bid something which is going to wake E up.

  • I take your point, Abbeybear. Agreed.

Sign In or Register to comment.