home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.univie.ac.at!blekul11!frmop11!barilvm!vms.huji.ac.il!ramon.bgu.ac.il!chen.bgu.ac.il!avir
- Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
- Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec20.014700.10755@ramon.bgu.ac.il>
- From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:47:00 GMT
- Sender: usenet@ramon.bgu.ac.il (The Ever-So-Great Usenet)
- References: <1992Dec17.010300.18443@sunova.ssc.gov>
- Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel
- Lines: 78
-
- 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
-