[Adobe BC]

---

ACBL, non-Life Master section, so the skill level and understanding of the Laws is not expected to be great. The 3♥ bid was Alerted, and explained as a splinter. This led to (an agreed) indication of distress by West. It was then stated that it might be a weak jump shift. EW have both weak jump shifts and splinters marked on their convention cards. The Director was not called until the play of the hand was completed. Presumably, if the Director had been called at the time of the questioning, he should have asked West if he thought there was an agreement, and, if so, sent East away from the table to have it explained (corrrect?). South stated that he was unsure of the meaning of partner's double, because of the doubt about the 3♥ bid, and wanted an adjustment. With a proper explanation, if I had been holding the South cards, I would have bid 3N. This makes, double-dummy, except with a diamond lead. 3H makes, D-D, but several pairs made 4, which was the result at this table. Would you adjust the score?

[blackshoe]

TD should investigate what the actual agreement is. This will involve looking at system cards, asking questions and yes, possibly sending East away from the table. However, East has UI from West's"distress", that cat is already out of the bag, and the UI suggests that pass might lead to a better result that further bidding in diamonds. East's choice to pass is clearly influenced by UI. Absent the UI, East would probably bid 5♦, this would be doubled by NS, and it would go down several. So yes, I would adjust the score, but on the basis of infraction of Law 16 and 73C rather than infraction of the MI laws (20, 21, 40, 75).

[barmar]

If you play both WJS and splinters, 2♥ is a WJS and 3♥ is a splinter, unless you have very unusual agreements. If West thinks that's a WJS, he's more likely to be confused than explaining an actual agreement (how does he think he splinters?). Unless he says they've agreed to only splinter over majors (on the ACBL CC, the splinter checkbox is in the Major Openings section for some reason). But if West says they only splinter over majors, and East says they splinter over either, I'm not sure what basis I'd use to decide.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-26, 20:10, said:

TD should investigate what the actual agreement is. This will involve looking at system cards, asking questions and yes, possibly sending East away from the table. However, East has UI from West's"distress", that cat is already out of the bag, and the UI suggests that pass might lead to a better result that further bidding in diamonds. East's choice to pass is clearly influenced by UI. Absent the UI, East would probably bid 5♦, this would be doubled by NS, and it would go down several. So yes, I would adjust the score, but on the basis of infraction of Law 16 and 73C rather than infraction of the MI laws (20, 21, 40, 75).

I mostly agree with this, but I would ask East why he passed. He might be good/experienced enough that pass would be routine in this situation to give his partner to indicate whether or not the first round of the suit is controlled.

[blackshoe]

Possibly, and certainly the TD should investigate it.

[phil_20686]

barmar, on 2012-January-26, 22:29, said:

If you play both WJS and splinters, 2♥ is a WJS and 3♥ is a splinter, unless you have very unusual agreements. If West thinks that's a WJS, he's more likely to be confused than explaining an actual agreement (how does he think he splinters?). Unless he says they've agreed to only splinter over majors (on the ACBL CC, the splinter checkbox is in the Major Openings section for some reason). But if West says they only splinter over majors, and East says they splinter over either, I'm not sure what basis I'd use to decide.

This is not standard. If you play better minor such that 1d can be 3, its std not to play splinters.

Only if one diamond is 5+ is it normal to play splinters here, and even then its not that clear. Mostly because splintering without a 4cM is so rare. If one d is 5+ and you have a slammish hand, then ignoring the major is acceptable.

[blackshoe]

I don't know what "standard" is, or even if there is a standard. I do know that I play that 1m-2m is GF, and responder can later splinter showing a singleton, and that 1m-2M is natural, and that 1m-3M is a void showing splinter.

[barmar]

If you splinter over a minor, usually you'll have 5-card support, because otherwise you'll have another reasonable bid.

In any case, it's still pretty unusual to play a double jump shift as WJS. So although EW may have agreed to play WJS, I'll bet they never actually discussed THIS auction. So what we have is not a question of agreements, but they're understanding of what their agreements mean.

[bluejak]

phil_20686, on 2012-January-27, 07:40, said:

This is not standard. If you play better minor such that 1d can be 3, its std not to play splinters.

Only if one diamond is 5+ is it normal to play splinters here, and even then its not that clear. Mostly because splintering without a 4cM is so rare. If one d is 5+ and you have a slammish hand, then ignoring the major is acceptable.

Of course I am not in North America, but in my experience 3♥ is either a splinter or non-existent even over a better minor opening.