Bidding on when you realise you have made the wrong bid
North has 6/6 in the minors and 16 points. He opens 2D announced by his partner as weak. There is an overcall of 2 spades and his partner with 4 points and 4 diamonds competes with 3 diamonds.
North then bids 6 diamonds which makes.
Only 4 players in a field of 15 tables has bid the slam. North says he forgot they were playing weak twos and thought they were playing Benjy 2 diamonds which is game forcing.
He denies having heard his partner say weak, but the opponents both heard it.
I am called at the end of the hand rather than at the end of the auction.
What action should I take? Can I allow them to play in 3 diamonds + 3?
When I suggested this North got quite annoyed and said it was obvious that he had made the wrong bid, and anyone would have done what he had done?
Suggestions please?
Comments
South's announcment of the 2 !d is of course unauthorised info to North, whether he heard it or not.
(it does not seem to be in dispute that it was actually announced)
North must continue as if his 2 !d is a game forcing artifical bid. South must contiue as if North has open a weak 2 in Diamonds.
So North has opened a game forcing 2 !d bid and heard partner make a positive resonse in Diamonds, one of his 6 cards suits. There is no way that pass would be a logical alternative for North here.
We would have to see the hands and know their system. Maybe NS might get to 7 !d -1 in which case we might want to adjust to that.
It seems entirely possible, even likely, given the limited information here, that North has taken advantage of UI (unauthorised information) and that he bid 6D to prevent his partner passing lesser bids. I'd say that a procedural penalty is in order for this use of UI. If the opponents have been damaged by his use of UI then an adjustment is in order.
The TD might care to examine their system and explore likely outcomes had the auction continued as MR suggests: that North continue on the assumption that his partner has a positive response and that South continue on the assumption that his partner has opened a weak two. Maybe North is trying to drive to slam and South is trying to bail as soon as possible.
It's also possible that the pair have an agreed practice (thus making it part of their system) of never bidding a grand, whatever the cards, along with a general practice of fast arrival. Without seeing the hands, we can't suggest that 6D is not the sensible bid for the North player but I'd need to be convinced that there was no logical alternative for the pair and their system.
I would have thought 4D would be a sensible call from North. After all, he has shown a strong hand and his partner has voluntarily bid one of his undisclosed six-card suits! Why would he jump to 6D when he can make a forcing (from his perspective) 4D raise of his partner's suit?
South, of course, has no UI (AFAICS), so can bid what he wants. North has shown a strong hand (not necessarily diamonds) and heard a positive response with diamond support.
We can't impute on North our own bridge conventions - the law clearly states "using the methods of the partnership" to discuss LAs, so we have to find out what, if any, agreements NS have in this situation to work out any LAs. For instance they may play an exclusion key card system in this situation (it would be nice to adjust to 4 !s -6).
FWIW IMHO any call by North in an attempt to wake up South is 'demonstrably suggested' over a call that doesn't, so if such a call (such as 4D above) is a LA in their system then that call should be selected.
I don’t believe that any pair plays 2D (2S) 3D - 4D as anything but a further pre-empt when 2D is a weak two as South thinks, so 4D +2 seems a fair result. If North is experienced enough to understand UI then a PP as well seems suitable.
Anyway, the thing I liked was North saying he did not hear the announcement. Well, did he see an alert? All 2suit bids are alertable or announceable.