[rwylee]

Scoring: MP

---

South opened 1♦
West bid 2NT and alerted as UNNT
North X
ALL PASS


Contract made 2NTX+1.

South called me after they finished that board. He said it is deceptive to explain as UNNT here. They assumed West did not have ♦, therefore they kept attacking ♦.

But North led ♥A and switched to ♦, and N-S would definitely set 2NT if they played ♠ or ♥ from south after ♣A.

How would you adjust or punish E-W?

Thanks in advance!

Rex

[mr1303]

No adjustment, and it didn't take me long to come to that conclusion. NS should enquire further as to what EW mean by "Unusual NT". Having failed to do so they have no ground for redress. Especially as they should realise fairly early on that West has the minors and not hearts and clubs.

[FrancesHinden]

UNT is usually taken to mean the lowest two unbid suits. EW should be told not to use the phrase UNNT but just to say which two suits it showed. (Of course, if their agreement was that it showed hearts and clubs and West misbid, there is no adjustment).

If North had led a diamond at trick 1, and that had cost NS any tricks, and the EW agreement was that 2NT showed the minors, I would adjust.

If South's play in the diamond suit at trick 2 (South doesn't know what's going on yet) had cost NS any tricks, I would adjust (in fact, I haven't analysed the hand, it's possible it did, so maybe there is an adjustment in there).

But North knew at trick 1 that West didn't have more than 3 hearts. At that point he should have asked for clarification of the EW agreement.

[hotShot]

First of all: After playing the A♥ North sees 4 Hearts at the table, 5 in his hand so West can hold 4 at most. After South follows suit West can't have more than 3. So after playing the A♥ North should call the TD, because he was missinformed.
South sees 3♥ in his hand 4 at the table and 5 should be in Wests hand leaving 2 with North. But why did East stay in 2NTX if they have a 9card fit in ♥? South should wonder why partner leads opponents suit playing NT developing tricks for west by playing the ace.

So lets take a look at EW's convention card, if they don't have one, we have to assume MI and not missbid. Easts not correcting the dbled NT bid into ♥ clearly shows that he knows his partner holds the minors. I don't think this was intentional as many players think that UNT allways shows the minors.
Further reading to UNT is here.

After loosing their ♦ trick (by north playing ♦), NS should still get:
3♥, 2♣ and 4♠ tricks =>down 4.

After loosing the 2nd round of ♦, and seeing that West ♣ are now deleloped.
NS can still get 3♥, 2♣ and 2♠ tricks => down 2.

Seems to me that NS stopped thinking at all.
So it comes down to this, i will need explanations from N and S why they were continuing to play ♦ allthough it is obvious that this is wrong. And if they are beginner or novice and have a good explanation for playing ♦ again and again, then i will adjust the score to 3♣= (haven't run a full analysis).

[FrancesHinden]

hotShot, on Jan 26 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

Easts not correcting the dbled NT bid into ♥ clearly shows that he knows his partner holds the minors. I don't think this was intentional as many players think that UNT allways shows the minors.

I disagree with this. East not correcting the dbled NT bid shows that RHO doubled, so he thought he didn't have to bid. Otherwise he would have bid 3C.

[hotShot]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 26 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jan 26 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

Easts not correcting the dbled NT bid into ♥ clearly shows that he knows his partner holds the minors. I don't think this was intentional as many players think that UNT allways shows the minors.

I disagree with this. East not correcting the dbled NT bid shows that RHO doubled, so he thought he didn't have to bid. Otherwise he would have bid 3C.

If East believed that 2NT was showing ♥ and ♣, why should he correct to the 8card minor fit ♣, if he can have a 9card major fit?
Doesn't it make more sence to play a 9card suit (at the 3 level)?
Why should he let west decide what to do, if west can't know about he ♥ fit?
So from the little facts posted here, my impression is that east did not expect ♥'s from west.
I am willing to accept that east just hoped that south or west would feel forced to bid now, but i don't think east intended to play 2NT X .....

[olegru]

Quote

How would you adjust or punish E-W?

First I would ask EW are they regular, simetimes or the first-time partnership.

If they are the first time or sometimes partnership, I would ask EW have they ever discuss this situation.

If not, we have the clear case of missinformation. West told opponents "Unusual NT," but their actual agreement is "no agreements." What to adjust is a much harder, but if NS can convinience me they would lead hearts after correct "no agreement" explanation I would buy it and down 4 looks like a reasonable adjustment.
My deepest sympathy to EW, I know, West just wanted to be helpful, but he must explain only actual agreements, not his cards.

If they are regular or once-in-a-while partnership but with actual agreement about this possition we have a different story. Jump to 2NT could be both: minors or 2 lowest (Even ACBL convention card has two checkboxes). NS got alerted, NS could defend themself by asking for clarification. If they didn't it is their problem.
Of couse I would adjust if they asked but didn't get more information from the West.

[DelfinoD]

It's not NS who should ask what doeas unusual NT mean. If W gave only that little information it is his responsibility. Everyone would understand Unusual NT as ♣♥.

The other question is - is this an agreement that they say 2nt always with both minors or was that just a mistake?

I think E would bid 3♥ if he knew that 2nt is ♣♥, so this is probbably wrong explanation of an agreement, so there should be a penalty.

The 4 hearts on the table don't mean much because N could have thought, that W had opened with 5♣4♥ so he was affraid to lead hearts.

I would adjust to 2ntx-4, which is a normal score for this deal.