[VixTD]

---

Teams-of-eight, X-IMPs -> VPs, good standard
2♦(alerted) = multi, weak two in hearts only, or one of various strong options. No other calls were alerted.

West asked about the 2♥ overcall before bidding 3NT. South struggled to explain, and North excused himself from the table so that South could give whatever information he might be able to provide without him hearing. South said he thought it was natural, but vaguely recalled a conversation from long ago suggesting that they play this as takeout of hearts.

Result: 4♦(W)+1, NS -150

The director was called at the end of play and the facts were explained to him. When asked how he might have acted differently given a different (or clearer) explanation, West initially was unable to say, but later said he was rather put off by the possibility of North sitting over him with good holdings in spades and the minors, if indeed he had a takeout of hearts.

(This is my best recollection of a rather confused situation; if anyone who was present is listening they may wish to correct or add certain points.)

Anyway, on the facts given, what would you rule as director?

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2010-December-01, 08:31, said:

South struggled to explain, and North excused himself from the table so that South could give whatever information he might be able to provide without him hearing.

That's odd. I've heard of a director excusing the bidder's parter from the table so the bidder himself can explain his own bid. But the bidder being excused from the table, so that they don't get the UI from their partner's attempts to explain, well that seems unorthodox. This is face to face bridge, and normally you have to endure the UI of your partner's explanations, so excusing oneself seems to be an unfair advantage to me. But since there doesn't seem to be a UI issue, it probably isn't a happeneing relevant to the present ruling.

[paulg]

My initial reaction is that the table result stands.

Both North and South appear to have behaved appropriately subsequent to South's doubt in the meaning of a simple overcall (if a regular partnership you may consider a warning or small fine appropriate).

So the question is whether was West damaged? I expect I am supposed to poll his peers but I would have expected West to have said that 4♦ was forcing immediately if that were the case. Without this I cannot see why they should reach the diamond game. Even if they did, South may defend the game more accurately than the part score in an imps context. I could live with a weighted ruling with a small percentage of 5♦ making, but I am remain inclined to leave it all alone.

[blackshoe]

It may be - it seems a player has deliberately put himself into a position where he may be unable to comply with the law (if he disagrees with the explanation he did not hear). But since the opps called the TD anyway, did that worthy ask North what their agreement was?

I don't think a vague recollection of a possible discussion long ago constitutes an agreement, and South did say he thought 2♥ was natural. I'm inclined to let the result stand.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-01, 09:23, said:

I don't think a vague recollection of a possible discussion long ago constitutes an agreement, and South did say he thought 2♥ was natural.

In which case South was out of order for mentioning it, because if not an explanation of an agreement, then it is extraneous information liable to mislead.

[blackshoe]

Extraneous, surely, by the legal definition. Liable to mislead? Not if the opponents have half a brain between them.

[campboy]

Was East asked how he might have acted differently? It seems rather more plausible that he would than that West would. Anyway, not clear there is any MI. I certainly do not think it is appropriate to fine a pair for being unsure of their defence to a method which most pairs have probably never encountered.

[mgoetze]

paulg, on 2010-December-01, 09:16, said:

Both North and South appear to have behaved appropriately subsequent to South's doubt in the meaning of a simple overcall (if a regular partnership you may consider a warning or small fine appropriate).

Sorry, but are you suggesting this type of 2♦ bid is one which is so common that everyone should have a defense to it prepared and memorized? I, for one, have never encountered it.

[NickRW]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-01, 13:24, said:

Sorry, but are you suggesting this type of 2♦ bid is one which is so common that everyone should have a defense to it prepared and memorized? I, for one, have never encountered it.

A multi 2D which shows a weak two in a major or a strong two in a minor or some higher level NT range is fairly routine in England. This pair seem to be only playing a weak 2 in hearts but that doesn't put this call in the realm of anything unusual considering the standard of the field.

Nick

[campboy]

NickRW, on 2010-December-01, 13:37, said:

A multi 2D which shows a weak two in a major or a strong two in a minor or some higher level NT range is fairly routine in England. This pair seem to be only playing a weak 2 in hearts but that doesn't put this call in the realm of anything unusual considering the standard of the field.

I don't see what the fact that a different opening, which would seem to require a completely different defence, is common has to do with anything.

[mgoetze]

NickRW, on 2010-December-01, 13:37, said:

A multi 2D which shows a weak two in a major or a strong two in a minor or some higher level NT range is fairly routine in England. This pair seem to be only playing a weak 2 in hearts but that doesn't put this call in the realm of anything unusual considering the standard of the field.

Well against the "normal" Multi I tend to agree Double = Takeout of Spades, 2♥ = Takeout of Hearts. Are you saying that would also be a sensible defense against this supposedly-similar bid?

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2010-December-01, 09:59, said:

In which case South was out of order for mentioning it, because if not an explanation of an agreement, then it is extraneous information liable to mislead.

If North/South have had a discussion about this sequence, however long ago it may have been, then East/West are entitled to know about it (with suitable caveats). South might take this information into account in his own bidding, so East/West should be allowed to as well.

[VixTD]

I ruled that the score should stand, as it appears that NS have no agreement, and the explanation they gave was essentially "no agreement", so there has been no misinformation. I was a little worried, though, that South could have (with best intentions) sowed some seeds of doubt by introducing another possibility. West can't be expected to know how much weight to give to this possibility.

I did think to ask NS whether they have an agreement on how they play a 2♦ overcall of a 2♣ opener, where this is either strong and undefined or a weak two in diamonds. This is a convention one comes across rather more often than this 2♦ opener, and many good partnerships would have discussed a defence to this. (They had a firm agreement, which I think was takeout of diamonds, but I didn't write it down and my memory is a little hazy.) I thought this might have a bearing on their understanding of this sequence.

I remonstrated with all players for failing to call the director as soon as South found himself in difficulty answering a question about their methods. Had they done so it would have saved a lot of trouble (though maybe not all of it). South was the only player who seemed to understand this.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-01, 09:23, said:

it seems a player has deliberately put himself into a position where he may be unable to comply with the law (if he disagrees with the explanation he did not hear)

Not really because in the event that North-South become the declaring side, North could then get South to restate the explanation of 2♥ and provide a correction or clarification if necessary.