[dcohio]

---

Imps

In the auction, 2NT was not alerted by North, and after the 3NT call, east asked the meaning of 2NT. North explained it was "natural, 10-12HCP". East doubled and the auction proceded to 5Cx

A♠ was led and when dummy hit, the director was called by east. No announcement of misinformation was given by south before the lead was made. East explained that he felt bidding on after 3NTx by south was UI.

Director told us to play the board and call her back if we felt we were damaged.

N/S made 550, their teammates playing E/W made 650.

Director was called for damages.

Director changed the result to 5C making 5 +400 for N/S

I was east, and decided not to file an appeal as we won the round with 25VP and even if this result changed to give us 30VP, we would still be in 2nd place overall, nothing would change.


Was the table ruling proper? If appealing would have made a difference, should I have filed?

PS. please no comments on the bidding... there were plenty of bad calls made

[mrdct]

To rule properly we probably need to ascertain what the NS agreement was for the 2NT bid. Also, what sort of 1NT opening? are NS playing (could be relevant)?

I've not personally come across any partnerships that play 1♣:(Dbl):2NT as both minors, so I'm inclined to think it's either "no agreement" (in which case there has been a misexplanation) or "natural 10-12 bal" (in which case there has been a misbid or psyche by south together with potential UI from north to south via the non-alert).

If it's a "misexplanation" situation, EW would be entitled to an adjustment based on some alternative action had they been given the correct explanation of "no agreement". Looking at these hands, if 2NT had been described as "no agreement" or "undiscussed" it's not really clear to me which actions, if any, taken by EW would be any different so I'm probably going to let the table result stand. Irrespective of the non-alert and the explanation given for the 2NT bid, East is looking at ♠AKx opposite a vulnerable freebid of 3♠ and 17hcp together with South running from 3NTx, so he can pretty much rule-out South holding 10-12 bal. I guess West could potentially bid 4♠ immediately over an "undiscussed" 2NT, but it seems like South is intent on backing in with 5♣ anyway so it is still for EW to judge to compete to 5♠ which they failed to in practice on an auction where arguably it was easier to do so.

If it's a misbid/psyche with UI, we need to consider if south had any logical alternatives to the 4♣ and/or 5♣ bids. If he hasn't intentionally psyched, South has UI that his partner thinks he's 10-12 bal so when 3NT gets hit, it is certainly a lot easier to run when he's got no ♠ stopper, 6hcp and is ill-suited for NT. However, if 2NT had been described as "undiscussed" or "weak both minors" I think he's virtually automatic to run to 4♣ so I don't think pass is a logical alternative. In any case, if South passes North is quite likely to run to 4♣ himself and South will probably still compete to 5♣ leaving East with essentially the same 5-level judgement to make. So in this scenario I will probably let the result stand also.

If you were to appeal, what would the grounds be?

[blackshoe]

I wonder what the TD's basis was for the score adjustment.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-09, 23:32, said:

I wonder what the TD's basis was for the score adjustment.

Misinformation?

[RMB1]

 mrdct, on 2011-January-09, 21:27, said:

I've not personally come across any partnerships that play 1♣:(Dbl):2NT as both minors,

Perhaps 2NT was intended as a good raise of clubs, similar to 1M:(X):2NT

[iviehoff]

If 2N was intended as a good raise in clubs (which was my first guess), then (if they are using it in the normal way) it is the wrong sort of hand for it. The bid should be reserved for hands that are up to strength in HCP for the raise. Distributional raises should be direct.

Whilst we don't know what accounts for the difference between North's explanation and south's hand, South has removed his partner's 3N call which his partner volutarily bid over the opponents' spade call, and difference between the explanation and the hand held is likely to have helped considerably with that decision, regardless of the precise reason for that inconsistency. Therefore and I would be looking to rule South's 4C bid an abuse of UI, unless South came up with a very good and strongly evidenced explanation as to why pass wasn't a logical alternative.

It seems to me that this is likely an abuse of UI whether North's explanation is MI or not (and in case of doubt, one rules taht it is MI). First, if it is MI, (and South's hand is what fair enough for the agreement) that implies North misjudged in bidding 3N, in which case South is not legally not allowed to rescue him from that as a result of learning of N's misperception through the discrepancy. If the explanation is correct, then South is legally presumed to wake up to his misbid from the explanation, even if in reality he woke up before then, so that is also an abuse of UI to remove north's bid. If South is going to convince someone his bid is legal, he will have to perusade them that North's explanation is incorrect, demonstrate to them what the actual agreement is, and persuade them that on the actual agreement pass is not a LA; or else that he deliberately psyched as opposed to misbid. Directors should try to get it right first time, but I think it more likely that south would be attempting to persuade this to an appeal committee than a director.

[Cascade]

There seem to be two issues:

1. UI which may have influenced south's pull to 4♣

2. MI which may have influenced east's double of the final contract.

South definitely has UI and it is then a matter of whether everyone would pull after the double. I think not. After all he does not know that partner bid 3NT without the requisite spade stopper. Its unclear to me that north has anywhere to run although run he might since he knows he has no stopper. Maybe some combination of 3NT doubled down a bunch and some other results (4S and 5C are possible contracts if north finds the courage to pull). I would weight 3NTX more heavily.

Any MI from the explanation is diminished when south pulls to 4♣. How much it is diminished might be moot although I struggle to think of any normal 10-12 2NT hand that would pull when opener raises to 3NT. Therefore I am inclined to think that east doubled 5♣ with his eyes wide open and that I would not entertain an adjustment on this basis.

[mfa1010]

To comment sensibly on a case like this we need to know what TD established as facts about NS's methods.

A few -possibly random- remarks:

1. If south intended 2NT as a limit+ raise in clubs then I don't think passing 3NT is a LA.

2. If EW are misinformed about 2NT then I think east is damaged when he doubled 5♣. South's 4♣ indicated a non-normal natural 2NT, but a void is pretty extreme. I'm inclined to follow TD, or perhaps give a weighted score between 5♣ and 5♣X if allowed.

3. If south felt that his partner's explanation was wrong he should have corrected before the lead. Then TD would have given west the option of changing his last pass. 5♠ seems to make if north doesn't find a diamond shift, otherwise it is down one. But the diamond shift is pretty obvious though. 5♠X-1 is also in the picture as a ruling.

[dcohio]

To answer some questions in the thread...

N/S were playing 15-17 1NT

On their convention card in the section over opp t/o double, nothing was marked for 2NT. All three methods (limit, limit+ and weak) are alertable

Without a correction before the lead, I had the spade suit completely mispictured. I had partner with 4-6 , N with 1 or 2 and south with at least 2, possibly Qxx. If i had felt south could have held a void, or partner had a 7 bagger, I don't lead the A♠, I lead K♥ which results in down 1 (heart ruff, diamond return, heart ruff. Diamond return would be obvious, as partner can't return a heart, won't return a spade, and has no reason to return trump).

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2011-January-10, 01:37, said:

Misinformation?

Cascade said:

South definitely has UI.

Objection! Counsel are assuming facts not in evidence!

mfa said:

To comment sensibly on a case like this we need to know what TD established as facts about NS's methods.

Precisely!

[lamford]

 mfa1010, on 2011-January-10, 06:10, said:

1. If south intended 2NT as a limit+ raise in clubs then I don't think passing 3NT is a LA.

I agree, but if South intended 2NT as a distributional raise in clubs, which is what he has, then he has no reason to pull 3NTx. Why can partner not have a hand too good for a 15-17NT, but one that does not want to double 3S? Something like Ax Qxx AKx AJxxx would have bid this way.

I agree that with a correct explanation, East is less likely to double 5C, and he might press on to 5S. North has to lead the king of diamonds, or the ace of clubs and switch to the king of diamonds, to beat this, and any adjusted score should include some percentage of East-West making 5S, or 5S doubled. West might have bid more as well, and should maybe have done anyway.

If we disallow the 4C bid, however, then we do not have to make this decision, and I cannot see North pulling 3NTx himself. So 100% of 3NTX-4; N/S -800 I think is the right decision. If we allow the 4C bid, then something like 50% of 5SX= by East-West 25% of 5S= by East-West and 25% of 5C= by North-South. A fair bit of polling would be needed to get this one right!

[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-10, 08:52, said:

Objection! Counsel are assuming facts not in evidence!

OP quite clearly said that N explained South's bid. It is therefore an established fact that South has UI. What exactly South learned from that UI is more speculative.

[blackshoe]

Okay, he has UI. What does it suggest to him? You can't make a sensible ruling unless you know that.

At the risk of being accused of guessing myself, I'll suggest that "dcohio" is in Ohio, which is of course under ACBL jurisdiction, so weighted scores are not an option. Yes, I know he didn't specify (quarter board penalty for that? ), nor is it in his profile.

[dcohio]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-10, 09:30, said:

Okay, he has UI. What does it suggest to him? You can't make a sensible ruling unless you know that.

At the risk of being accused of guessing myself, I'll suggest that "dcohio" is in Ohio, which is of course under ACBL jurisdiction, so weighted scores are not an option. Yes, I know he didn't specify (quarter board penalty for that? ), nor is it in his profile.

Good assumption :-) this was in ACBL land, sorry that I didn't alert that

[iviehoff]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-10, 09:30, said:

Okay, he has UI. What does it suggest to him? You can't make a sensible ruling unless you know that.

In general, that is fair enough comment. In the present case, we aren't totally floundering in the dark. It is pretty clear that South has learned from the UI that he holds a rather different hand than N expects, (except in the rather rare case that S has knowingly deviated substantially from their agreement). That tends rather strongly to suggest escaping over sticking. If I can't get any more good evidence, I think the balance of probabilities is strong enough to rule that 4C is illegal. If that forces more info out of the woodwork, they can appeal.

[mfa1010]

 dcohio, on 2011-January-10, 08:20, said:

To answer some questions in the thread...

N/S were playing 15-17 1NT

On their convention card in the section over opp t/o double, nothing was marked for 2NT. All three methods (limit, limit+ and weak) are alertable

We need more. TD should aks NS questions.

[mfa1010]

 lamford, on 2011-January-10, 09:12, said:

I agree, but if South intended 2NT as a distributional raise in clubs, which is what he has, then he has no reason to pull 3NTx. Why can partner not have a hand too good for a 15-17NT, but one that does not want to double 3S? Something like Ax Qxx AKx AJxxx would have bid this way.

Ultimately, if 2NT shows: -, JTx, QT9xx, KTxxx then pass to 3NT is obviously a LA, so it is quite fruitless to discuss this further when we are in the dark about NS's methods and what S thought they were playing.
South's hand is pretty horrible for 3NT though. Spade void as declarer, only 5 clubs and no A/K on the side. Partner needs a very specific hand if we should be able to take 9 tricks in 3NT but not make 5♣.

[Phil]

4♣ feels like a weasel bid to me regardless of whether or not the partnership agreement is:

1. 2N is a balanced 10-12 and North explained their agreements correctly;
2. 2N is some club raise and the explanation was wrong;

In both cases, South has UI from North's explanation. I would score this as 3N x'd -4.

MI to the opponents does not enter into it since that only seems to affect the decision to x 5♣.

[mycroft]

Well, if South thought it was a limit raise in clubs, then it was based on the two tricks he's not going to get in NT, and after it gets doubled, I think the pull to 4C is safe. 5C maybe not so much - except maybe directly over 3NTx. Hmm, maybe 4C isn't so safe.

If South thinks it's a *weak* raise in clubs (flip-flop Dormer, with 3C being the LR to rightside 3NT), then I think South has described his hand and has to sit 3NTx.

What was the agreement - yes, I know nothing was marked, but what had they agreed anyway? Why did South think that a club raise was what 2NT meant? Are they from the same area, have they played together before, ...?

If "no agreement", then the non-Alert was correct (although UI if South thought it was an Alertable raise), but the explanation was not.

Interesting problem.

[dcohio]

When asked by the director,

South claimed he thought it was Unusual NT for the minors (rediculous after partner opens 1♣ imo) and north thought it was a balanced 10-12. Card was not marked, no correction was made by south before the opening lead was faced. I called the director immediately before declarer called for a card from dummy. (Is this proper procedure?)

This was in the "C" bracket of a bracketed swiss teams (teams with avg MP of 200-500). It was not their first time playing together.