[jcrosa]

(A1) The 2NT bid was alerted and explained by S as showing the red suits

---

This is another one from last night's club MP tournament. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. NS are quite experienced. N doesn't fancy "modern" conventions and the only two-suited overcall he admits is an old fashioned 2NT as showing "the opposites" (i.e., majors over a minor and vice-versa).

TD was called at the end of play by E/W. The table result was 10 tricks in 3♠, NS +170. W claimed that with a correct explanation of the 2NT bid he would have doubled 3♦, after which their side would have reached a ♦ contract. S admitted that she had forgot their partnership agreement and therefore had both misbid and misexplained.

Your ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

jcrosa, on 2011-June-18, 03:43, said:

(A1) The 2NT bid was alerted and explained by S as showing the red suits

---

This is another one from last night's club MP tournament. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. NS are quite experienced. N doesn't fancy "modern" conventions and the only two-suited overcall he admits is an old fashioned 2NT as showing "the opposites" (i.e., majors over a minor and vice-versa).

TD was called at the end of play by E/W. The table result was 10 tricks in 3♠, NS +170. W claimed that with a correct explanation of the 2NT bid he would have doubled 3♦, after which their side would have reached a ♦ contract. S admitted that she had forgot their partnership agreement and therefore had both misbid and misexplained.

Your ruling?

What does 3♦ mean if 2N is majors ? Invitational raise to 3♠ maybe ? EW aren't necessarily making any more than 3♦ and on a club lead and ruff and K♠ switch (clearly right if partner gives you a "neutral" club to ruff) you're struggling even to make that. If 4♦ is bid, over 3♠ there must be a chance that 4♠ is bid by N making and EW certainly don't want to bid 5♦. I'm not sure there's much damage here, if weighted scores are allowed, some part of 4♦=, 4♦-1, 4♦-2 and quite a lot of 4♠= seems appropriate which I suspect will not be a much different score to 3♠+1.

[nige1]

jcrosa wrote...
(A1) The 2NT bid was alerted and explained by S as showing the red suits
This is another one from last night's club MP tournament. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. NS are quite experienced. N doesn't fancy "modern" conventions and the only two-suited overcall he admits is an old fashioned 2NT as showing "the opposites" (i.e., majors over a minor and vice-versa). TD was called at the end of play by E/W. The table result was 10 tricks in 3♠, NS +170. W claimed that with a correct explanation of the 2NT bid he would have doubled 3♦, after which their side would have reached a ♦ contract. S admitted that she had forgot their partnership agreement and therefore had both misbid and misexplained. Your ruling?

IMO this is a routine ruling.
(1) The admitted misexplanation clearly damaged East-West. (2) If North considers 3♦ to be a conventional spade raise, he should alert it. If not, given the UI, I think that he should pass it. (3) An experienced North should correct the misexpanation at the end of the auction and call the director himself, especially playing against inexperienced opponents. (4) The director should consider a penalty for these omissions. (5) Anyway the director should adjust in favour of East-West The exact adjustment is controversial and depends on the whim of the director(s). (6) Perhaps, In America, 3♦-7 (700 to Eeat-West). Here, I suppose. he would have to consider a percentage of 3♦-6 as well. (7) If the director judges that West really would double then it's more complicated. The director should then include a percentages of 3♦X-7, 3♦X-6 by South (Perhaps also other contracts like 4♦ and 5♦ by East-West)..

---

[Cyberyeti]

I must admit I took the view that W said he would double so he doubles, I'd bid 3♠ over that 100% of the time with the N hand and would consider it without the double (although with the UI I'd pass it undoubled as 3♠ if right will be disallowed). I think after this it's 100% clear what's going on to S.

S is a passed hand, and hasn't opened 2/3♦, I think it's very likely he's carrying both minors here rather than a lot of diamonds, so I fancy 3S rather than 3♦ when 3♦ gets doubled as I fancy partner for only 5 diamonds a sizable fraction of the time.

[helene_t]

South was woken up by the 3♠ bid so he should have corrected his explanation at this time, shouldn't he? Not that it matters, at that stage it was too late for W to double.

I think 4♦ is the most plausible result with correct explanation. I am inclined to adjust to that, although 4♦-1, 5♦-1, 5♦x-1 and 4♠= are all possible outcomes.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, I know this is off-topic. But I thought I was old, and never knew 2NT was once used to show the opposites. Was this true in places other than Portugal?

Come to think of it, not so off-topic. I was also unaware that U2N is alertable in other jurisdictions. This brings in a different dynamic to the situation, since 2NT might only be alertable if it didn't show the minors or reds..and West's assertion that he would double 3D is altered when South doesn't alert because he thinks it is for the reds.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-June-18, 11:25

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-18, 08:37, said:

I must admit I took the view that W said he would double so he doubles, I'd bid 3♠ over that 100% of the time with the N hand and would consider it without the double (although with the UI I'd pass it undoubled as 3♠ if right will be disallowed). I think after this it's 100% clear what's going on to S.

S is a passed hand, and hasn't opened 2/3♦, I think it's very likely he's carrying both minors here rather than a lot of diamonds, so I fancy 3S rather than 3♦ when 3♦ gets doubled as I fancy partner for only 5 diamonds a sizable fraction of the time.

It depends on N-S pre-empt style. In first seat, at adverse vulnerable, they may have to convince the director that they open at least 2♦ with hands like
♠- ♥ 4 ♦ JT76432 ♣ 65432 or
♠ - ♥ 42 ♦ T8765432 ♣ 543

[dburn]

Did it occur to anyone to ask South why she passed 3♠?

[Trinidad]

There are two irregularities: The misinformation (MI) and the use of unauthorised information (UI). The MI lies in the wrong explanation by South. The use of UI in North's 3♠ bid which is suggested by South's explanation.

These two irregularities need to be dealt with separately. Let's start with the MI part. EW state that they would end up in 4♦ if they had the correct explanation. That would lead to a score of +100 for NS.

Now the UI part. If North would not have used the UI, South would have had to declare 3♦ and the result would have been -600 or -700 for NS.

It is clear that the use of UI led to damage to EW. Therefore, we adjust for the use of the UI to -600 or -700 or some weighted result.

Rik

[RMB1]

dburn, on 2011-June-18, 16:48, said:

Did it occur to anyone to ask South why she passed 3♠?

Old fashioned agreement "if you don't understand, pass"

[bluejak]

jcrosa, on 2011-June-18, 03:43, said:

This is another one from last night's club MP tournament. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. NS are quite experienced. N doesn't fancy "modern" conventions and the only two-suited overcall he admits is an old fashioned 2NT as showing "the opposites" (i.e., majors over a minor and vice-versa).

If that is the only convention he plays then he clearly does not play a really fancy 3♦ = a spade raise. No doubt 3♦ = diamonds, and 3♠ was unauthorised panic.

Doesn't any one trust partners any more? If I ask parter to pick a major, and she picks diamonds, I put the dummy down and assume she knows what she is doing.

Thus, while a fair number of people would bid 3♠ over 3♦, surely enough would pass for pass of 3♦ to be an LA? How about 3♦ -6 as a ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-June-19, 07:25, said:

If that is the only convention he plays then he clearly does not play a really fancy 3♦ = a spade raise. No doubt 3♦ = diamonds, and 3♠ was unauthorised panic.

Doesn't any one trust partners any more? If I ask parter to pick a major, and she picks diamonds, I put the dummy down and assume she knows what she is doing.

Thus, while a fair number of people would bid 3♠ over 3♦, surely enough would pass for pass of 3♦ to be an LA? How about 3♦ -6 as a ruling?

Can you adjust to 3♦ undoubled when W said quite clearly that he would double 3♦ ?

[bluejak]

Oh, I see. Yes, I can, but I would not do so 100% of the time. Players are not held to their statements all the time - if they were we would have a lot of trouble since they often differ with each other.

Ok, 3♦ doubled -6. How about that?

[dburn]

Since North-South don't have any agreement about 2NT, the only explanation to which West is entitled is "we don't have any agreement about 2NT". In the face of that explanation, he might or might not have doubled three diamonds - his statement that he would have doubled three diamonds was made in the context of an explanation that 2NT showed the majors, but he was not entitled to and should not be assumed to receive that explanation.

As I have remarked before, it is a striking example of God's mercy to those who hate Him that people who cock up two-suited overcalls are invariably blessed with a passed partner. Hence, North might argue that South couldn't possibly want to play in three diamonds facing a major two-suiter, because a hand that wanted to do that would have opened the bidding with a pre-empt in diamonds. Such arguments are given rather less sympathy by me than by many of my learned colleagues on Appeals Committees. For example, if the bidding had been pass - 1♣ - 2NT explained as red suits - 5♣ - 5♦ - double, I would be strongly inclined to rule that North had to pass with his actual hand, but I suspect I would be in a minority.

Still, in the actual case it would have been appropriate (as Nigel remarks) for some investigation to have been conducted as to the kinds of hand on which South would pass initially with a large number of diamonds. When cases of this kind appear on these forums, and indeed when cases of this kind appear (as they often do) outside these forums, one almost invariably finds that the Director has not asked enough of the right questions.

[bluejak]

According to the OP, N/S did have an agreement, but South had forgotten it.

[jcrosa]

bluejak, on 2011-June-19, 17:38, said:

According to the OP, N/S did have an agreement, but South had forgotten it.

Yes it was clear that N/S had an agreement and South had forgotten it.

I think we should assume that West, if given the correct explanation of 2NT (majors), would double 3♦ (as he stated he would). It is clear that, absent that double, the 3♠ bid by North makes use of UI (South's wrong explanation). Does the situation change significantly when West interposes a double? South's passed hand status does help a bit North's case for self-rescuing. As TD, I considered (too hastily, I see now) that over the double the 3♠ bid would be the normal action by North, and ruled a weighted adjusted score based on 4/5♦ contracts by E/W only; upon reading other posts and rethinking the issue, I believe that passing the double remains an LA. (I also admit that I didn't pursue the issue of what kind of hand with long diamonds South might have, not having preempted in 1st position).

IF we accept a 3♠ bid over the double: does that bid make clear to everyone at the table that North has the majors? I think so. I also think that the normal move by East would then be to bid 4♦ (at least; some might consider that 5 card support + KJ in partner's first suit + an outside ace would justify a stronger move, for someone who previously passed). I don't think either N or S would bid 4♠ (which might prompt a very unsuccesful double), but E/W just might drift to 5♦ on their own momentum.

What would have been the correct ruling (weighted scores allowed)? Some of EW 4♦ made, 4♦ -1, 5♦ -1, 5♦ -2, and/or NS 3♦ doubled -6 or so?

[jh51]

RMB1, on 2011-June-19, 02:24, said:

Old fashioned agreement "if you don't understand, pass"

I don't know which is more common, but once had a teammate who played very few conventions, but told her partners ASBF - All Strange Bids are Forcing.

[nige1]

dburn, on 2011-June-18, 16:48, said:

Did it occur to anyone to ask South why she passed 3♠?

RMB1, on 2011-June-19, 02:24, said:

Old fashioned agreement "if you don't understand, pass"

jh51, on 2011-June-20, 09:35, said:

I don't know which is more common, but once had a teammate who played very few conventions, but told her partners ASBF - All Strange Bids are Forcing.

If that is the North-South agreement and South treats North's ♠ bids as forcing.then they may end up in 7NX
More seriously, cyberyeti suggests that, in a weighted adjustment, the director should include a considerable percentage of 4♠= by North. Is that legally correct ?

[RMB1]

nige1, on 2011-June-21, 12:11, said:

More seriously, cyberyeti suggests that, in a weighted adjustment, the director should include a considerable percentage of 4♠= by North. Is that legally correct ?

[ Ignoring the MI aspects for the purposes of this reply.]

If South has used UI;
and, without the use of UI, one of the possible outcomes is 4S= (which scores better for OS than table result);
but the Law 12C1c weighted adjustment including 4S= is better for the NOS;
then the TD should adjust to the 12C1c weighted adjustment (even though some components of the weighting are favourable to OS).

If the Law 12C1c weighted adjustment including 4S= is better for OS, then there was no damage from the use of UI, and there is no adjustment.

[nige1]

Thank you RMB1. I feared as much. Presumably a director may judge that 4♠ can be reached without use of UI by either partner. Cyberyeti also suggests giving weights to results like 4♦-2 by E-W (declarer revokes?). This should reassure potential offenders. The law-makers opened Pandora's box.