[AndreSteff]

---

1:♣: Dutch doubleton (1♦=4+, 5 card major.)
2♣: Alerted by West, asked by South. West explains: we agreed on playing Ghestem, so he promises the majors. But well, this is the first time we are playing together, so...

Lead: Jack of diamonds, low in dummy, trick won by the ace. Result: 5♣ doubled and made.

North is not amused: he has serious doubts that the 5♣ bid is allowed and he states that if South would have known the clubs were real he could have doubled 2♣ to show the majors. This would reduce the chance of East having a singleton Queen of diamonds, so he would have been less likely to play the Ace in trick one.

Of course, the answer to what the TD should rule is heavily dependant on the results of his polling other players. NS are very strong players , West is a strong player, East is a 16 year old beginner with a lot of promise...

I will post the result of the polls later.
So: how should the TD rule? Fill in your own idea of what the polls are likely to show.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2017-August-25, 08:33
Reason for edit: fix alerts in diagram

[helene_t]

The explanation seems to be correct. Anyway, it doesn't really matter other than that maybe N would not have doubled if being told that 2♣ probably shows clubs. I am not convinced. But maybe we are allowed to give a weighted score. It doesn't matter, though, as I will consider the explanation to be correct.

Whether 4♠ is allowed could possibly be determined by a poll, but finding relevant peers may be difficult. Does W have sufficient AI from the fact that W jumps to 4♠ as a passed hand, to legally be "woken up"?

The defacto agreement "either majors or clubs" is a BSC but I am not sure if Dutch TDs see it that way. And if BSCs are allowed as defense against a 2+ clubs (i.e. is the 1♣ opening considered artificial for that purpose?).

Subject to poll results I would probably rule back to 4♠-3 and leave it by that.

[blackshoe]

One possible scenario is that West's explanation was correct and East knew that as soon as he heard it. In that case the fact that there seems to have been no director call before the opening lead was chosen, followed by East disagreeing with West's explanation is irrelevant. But if that's the case then East's 5♣ is a case of "unauthorized panic" and the score should be adjusted. I suspect that in 4♠ West may go down a few more than three.

The ramifications of unauthorized information should be clearly and kindly explained to East. We don't want to drive away new players, especially when they have a lot of promise.

[AndreSteff]

"The defacto agreement "either majors or clubs" is a BSC but I am not sure if Dutch TDs see it that way. And if BSCs are allowed as defense against a 2+ clubs (i.e. is the 1♣ opening considered artificial for that purpose?)."

It certainly would be considered a BSC in the Netherlands. Up to 2015 BSC's were allowed after Dutch doubletons, but this was changed. However, in ruling these kind of cases the de facto use of a BCS in the context of bidding misunderstandings is not taken into account.

[weejonnie]

I think that East is allowed to know that West has not bid a spade suit - after all, West is a passed hand and then has jumped to 4♠ - this is authorised information. (And as is often the case - we cannot impute on EW our own interpretations of what the bid might mean)
East having bid 5♣, West is fully entitled to consider that this is natural (and he has explained the possibility to opponents).

How the Dutch handle 'fielded misbids' is not something I know.

[sanst]

There are two questins that need to be answered:
- is 2♣ a misbid or misexplained,
- Is 5♣ allowed after 4♠.
The new laws don't come in effect in Holland till September 1st. Till then the Dutch TD's have to apply the decision taken by the bridge union, that if a pair that uses a convention for less than a year and make a mistake, it should be treated as misnformation rather than a misbid. Yes, we know, it's an idiotic rule, but we're bound by it. It will be dropped once the new laws are in use.
S was misinformed about the 2♣, so he would probably have made a call, either most likely double or otherwise hearts, in which case NS would have reached a major contract. It's however likely that E still would have bid 5♣, being a sixteen year old talented beginner.
It must be clear for E that W doesn't have a hand that allows a 4♠ bid after having passed beforehand. So E knows legally that something went wrong and therefore I would allow the 5♣.
Conclusion: EW were lucky to make 5♣x, which could easily have gone off and I doubt whether NS would have bid 5♠ or 5♥ when they were not 'misinformed'. Result stands and a warning to E. Let's hope that next time he makes a mistake like this, it ends in disaster.
'He' could well have been a she, since there are quite a few talented young female bridge players here.

[AndreSteff]

Until now nobody has addresssed North's claim that he would have been more likely NOT to play the Ace of Diamonds in trick one if South could have made a call over a natural 2♣ bid showing the majors.

[AndreSteff]

About being the alert on 2♣ being misinformation:
The Dutch regulations currently make it crystal clear that the TD should rule misinformation. But can a TD from any other jurisdiction really rule otherwise for a first time partnership that has system cards that admittedly read "Ghestem"? East explained that he thought they had agreed not to play Ghestem over a Dutch doubleton.

[lamford]

AndreSteff, on 2017-August-25, 05:41, said:

About being the alert on 2♣ being misinformation:
The Dutch regulations currently make it crystal clear that the TD should rule misinformation. But can a TD from any other jurisdiction really rule otherwise for a first time partnership that has system cards that admittedly read "Ghestem"? East explained that he thought they had agreed not to play Ghestem over a Dutch doubleton.

21B1b also says in both the old and new laws that the TD assumes misinformation:
"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

East should have called the TD before the opening lead and stated that, in his opinion, they had not agreed to play Ghestem over a short club. If there had not been misinformation in the auction, South would have had an obvious takeout double of 2C. West, in his world, still would have bid 4S and East would think this must be a fit jump by a passed hand and would bid 5C, probably doubled by North. I would rule a high percentage of 5Cx-1 as East is now unlikely to have a singleton queen of diamonds, although he still could if South is 4-4-5-0. Perhaps 75% of 5Cx-1 and 25% of 5Cx=. Maybe some 5C undoubled too.

[barmar]

Even if East has singleton Q, playing the Ace is usually wrong -- you're just trading tricks unless you can get all your defensive tricks before declarer gets back in to take a discard on the K. This is something I frequently have to explain to our novices, and "very strong players" should already understand it.

And from the way the auction ended, it should be clear to NS that East doesn't have the hand West described, he obviously has a natural club overcall. There's no reason to think that he has a singleton -- he probably would have made a takeout double.

I rule that the damage was not caused by the MI, NS did it to themselves.

[AndreSteff]

The ruling
There are two questions to answer:

• Has an action been taken based on the unauthorized information while there was a logical alternative?
  
• Was there damage due to misinformation?

In the Netherlands there is a common understanding among TD's that when partner passed at his turn to open the player that has received UI may from this draw the conclusion that partner will not have a long suit of his own. But does a five card clubs qualify for a rebid at the five level without adjustment in this case? (Apart from that Bridge players in NL convince one an other that you may always run from UI when you have a singleton in partner's suit).
Well, in the poll of 6 players two players did pass 4♠, simply because they were not convinced that bidding 5♣ would lead to a better result. These players took partner's pass at his turn to open the hand into account in their decision (and they were of course not told of the UI).
So, the result was adjusted to 4♠-5.

There remained the question of whether playing the Ace of Diamonds in trick one should be considered a serious error. The polled players all would have ducked the opening lead, but it took them a considerable time to come to the conclusion that after this auction too that was the best action. Had South been able to show the majors over a natural 2♣ call from East they judged that the decision to duck the ace of diamonds would have been easier. The TD judged that playing the Ace of Diamonds was no serious error and that the damage caused by it was related to misinformation. So, no split score was assigned. This was all explained to East in much detail and he seemed to understand and accept this.

This is the question that remains:
Should the TD indeed rule that there has been misinformation? Doing otherwise feels quite wrong for me.
The pair did agree to play Ghestem and their convention card confirms this.
But it was their first time playing together.
East stated that he was of the opinion that after a Dutch doubleton Ghestem did not apply.

[lamford]

AndreSteff, on 2017-August-26, 23:31, said:

In the Netherlands there is a common understanding among TD's that when partner passed at his turn to open the player that has received UI may from this draw the conclusion that partner will not have a long suit of his own.

In England there is a common understanding among TDs that when a passed hand jumps on the second round of the auction it shows a fit for partner. Perhaps not among beginners, but among intermediate players or better. Therefore 5C should be allowed.

[sanst]

AndreSteff, on 2017-August-26, 23:31, said:

Well, in the poll of 6 players two players did pass 4♠, simply because they were not convinced that bidding 5♣ would lead to a better result. These players took partner's pass at his turn to open the hand into account in their decision (and they were of course not told of the UI).
So, the result was adjusted to 4♠-5.

There remained the question of whether playing the Ace of Diamonds in trick one should be considered a serious error. The polled players all would have ducked the opening lead, but it took them a considerable time to come to the conclusion that after this auction too that was the best action. Had South been able to show the majors over a natural 2♣ call from East they judged that the decision to duck the ace of diamonds would have been easier. The TD judged that playing the Ace of Diamonds was no serious error and that the damage caused by it was related to misinformation.

This shows the importance of having a poll. Whether I am of the opinion that 5♣ is allowed without making use of the UI, is not important, but that two out of six players would pass 4♠ is.
I would never have considered ducking the ace a serious error. It comes nowhere near the examples given by Ton Kooijman in "Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge"; Ton Kooijman is chairman of the WBF Laws Committee.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2017-August-27, 05:56, said:

This shows the importance of having a poll.

It also shows the importance of the pollster establishing the methods of the pair, and finding peers. East-West should have been asked if they play fit jumps as a passed hand, and what 4S would mean to them if 2C had been explained as natural. But I agree with you that playing the ace of diamonds is nowhere near a serious error (except by a TD assessing it as one).

[sanst]

lamford, on 2017-August-27, 01:56, said:

In England there is a common understanding among TDs that when a passed hand jumps on the second round of the auction it shows a fit for partner. Perhaps not among beginners, but among intermediate players or better. Therefore 5C should be allowed.

A double jump to 4♠. What would that mean?
Although we don't know enough about the methods of EW, I think it highly improbable that they would have an agreement about that call. As André wrote, Dutch TD's allow a player to become aware of his or her mistake through an 'impossible' call from partner, even if the explanation transmitted the same information and was therefore UI.