[AndreSteff]

1C: best minor<br>2NT: alerted, explained by South as Hearts and Diamonds

---

Before South tables a lead, North explains that 2NT should have been explained as clubs and diamonds. East now calls for the TD. NS do not agree on the meaning of the 2 NT overcall.

1. How do you proceed?

---

2. Let's assume that the contract stays at 3NT. South leads the Jack of Diamonds. Do you think that this lead can be accepted as logical alternative that was not suggested by the UI?

Full hand below....

1K: Best minor<br>2NT alerted and explained by South as Hearts and Diamonds.

---

3NT on a diamond lead met an unhappy fate. East objects: had he known that North had the minors he would not have bid 3NT.

3. Assuming that East's remark is relevant, do you expect a poll to confirm his assertion?

[Cyberyeti]

I think the lead is beyond obvious on this auction, give E ♦KQx and partner an entry and this is how you defeat it.

I think 3N is an equally stupid bid over 2N with both explanations you still don't have a stop in the suit N has guaranteed and you still have 3 spades, so I'd like to hear his reasoning about the change of bid with the right explanation.

N if experienced should get a PP, you don't explain on defence, and if you are going to break protocol at least do it after partner tables the lead to avoid the UI there.

[pran]

I am confused.
With similar agreements myself I would expect 2NT to show the two lowest unbid denominations, and a "best minor" suit is certainly bid?
But North remark is not acceptable, as a defender he must not in any way indicate that his partner (in his opinion) has given incorrect information.
So absent any contrary information I would expect the explanation given by South to be correct and that North has misbid.

(Isn't 4♠ a far better contract than 3NT?)

[DozyDom]

I don't think there's a logical alternative to a diamond on this auction? Could be the A, j, or t, and definitely most likely the J, but I don't think it makes a difference.

N has given UI; that is nowhere near the levels of unethical behaviour needed to merit a procedural penalty, and it doesn't impact the S hand's decision, so I'd think that the result stands.

[blackshoe]

DozyDom, on 2019-November-13, 20:27, said:

N has given UI; that is nowhere near the levels of unethical behaviour needed to merit a procedural penalty, and it doesn't impact the S hand's decision, so I'd think that the result stands.

I disagree. Law 20F5 says "(a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.
North has committed an offense that the laws call "a serious matter indeed". This is well beyond something that "will incur a penalty more often than not". See the Introduction to the laws.

I am aware that many, if not most, directors will ignore this part of the law because, to them, giving any procedural penalty at all is anathema. But IMO that's not the way to rule the game.

NB: an action does not have to be unethical to rate a procedural penalty.

[sanst]

I don’t see why E won’t bid 3NT knowing that 2NT was clubs and diamonds. The weak point in this hand are the diamonds, not the clubs or hearts.
NS agree that 2NT shows a two suiter, but not which suit besides the diamonds. So E has MI. To find out whether there is damage caused by this or the damage is self inflicted, you should poll. Assuming that 1♠ doesn’t give more information than 4+ spades, 6+ HCP, the 3NT looks a wild gamble to me, and W not bidding 4♥ doesn’t look very smart either.
I think I might have started with ♦J as well.
N deserves a serious warning, probably a PP.

[jvage]

I agree that East's bidding looks strange, and I got difficutlies seeing how this was influenced by MI. West's pass over 3NT does however look like it may have been influenced by the MI. I can (barely) understand the pass with the explanation that North showed diamonds and hearts, but 4♥ looks obvious if the explanation was clubs+diamonds.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2019-November-14, 03:21, said:

NS agree that 2NT shows a two suiter, but not which suit besides the diamonds. So E has MI. To find out whether there is damage caused by this or the damage is self inflicted, you should poll. Assuming that 1♠ doesn’t give more information than 4+ spades, 6+ HCP, the 3NT looks a wild gamble to me, and W not bidding 4♥ doesn’t look very smart either.

Is the poll really necessary here? As you say, 3NT looks like a wild gamble independent of the MI, and his peers seem unlikely to disagree.

jvage, on 2019-November-14, 03:56, said:

I agree that East's bidding looks strange, and I got difficutlies seeing how this was influenced by MI. West's pass over 3NT does however look like it may have been influenced by the MI. I can (barely) understand the pass with the explanation that North showed diamonds and hearts, but 4♥ looks obvious if the explanation was clubs+diamonds.

West knows that either North does not really have hearts or East has no business bidding 3NT. My meta rule in such cases is to trust partner rather than opponents, but that is not universal and even then it is still not clear whether to bid hearts or pass.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-November-14, 04:38, said:

West knows that either North does not really have hearts or East has no business bidding 3NT. My meta rule in such cases is to trust partner rather than opponents, but that is not universal and even then it is still not clear whether to bid hearts or pass.

Not at all, if south doesn't have any hearts, there is room for the 2 suiter to have 5 or 6 small and partner to have AQ(x) or possibly A10x.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2019-November-14, 04:38, said:

Is the poll really necessary here? As you say, 3NT looks like a wild gamble independent of the MI, and his peers seem unlikely to disagree.

Necessary? Probably not. But over here we’re advised to follow the national Code of Practice, if only to make sure that your decision is backed up by the opinion of the peers of the players involved. If you poll, you know for certain that nobody would make such an - IMO - idiotic call and you can put the blame squarely where it belongs: at EW. I still can’t guess what E was thinking, knowing that you will get the opportunity to make a call after S and your partner have bid. Nor do I understand W passing with 6♠ and 5♥. We don’t know whether the scoring was MP or IMP, but I can’t see that makes any difference.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-14, 05:24, said:

Not at all, if south doesn't have any hearts, there is room for the 2 suiter to have 5 or 6 small and partner to have AQ(x) or possibly A10x.

I agree that in this situation 2NT can be quite weak, but I would expect an honour all the same (maybe check System Card as asking could be problematic).

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-November-14, 05:50, said:

I agree that in this situation 2NT can be quite weak, but I would expect an honour all the same (maybe check System Card as asking could be problematic).

Look at the diamonds

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-14, 06:03, said:

Look at the diamonds

I saw them
Noted his undue explanation too, for that matter.

[AndreSteff]

jvage, on 2019-November-14, 03:56, said:

I agree that East's bidding looks strange, and I got difficulties seeing how this was influenced by MI. West's pass over 3NT does however look like it may have been influenced by the MI. I can (barely) understand the pass with the explanation that North showed diamonds and hearts, but 4♥ looks obvious if the explanation was clubs+diamonds.

IMHO this is the crucial point of this case.
So: should the TD apply Law 21B1, enabling West to change the pass to a call of 4♥? And if West declines to do so the score will (dependent on the outcome of the polls on South's lead and East's bidding) probably stand?

[weejonnie]

AndreSteff, on 2019-November-14, 13:27, said:

IMHO this is the crucial point of this case.
So: should the TD apply Law 21B1, enabling West to change the pass to a call of 4♥? And if West declines to do so the score will (dependent on the outcome of the polls on South's lead and East's bidding) probably stand?

I - the TD should allow West the opportunity to change his call based on the "We have no agreement what 2NT means: amongst the possibilities are Hearts and Diamonds, or Clubs and Diamonds". (pointing out no further rectification). If he declines then we poll to find out what he might have done. (Also assumes East doesn't change his call).

I would agree a pp against NS: at least this will help reinforce the lesson that you don't explain your calls when defending until the end of the hand. No doubt N was just trying to help however this 'helping' does have consequences within the rules of the game.

[sanst]

Based on the OP I assumed that the auction went as described, N said that the explanation wasn’t right - it’s unclear that this happened before or after S put his lead (face down?) on the table - the board was played and E went off one in 3NT. Only then the TD was called and EW asked for redress. If that’s the case my decision would be EW 3♦-1 (-50), NS 4♠= (-620).
Were the TD summoned before the start of the play, he should have given W the opportunity to change his last pass. If the TD forgot that, then it’s a director’s error, both sides are non-offending and the result should be NS 3♦-1 (+50), EW 4♠= (+620).
I need to know more about N to decide upon a PP. Maybe a novice, who thought she or he was doing her or his best to point out the S misexplained. In that case you should praise him or her but tell how it should be properly done. An experienced player might get a PP.

[AndreSteff]

sanst, on 2019-November-15, 05:52, said:

Based on the OP I assumed that the auction went as described, N said that the explanation wasn’t right - it’s unclear that this happened before or after S put his lead (face down?) on the table - the board was played and E went off one in 3NT. Only then the TD was called and EW asked for redress. If that’s the case my decision would be EW 3♦-1 (-50), NS 4♠= (-620).
Were the TD summoned before the start of the play, he should have given W the opportunity to change his last pass. If the TD forgot that, then it’s a director’s error, both sides are non-offending and the result should be NS 3♦-1 (+50), EW 4♠= (+620).
I need to know more about N to decide upon a PP. Maybe a novice, who thought she or he was doing her or his best to point out the S misexplained. In that case you should praise him or her but tell how it should be properly done. An experienced player might get a PP.

The OP meant to make clear that the TD was called before South had led to the firs trick. I am sorry if this was not obvious. Apart from that I am interested if EW are likely to get any redress if West declined to change his last pass.

[sanst]

AndreSteff, on 2019-November-15, 11:22, said:

The OP meant to make clear that the TD was called before South had led to the firs trick. I am sorry if this was not obvious. Apart from that I am interested if EW are likely to get any redress if West declined to change his last pass.

I don’t think so. But you can take away any advantage from NS which resulted from the infractions. I still don’t see that they actually gained through the MI, neither that EW were disadvantaged by it. The bad result is completely of their own making. If W has been given the opportunity to change the pass and declined to do so, their case becomes even worse. Here we certainly are in the serious error department.

[blackshoe]

The criterion is "extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". "Serious error" is not enough.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-15, 14:32, said:

The criterion is "extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". "Serious error" is not enough.

EW have not been damaged by the MI if W gets his bid back, I don't believe anything else will change with the correct explanation, so if W passes, that's now his problem.