[VixTD]

---

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs -> VPs
EW play Acol, 4cM with a strong NT. 2NT was natural, not alerted. Before bidding 4♥, North asked West about 2NT, and was told "Sorry, I should have alerted it, it's good-bad 2NT, showing a hand that wants to compete in a minor."
Result: 4♥(N)-1, NS-50

East called me at the end of play to explain that the late alert and explanation had been incorrect, their agreement was to play 2NT as natural. West agreed that he'd made a mistake, and this was their agreement. North contends he would not have bid 4♥ had he not been misled.

How would you rule?

[AlexJonson]

With EW likely to bid and make 3S over 3H I can't see the damage.

Very strange sort of mistake from West.

[Blue Uriah]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-May-24, 08:23, said:

With EW likely to bid and make 3S over 3H I can't see the damage.

I don't think East is bidding 3♠, having already shown his hand.

What concerns me is that the explanation West gave was so far off the planet that an experienced North should realise that something is up. If it was me, I'd probably ask him if he was sure that's what it meant, or if he had perhaps misread the auction. If North did this, or if he's not very experienced I'd definitely rule it back to 3♥. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. Is this the equivalent of someone blindly assuming that an unalerted 2♣ response to 1NT is natural?

[paulg]

 Blue Uriah, on 2011-May-24, 09:04, said:

I don't think East is bidding 3♠, having already shown his hand.

Particularly when he may only have a weak notrump with just four spades.

 Blue Uriah, on 2011-May-24, 09:04, said:

What concerns me is that the explanation West gave was so far off the planet that an experienced North should realise that something is up. If it was me, I'd probably ask him if he was sure that's what it meant, or if he had perhaps misread the auction. If North did this, or if he's not very experienced I'd definitely rule it back to 3♥. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. Is this the equivalent of someone blindly assuming that an unalerted 2♣ response to 1NT is natural?

This 2NT is quite popular amongst many Scottish players, some of whom would not disgrace the Crockford's final, so I would not regard it as 'off the planet' even though, personally, I dislike the treatment. I probably would not check, especially without screens, as it is a strange method to make up.

Looks like a good hand for a poll, but of course that is difficult to do as everyone at the event will know the hand. Absent a poll, I probably give a weighted ruling, something 50% 3♥ making and 50% table result.

[Blue Uriah]

 paulg, on 2011-May-24, 09:20, said:

This 2NT is quite popular amongst many Scottish players, some of whom would not disgrace the Crockford's final, so I would not regard it as 'off the planet' even though, personally, I dislike the treatment. I probably would not check, especially without screens, as it is a strange method to make up.

Looks like a good hand for a poll, but of course that is difficult to do as everyone at the event will know the hand. Absent a poll, I probably give a weighted ruling, something 50% 3♥ making and 50% table result.

I stand corrected then. I can't say I've ever come across it myself, but if it's even plausible then I'm happy to adjust to 3♥ 100% of the time. If North knows the oppo have at least half the pack, including some heart values, then I'll believe him when he tells me he would have passed 3♥ out.

[aguahombre]

I don't think West believed his own explanation, looking at his hand and his pass of 3H.

[AlexJonson]

On the auction West (from East's point of view) is a big favourite to be short in hearts and hold at least five spades, after the 3H.

With three spades, a possibly well placed heart King and top clubs, I would certainly bid 3S as East, if North passes 3H.

[lamford]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-May-24, 10:31, said:

With three spades, a possibly well placed heart King and top clubs, I would certainly bid 3S as East, if North passes 3H.

But I think it might be demonstrably suggested by the UI, which is that partner thinks your 2NT is to compete in a minor. Partner didn't bid a pass or correct 4C (or should it be 3NT - bid your minor?), and he hasn't got many hearts, therefore he is much more likely to have five or six spades. And Pass looks an LA with a 10-count and a bit too much in hearts of the wrong sort for offence. I would adjust to 100% of 3H passed out. North is very unlikely to bid 4H if he was told 2NT was natural.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2011-May-24, 10:55, said:

But I think it might be demonstrably suggested by the UI, which is that partner thinks your 2NT is to compete in a minor. Partner didn't bid a pass or correct 4C (or should it be 3NT - bid your minor?), and he hasn't got many hearts, therefore he is much more likely to have five or six spades. And Pass looks an LA with a 10-count and a bit too much in hearts of the wrong sort for offence. I would adjust to 100% of 3H passed out. North is very unlikely to bid 4H if he was told 2NT was natural.

North's pass, rather than 4H (he says), would have been with the correct explanation, not the UI; so, 3S could be ventured by East or not. The idea of the 3S bid is something for the director to project as a possible result had there been no irregularity.

[RMB1]

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-24, 11:04, said:

North's pass, rather than 4H (he says), would have been with the correct explanation, not the UI; so, 3S could be ventured by East or not. The idea of the 3S bid is something for the director to project as a possible result had there been no irregularity.

The adjustment would be on the basis that West gave the wrong late explanation (creating UI) but North was still correctly informed (so there is no MI). We can imagine a scenario where North reads the correctly completed system card, or knows that East never plays good-bad 2NT.

[AlexJonson]

There are two opposing arguments to you and Lamford (apart from common sense/bridge sense from Aguahombre).

1. East, North and everyone at the table new West had fallen asleep and got confused.

2. East is top end for a 3S bid, so it is not even preemptive - an optimist might bid 4S. There are no legal barriers to 3S.

[RMB1]

If there is no logical alternative to 3♠ then (of course) East would bid it. We disagree whether Pass would be a logical alternative.

[AlexJonson]

 RMB1, on 2011-May-24, 13:19, said:

If there is no logical alternative to 3♠ then (of course) East would bid it. We disagree whether Pass would be a logical alternative.

Mm

So, if East uses UI and thinks, 'lets not dig a whole any deeper than we are in, I'll pass', that's fine in your interperetation.

But if East thinks, pass is clearly suggested by UI to avoid disaster, so I will make the Bridge bid of supporting spades, and take the consequences,
then in your interpretation and that of Lamford he has failed ethically.

Well, I very much disagree with you.

[lamford]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-May-24, 14:50, said:

But if East thinks, pass is clearly suggested by UI to avoid disaster, so I will make the Bridge bid of supporting spades, and take the consequences,
then in your interpretation and that of Lamford he has failed ethically.

Well, I very much disagree with you.

But 3S, with the UI, is unlikely to be a disaster. As I think I explained the UI suggests partner is longer in spades. You have authorised information that he is likely to have a singleton heart, and your heart holding therefore suggests defending.

[AlexJonson]

I could equally argue that West is very likely to be void in hearts, in which case his bidding and explanation are more or less impossible.

I wouldn't argue with someone who plays for one off in hearts rather than nine tricks in spades: I would argue with someone who thinks the choices
have anything to do with UI from West's bizarre explanation.

[lamford]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-May-25, 03:31, said:

I could equally argue that West is very likely to be void in hearts, in which case his bidding and explanation are more or less impossible.

If West is void in hearts, and he does not have support for both minors, having not bid 4C, he will have even more spades. But the fact that he does not have support for both minors (or should not have) is unauthorised. This clearly disallows the 3S bid when North passes.

[lamford]

What was the ruling on this one?

[Cyberyeti]

Is there actually any damage here, if EW were defending 3♥ might they not have beaten it ? You appear to have 1 heart, one spade and 2 clubs to lose. Unless you run the 9♥ on the first round, ruffing a diamond in dummy leads to a second trump loser. You would feel an idiot losing to a stiff 10.

[VixTD]

 lamford, on 2011-May-29, 05:40, said:

What was the ruling on this one?

When I polled a few players in the bar there was overwhelming support for bidding 3♠ with the East hand, even playing 4cM, but the actual East player managed to convince me he would have passed and defended 3♥. We thought this would make about half the time and go one off half the time, so we awarded both sides 60% of 3♥(N)= and 40% of 3♥(N)-1.

[lamford]

 VixTD, on 2011-May-31, 06:51, said:

When I polled a few players in the bar there was overwhelming support for bidding 3♠ with the East hand <snip>

Perhaps you should have polled a few players in the coffee lounge to get a more sober opinion. And 3H is beaten fairly easily as East has two trump tricks, even if you run the nine of hearts and finesse the diamond, as you still have to ruff a diamond in dummy, so I don't know why you think it would make half the time. Perhaps half the Easts in the bar would have covered the heart as well? The defence cashes three black winners and then leads, say, another club, and there is no play for 3♥.

And I know for sure that Don Smedley, a Grandmaster of both bridge and double-dummy problems (not to mention being a FIDE master of chess composition), was at the event. Perhaps he might have been consulted about the play in 3♥?