[mrdct]

---

This hand came up on board 6 of an 8-board match of a country congress swiss teams event.

NS were playing a short club system with a few gadgets including an 8-10 1NT opening 1st/2nd seat favourable and gave thorough pre-alerts at the start of the match. Under ABF System Regulations, an 8-10 1NT range is legal within all system classifications, but a pre-alert is required due to its unexpected nature. When told of the mini-NT, East (a bridge pro) told his partner that against the mini-NT they should double with any opening hand.

East alerted 2♣ and North enquired. East said, "We've agreed to double with any opening hand so this shows both minors with less than an opening hand". West expressed some confusion and/or disagreement with the explanation with a somewhat startled look and a bit of a head shake. After North's pass, East commented "Well, I have to bid according to the agreement here" and passed.

The EW convention card says that 2♣ vs 1NT is any single-suiter, but by a passed hand is both minors.

After the hand, West opined that just because we are using double to show an opening hand doesn't mean we don't play our usual defence to 1NT to which East said, "Yeah, fair enough".

North called the TD suggesting that had he been told 2♣ was a single-suiter, he would've competed with 2♦ and quite probably bought the contract in 3♦ making 9 tricks. East had a bit of a whinge that they've never played against a mini-NT before and didn't have adequate opportunity to prepare.

How do you rule?

[ArtK78]

I would not want to compete on the North hand knowing that our side had at most 1/2 the deck and no known fit.

One of the advantages of a mini-NT is that it takes the opponents out of their comfort zone and often leaves them with the last guess as to the proper strain and level. As the opening side, you should leave the opponents with the last guess if you have any doubt as to the correct action.

Having said that, if I were faced with this ruling problem I would not award any adjustment. North is aware that the opps were in an unfamiliar situation, and it is not unlikely that they were not on the same wavelength. East did not do anything unusual, although he should not have made any comments during the auction. West's mannerisms at the table were certainly inappropriate, but they did not result in any damage to North-South, as East did not take any advantage of them.

I find North's statement that he would have competed with 2♦ if he knew that West's bid showed a one-suited hand to be self-serving and I would not give it much consideration. As I stated above, I would be very wary of competing with a 10 count when partner opens an 8-10 1NT.

[aguahombre]

Although we could ask of West: "Which part of ANY opening hand did you not understand?" ---West is not the problem; East is the problem.

At the table, he disclosed a non-existent agreement -- that West was showing clubs and diamonds -- to the opponents (West is not a passed hand). This misinformation is the irregularity. Adjust to N/S making diamond partscore.

[MickyB]

Lol. It's auto to bid there if 2D is nat NF. I'd check with NS that they don't play system on over 2C and ask South what he'd do over 2D, then adjust to %ages of various contracts.

[blackshoe]

That's a pretty raunchy collection in North's hand, isn't it? Still, it's not about what you would do, Art, it's about what NS would do.

Was there MI? Well, maybe. East's "fair enough" after the hand suggests they didn't actually have an agreement, but I suspect it's more likely that East forgot about the unpassed hand implication. Were NS damaged? I tend to agree with Art that they were not, but I would inquire a little further into their methods in these cases. If they can convince me that N would compete, then I might adjust to some portion of 4♣ down 1, some portion of 4♣ making, some portion of 4♦ down 1 and some portion of 4♦ making.

West's grimaces provide UI to East, East's comments provide UI to West. Providing UI is not illegal, so I'd perhaps just mention one should try not to do this.

East's whinge about lack of time is BS - he had the amount of time anyone would have received, and which was required by regulation. That he didn't take more time is his fault.

[ahydra]

I have some sympathy for North given the explanation of "both minors". I don't think anyone would want to bid diamonds now... And the CC makes it look like this was misinformation.

I'd agree with blackshoe's judgement that the final contract will be 4C or 4D. 4D will make 9 or 10 8 or 9 tricks, but 4C looks like only 9. So I'll award something like

50% of 4D-1
25% of 4D-2
25% of 4C-1

to be favourable to the NOS.

Edit: wtf, no 4D doesn't make, sorry.

ahydra

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-11, 09:35, said:

Was there MI? Well, maybe. East's "fair enough" after the hand suggests they didn't actually have an agreement, but I suspect it's more likely that East forgot about the unpassed hand implication. Were NS damaged? I tend to agree with Art that they were not, but I would inquire a little further into their methods in these cases. If they can convince me that N would compete, then I might adjust to some portion of 4♣ down 1, some portion of 4♣ making, some portion of 4♦ down 1 and some portion of 4♦ making.

I play a 9-11 NT first in (EBU won't let us play 8-10), so I'm fairly familiar with what to do here. If you do play a mini NT your methods prioritise getting out without damage and hence 2D is definitely non-forcing and you definitely aren't bidding all the way up to 4D even if west backs in again (particularly on the, admittedly shapely, minimum with south). East has to continue to pass thinking it's both minors because of his UI and I suspect we're likely to rule that after 2D, pass would be an LA to West. 3C is definitely suggested over pass with his UI, so I could actually see leaving 2D as the adjustment

[MickyB]

mjj29, on 2012-September-11, 16:55, said:

I play a 9-11 NT first in (EBU won't let us play 8-10), so I'm fairly familiar with what to do here. If you do play a mini NT your methods prioritise getting out without damage and hence 2D is definitely non-forcing and you definitely aren't bidding all the way up to 4D even if west backs in again (particularly on the, admittedly shapely, minimum with south). East has to continue to pass thinking it's both minors because of his UI and I suspect we're likely to rule that after 2D, pass would be an LA to West. 3C is definitely suggested over pass with his UI, so I could actually see leaving 2D as the adjustment

No way is passing 2D out an LA. You haven't even shown your suit yet, ppl will basically never pass oppo out there when they can bid their suit at the level they always intended to, let alone with seven solid. I was also under the impression that it's incorrect to rule on the basis that N/S get the correct explanation but West still has UI, but I am happy to be proved wrong/be shouted down on this point.

[iviehoff]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-11, 09:20, said:

Although we could ask of West: "Which part of ANY opening hand did you not understand?"

"Any opening hand" is not the same as "all opening hands". It does not preclude the possibility that there may be other (better) bids available for some opening hands. For example, I will open 1D on any opening hand with a diamond suit and no major, but on some such hands I will prefer to open 1N.

[Trinidad]

North is bidding double dummy. North only gets to bid based on his own hand, the auction, the explanations (AI) and the corrected explanation.

Why on Earth would North bid 2♦ with the information that 2♣ shows any single suiter, but that East thinks that it shows the minors?

I would let them play 2♣ and hope that they will pay for their (vulnerable!) misunderstanding when West turns up with a 6313 hand and East with a 2344. If I bid and give West a second chance, EW might somehow find that they have a spade fit, and what am I going to do then?

I would just take what is probably a good score by defending a contract that the opponents are probably not happy to be in. The fact that -with all hands in plain view- EW happen to be happy to play 2♣ is irrelevant for my decision based on seeing only one hand.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

mjj29, on 2012-September-11, 16:55, said:

I play a 9-11 NT first in (EBU won't let us play 8-10), so I'm fairly familiar with what to do here.
<snip>
I suspect we're likely to rule that after 2D, pass would be an LA to West.

You must play this against pretty bad opponents if they are regularly passing 2♦ out with the given West hand. Five clubs looks closer to being a LA than Pass!

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2012-September-12, 01:57, said:

North is bidding double dummy. North only gets to bid based on his own hand, the auction, the explanations (AI) and the corrected explanation.

Why on Earth would North bid 2♦ with the information that 2♣ shows any single suiter, but that East thinks that it shows the minors?

Without the MI he would be unaware of the misunderstanding, and in that case 2♦ is normal.

[gordontd]

MickyB, on 2012-September-11, 18:14, said:

I was also under the impression that it's incorrect to rule on the basis that N/S get the correct explanation but West still has UI, but I am happy to be proved wrong/be shouted down on this point.

SHOUT!

[bluejak]

MickyB, on 2012-September-11, 09:26, said:

Lol. It's auto to bid there if 2D is nat NF. I'd check with NS that they don't play system on over 2C and ask South what he'd do over 2D, then adjust to %ages of various contracts.

I really don't understand some of the comments here. Would North pass over 2♣ if he wasn't told it was the minors? Only if he is a total wimp and a wuss. Would South pass over 2♣ if he wasn't told it was the minors? Only if he is a total wimp and a wuss. Were N/S a pair of complete wimps and wusses?

Once North or South bids 2♦ would West pass? Only if he is a total wimp and a wuss.

Who is playing at this table?

Either there was no MI - no adjustment - or assume that the players will play bridge and adjust to some weighted combination of 5♣ doubled or not and down 1 or 2 plus 4♦ down 1 or 2.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2012-September-13, 06:11, said:

I really don't understand some of the comments here. Would North pass over 2♣ if he wasn't told it was the minors? Only if he is a total wimp and a wuss. Would South pass over 2♣ if he wasn't told it was the minors? Only if he is a total wimp and a wuss. Were N/S a pair of complete wimps and wusses?

Once North or South bids 2♦ would West pass? Only if he is a total wimp and a wuss.

Who is playing at this table?

Either there was no MI - no adjustment - or assume that the players will play bridge and adjust to some weighted combination of 5♣ doubled or not and down 1 or 2 plus 4♦ down 1 or 2.

As it happens, I was South and I whilst many non-complimentary words have been used over the years to describe my bidding style, "wimp" and "wuss" haven't made the list.

I don't think "assume that the players will play bridge" has any basis in law when UI comes into the picture. West has produced UI suggesting that she holds more values than East is suggesting and East has produced UI that he's bidding as if West has shown both minors with less than an opening hand. The TD's considerations in such circumstances can't be just assuming everyone will play bridge as there can be all manner of LA constraints to apply.

The TD ruled that there was MI in relation to the explanation of 2♣ with the TD suggesting that East should have said something like "against a normal weak NT this would show a single-suiter, but other than agreeing that double shows an opening hand, we have no agreements about any other variations to our defence to 1NT when it's 8-10". The TD adjusted the score to North-South making 3♦ on the basis that absent the MI, North-South would've competed to 3♦ and the UI from East's comments would constrain West from bidding 4♣ as pass would be an action at least somewhere in her considerations. Whilst weighted ruling are allowed in Australia they are extremely rare; possibly due to the hassle they create for scorers and in this case the TD was also the scorer! East then got a tad angry and said he was going to appeal, but didn't end up doing so.

[aguahombre]

Good job by the TD.

[Zelandakh]

Did the TD cnduct a poll as to whether Pass was a LA over 3♦? At least the TD did not judge that Pass was a LA over 2♦!

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2012-September-14, 00:32, said:

I don't think "assume that the players will play bridge" has any basis in law when UI comes into the picture. West has produced UI suggesting that she holds more values than East is suggesting and East has produced UI that he's bidding as if West has shown both minors with less than an opening hand. The TD's considerations in such circumstances can't be just assuming everyone will play bridge as there can be all manner of LA constraints to apply.

I was talking about the non-offending side who are not constrained by UI. When adjusting TDs do not assume that non-offending players will not play bridge.

Quote

Whilst weighted ruling are allowed in Australia they are extremely rare; possibly due to the hassle they create for scorers ...

That is an appalling reason for not doing a job properly.