[fito]

---

Bidding explanations:
2♦ - Alerted - Standard Multi
2♠ - Not alerted - E-O do not have any agreement, so East thinks than they play Standard defense, and West thinks natural.
3♥ - South didn'at ask for 2♠ meaning till the end of the ouction (but see before in the AC)
3♠ - Support in ♠ (natural).
3NT - To play anything (Good!!!)

Before lead, South asks for the meaning of 2♠, and West says than she does play the sort, but like E-W has no agreement, she thinks it's natural.

Souths lead the ♥K, 9, 8 and A. South asks West why she didn't correct to 4♠. She says than if pd wants tio play 3NT, she has a good hand to play there.
East plays ♥2, Q, 10, 6.
South then plays the ♥7!!!!!!, and East claims 9 tricks. At this moment, South asks for TD, climing the misinformation from North, and explaying than the bad explanation afected his defense!!!!!!!!.

TD ruled than there was not misinformation because E-W has no agreement, so result stands.

N-S appeal the TD rule based in to points:

1- East must correct West's explanation before South leads.
2- East missdefense based on misinformation.
During the AC hearing South and North say than they do not ask for the meaning of 2♠ at any time.

Some more information: both pairs are normal good players. East-West are ocasional partnership, and North and South are good players, but not top players, and regular partenership. 2♦ Multi is not a usual convention in this tournament.

Your opinions, please

[ahydra]

I think you have some of your Norths and Easts mixed up, and you mean "that" instead of "than" quite a few times as well. For example, "so East thinks that they play Standard defense". (On that note, what is the "Standard defense"?)

The ♥7 is (almost?) bad enough to class as a SEWOG. Does South really think partner has hearts after East returns the suit at trick two?

It looks like West's explanation was fine - East has no reason to correct it if "no agreement" is correct. South's claim that he didn't ask the meaning of 2S when he actually did is rather dodgy as well. I'd be tempted to keep the money.

ahydra

[fito]

ahydra, on 2012-December-04, 04:56, said:

I think you have some of your Norths and Easts mixed up, and you mean "that" instead of "than" quite a few times as well. For example, "so East thinks that they play Standard defense". (On that note, what is the "Standard defense"?)

The ♥7 is (almost?) bad enough to class as a SEWOG. Does South really think partner has hearts after East returns the suit at trick two?

It looks like West's explanation was fine - East has no reason to correct it if "no agreement" is correct. South's claim that he didn't ask the meaning of 2S when he actually did is rather dodgy as well. I'd be tempted to keep the money.

ahydra

yes, where it says: South then plays the ♥7!!!!!!, and East claims 9 tricks. At this moment, South asks for TD, climing the misinformation from North, and explaying than the bad explanation afected his defense!!!!!!!!. must say: South then plays the ♥7!!!!!!, and East claims 9 tricks. At this moment, South asks for TD, claiming the misinformation from East, and explaning than the bad explanation afected his defense!!!!!!!!.

I agree with you, but I'm so bad english speaker, than writher, sorry again, but there is no more...

Standard defense here is:

X - is opening hand with ♦
2Mayor is a normal double hand with short in the bid suit and long in the rest.
2NT - is a normal openning of 1NT with ♠ and ♥ stopers
3♣ - is suit and opening

N-S loose the money, and they was not happy with it.

[Codo]

No agreement is a good description for no agreement. And you do not need to tell the opps that you have another hand then partner expects if his explanation of the agreement was correct.

North failed to double 3 ♠ over partners 3 ♥- if partner has support for both majors and West 3+ spades, how many spades does this leave for East? It is SO unlikely that they will play 4 or more spades. But okay, I give North the benefit of the doubt that he hoped for a better score while passing.
He should have doubled 3 NT for a spade lead.
And at least South did play a 3. round of hearts. Sorry, but this is SEWOG.
I would like to give N/S an additional penalty, but I do not know how to justify. But they lose the money for sure.

[pran]

While I agree with the verdict (because of South's incredible lead of his ♥7) I think this is a horrible example of "no agreement" abuse.

East thinks that they play Standard defense (whatever that is) so that this is his comprehension of their partnership understanding. Then he receives the unauthorized (to him) information (as West failed to alert the bid and gave an explanation that differs from his own understanding) that West has a different comprehension.

Consequently East is required by Law 20F5{b} after the closing pass in the auction to notify his opponents of the apparent (in his opinion) misinformation given by West.

(Or should East without any such discrepancy have notified opponents that West had given an incorrect explanation and that the correct explanation is "no agreements"?)

added: I might be tempted to adjust the result to 3NT down 4 effective for N-S only.

[Zelandakh]

I am surprised noone is mentioning the UI here. East has UI that West is taking their 2♠ bid as natural from the failure to alert. That makes bidding 3NT much better than with an alert - presumably in that case the 3♠ advance would be a cue bid. I think 3NT is strongly suggested over 4♥ by the UI. if East were to bid 4♥ then West would probably continue with 4♠ and who knows where this would end up. That noone seems to have considered this aspect of the case is something I find puzzling.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-04, 07:04, said:

I am surprised noone is mentioning the UI here. East has UI that West is taking their 2♠ bid as natural from the failure to alert. That makes bidding 3NT much better than with an alert - presumably in that case the 3♠ advance would be a cue bid. I think 3NT is strongly suggested over 4♥ by the UI. if East were to bid 4♥ then West would probably continue with 4♠ and who knows where this would end up. That noone seems to have considered this aspect of the case is something I find puzzling.

Agree and I consider it too. Also I wonder about west's failure to bid 4♠. His previous raise to 3♠ clearly showed that he understood 2♠ as natural - what changed his mind?

[Codo]

How do you decide between these two cases:

1. East tried the STANDARD defence, get to know from the 3 Spade bid that West was not on the same wavelength and tried to save his side into 3 NT. West thought 2 Spades was natural, but with his balanced hand and his minor suit holdings over south and his help in hearts he thinks that 3 NT is the superior contract?
2. East tried something, got an UI from the missing alert and tried to rescue his side?

It is still allowed to try something at the table and to get to know that partner does not understand us. The OP wrote STANDARD DEFENCE for a reason. It is common bridge knowledge over there that 2 ♠ shows the other suits. And you are allowed to use your common bridge knowledge without an implicitly agreement. And it is allowed to use the brain over 3 ♠ and to change horses too.

So what is all this talking about UI really about? Which message does the UI of the missing alert creates which is not shown by the 3 ♠ bid?

[billw55]

I'm not a TD of course. But from reading here, I don't think it matters whether east *actually* used the UI. What matters is that he had both UI and a logical alternative.

As for west .. ok, sometimes we may choose 3NT over an 8-card fit. But 9-card or 10-card? It's weird but I guess west doesn't really have any UI that I can see.

[Zelandakh]

Codo, on 2012-December-04, 08:26, said:

So what is all this talking about UI really about? Which message does the UI of the missing alert creates which is not shown by the 3 ♠ bid?

Roland, let us say that we have an auction that runs:
2♠ - X - 3♥ - 3♠
P,
where the 3♥ call was alerted as being a bad raise to 3♠. Would you regard 3NT as a LA with -/AJxxxx/Q9xx/Axx? How about 4♥? From East's point of view, this is the auction here if the 2♠ bid had been alerted. Because it was not alerted, it is clear that 3♠ is natural. That suggests bidding 3NT, and 4♥ is (imho) still a LA. And that is a breach of East's requirements.

[Codo]

Sorry, but both of you did not adress the main point:

1. Which information did the UI of the missing alert submit which was not submitted by the 3 ♠ bid itself?
2. Lets say, you play with screens, so you (East) do not know that West failed to alert. How would you take 3 Spade? I would KNOW that he obviously misunderstood my 2 ♠ bid and took it as natural. Are there any serious doubts about this?

[Zelandakh]

I thought I had addressed this with my alternative auction. Let's put it another way. They open 1♠. We double and, after a 2♠ raise, partner bids 3♠. Is there any doubt that this 3♠ bid is a cue bid and not showing spades? It is the same in this auction. Whatever the local Standard defence is, I am quite sure that the 3♠ advance in this auction is defined as a forcing cue bid of some sort. Is there any reason why North cannot have a frisky 3-5 hcp and South absolutely nothing? West has to have a forcing call available and that is 3♠.

[Trinidad]

Codo, on 2012-December-04, 09:47, said:

Sorry, but both of you did not adress the main point:

1. Which information did the UI of the missing alert submit which was not submitted by the 3 ♠ bid itself?

That 3♠ was not a cue in the opponents' suit, but natural with 3+ spades.

Codo, on 2012-December-04, 09:47, said:

2. Lets say, you play with screens, so you (East) do not know that West failed to alert. How would you take 3 Spade? I would KNOW that he obviously misunderstood my 2 ♠ bid and took it as natural. Are there any serious doubts about this?

Very serious doubts. I have just shown a takeout double of spades. From that point on we have identified spades as the opponents' suit. Partner bids spades. This doesn't mean that he misunderstood. It means whatever it means when playing the "Standard defense", presumably something like "pick a game". I think it is blatant use of UI to then pick a game in NT with a void in the opponents' suit.

Rik

[mycroft]

I intensely dislike "well, that's the only thing it could mean" arguments in UI cases. Sure, for some people it is, but they're not the ones making the argument (those ones look at the TD funny when they are asked "so, what would this bid mean in partnerships where you do play <convention>?")

RHO makes a "either major" preempt, and I say "takeout of spades". LHO makes a call that should be "good support for spades", and partner bids 3♠. Looks like a strong hand, and my void makes it even stronger. I have a weak hand in terms of points, so everybody could easily have their bids - they could easily be 6-11-10-13 around the table, for instance. I don't make a slam try I guess, but I'm certainly bidding game (I sort of have to). And since I have two more hearts than partner expects, I guess it's 4♥.

Oh, I bid 3NT? And it turns out that partner has spades? So I believed that 3♠ said "I have a spade stopper"? Let's see some evidence, or at least a chain of logic that doesn't involve "oh, partner must not have understood what I meant". Because when partner *does* understand what they mean, and Alert and explain properly, they wrack their brains to figure out what it should mean. In at least one of those cases, they're using UI...

Yes, there have been times where I have explained a call as "that bid doesn't exist." I then go on to explain my partner's valid options. But even then, when I know for a fact that she's forgotten something (whether it be the responses or what my bid meant), I am required to think about what she could have meant.

So, I think I'm resolving this to 4♥X-1, seems reasonable (E/W could get into more trouble if South keeps quiet, but I think South would double 4♥). Now, as to the play of the ♥7. For any reasonable player, hearing "no agreement", who has had heart go to the Ace and heart immediately back, are they thinking "east has now blanked both hands in hearts, and has 8 more tricks if he convinces me to not run partner's suit"? or "looks like East has hearts. Let's try something else"? Is that "serious error, unrelated to the infraction"? Maybe. I know that if East actually did have spades, and ran off 8 more tricks after I switched, I'd compliment him on finding that play - and probably tell the story in the bar after. If it is ruled SE, then the whole of the damage (if I'm assigning N/S +200 as above) is a result of that action (as they were going to get +400 on a spade lead), so N/S -800.

I think this is by far not a "Simple Ruling", as there are so many components. But as far as North-South's appeal goes:
1. West's explanation was correct. I don't like people "playing conventions" when they have no agreement, hoping partner will get it (because it leads to situations like this, where if partner Alerts, I know we're on the same page, and if partner doesn't, I know that too and can try to salvage it; as well as "well, we have no agreement, but I'm going to guess the conventional one" leading to the partnership treating calls as Alertable and not Alerting them. Of course, sometimes one goes the first way and the other goes the second way - those ones deserve what they get!), but when given a correct explanation, Declarer doesn't have to correct to "what they thought they were playing". If N/S is in the area where they know that the two common defences are "standard" and "natural", they've been given full explanation. If not, that's another issue.

2. Irrelevant - no misexplanation. You're allowed to guess wrong.

So, I guess I'm going to consult. But if I'm consulting with me, it's going to be a perfect compromise - nobody's going to like my ruling.

[c_corgi]

Just checking: is a "standard" 2S alertable in this jurisdiction?

[Codo]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-04, 09:58, said:

That 3♠ was not a cue in the opponents' suit, but natural with 3+ spades.

So: You are opposite an non regular partner, playing against a seldom used convention and hope that partner will understand you. In this situation, partner invients a cuebid without any clear agreement about what this cuebid could say about the hand? Maybe choice of game, maybe strong with hearts, maybe a splinter, maybe a stopper? My honest compassion to all players who face these partners.

Trinidad, on 2012-December-04, 09:58, said:

Very serious doubts. I have just shown a takeout double of spades. From that point on we have identified spades as the opponents' suit. Partner bids spades. This doesn't mean that he misunderstood. It means whatever it means when playing the "Standard defense", presumably something like "pick a game". I think it is blatant use of UI to then pick a game in NT with a void in the opponents' suit.

Rik

No we made no take out double of spades. We hope we made one. This is a huge difference.
I would always pick 3 NT over 3 ♠ behind screens and it is not close.

And lets for a moment belive that the ruling of all the great TDs here is right and East used UI. How can E/W handle this issue in later tournements? Shall they ban the multi and other stuff of the devil? Must they play "natural" if the situation was not explicit agreed? This had been funny too: Now West is forbidden to belive that Easts 2 ♠ was artifical, despite the fact that this is the "standard defence"?
Must they alert all bids where they are not certain and say: No agreement?
In this case, I need to alert about 20 % of my pick up partner bids.

[Trinidad]

Codo, on 2012-December-05, 02:59, said:

So: You are opposite an non regular partner, playing against a seldom used convention and hope that partner will understand you. In this situation, partner invients a cuebid without any clear agreement about what this cuebid could say about the hand? Maybe choice of game, maybe strong with hearts, maybe a splinter, maybe a stopper?

This is not a true representation of the facts. The facts are:
So: You are opposite an non regular partner, playing against a widely spread convention to which there is a "standard defense". You use this standard defense and hope/expect* that partner will understand you. In this situation, after LHO has raised RHO's preempt, partner invients a cuebid without any clear agreement about what this cuebid could say about the hand? makes a cuebid which -as is normal with cuebids- doesn't have a clear meaning (Maybe choice of game, maybe strong with hearts, maybe a splinter, maybe asking for a stopper?) but will be artificial and forcing to game.

And now you say, as East you would bid 3NT. Not only that: You think that there is not even an LA to 3NT. I would look at my hand, see that I have a six card heart suit that I haven't mentioned yet (other than making a takeout double of spades) and I would start bidding it.

Rik

*If you would seriously fear that partner wouldn't understand 2♠ you could have:
-reasonably safely passed first to see what the opponents will be doing
-made the overbid of 3♥
Since East didn't opt for this alternatives, we can safely assume that East expected West to understand 2♠. East might not have been 100% sure, but he would not "gamble" on a conventional defense, when he had decent natural alternatives available. The UI turned this "not 100% sure West would understand" into "100% sure West did not understand".

[Codo]

May I quote the OP: "2♦ Multi is not a usual convention in this tournament." So no, it is not "widely spread".

Quote

*If you would seriously fear that partner wouldn't understand 2♠ you could have:
-reasonably safely passed first to see what the opponents will be doing
-made the overbid of 3♥
Since East didn't opt for this alternatives, we can safely assume that East expected West to understand 2♠. East might not have been 100% sure, but he would not "gamble" on a conventional defense, when he had decent natural alternatives available. The UI turned this "not 100% sure West would understand" into "100% sure West did not understand".

If you pass first, you will have no way to show the suits at such a low level. If South bids 3 ♥ (as he did here) you can show your hearts at the 4. or even 5.level... No good alternative.
If you make an overbid of 3 Heart, you strongly overstate the strength of the hand.

So no, the failure to use these bids does not make it safe for East to assume that West will understand. And no, he had no natural alternative avaiable. 2 Heart had shown spaders in his mind, and all other bids- including pass- had shown another hand. He may have chossen the underbid of pass- but why should he?
And no the 3 ♠ bid alone makes it from "90 % sure that west will understand" to "95 % sure that West has not understood". The UI at most gave the last 5 %.

But anyway, I realize that I am the ghost driver (is the the right english expression?), so I will rest this case and thank you (and Zel et al) for your tries to convince me from your point of view.

Which is obviously still wrong. (One ghost driver??? I see hundreds of them!!)

[Trinidad]

Codo, on 2012-December-05, 05:43, said:

May I quote the OP: "2♦ Multi is not a usual convention in this tournament." So no, it is not "widely spread".

This one is yours.

Codo, on 2012-December-05, 05:43, said:

And no the 3 ♠ bid alone makes it from "90 % sure that west will understand" to "95 % sure that West has not understood". The UI at most gave the last 5 %.

But your math doesn't add up: The difference between 90% sure of something and 95 % sure of the exact opposite is closer to 85% than 5%.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Or you could say that the difference between 5% unsure of something and 10% unsure of something is 100%. I don't think this really matters; we all know what is meant. Actually I think this is the very first time I have completely disagreed with Roland on anything, so it comes as soemthing of a surprise. Out of interest Roland, what would you do as West in the scenario that I gave earlier? Say you have a big hand without heart support, a spade stop, or a strong suit and want to find out more about East's hand in order to reach the correct game (or perhaps slam). Assume for now that West has understood the 2♠ call as being the "Standard Defence".