[antonylee]

---

ACBL, IMP pairs.

2C was alerted as majors, consistent with N/S's convention card. No agreement about X ("We normally play systems on but I don't know if it would apply there."). Declarer called the director after the defense started club to ace, low club ruffed, diamond ruffed.

How would you rule?

[ahydra]

Well I'm not sure what to make of 3H, or why East thinks his hand is worth an upgrade, but that's not the point.

It's South who has the UI (unexpected alert). He surely should bid 3S over 2S. Not sure what West would do next - maybe 4D, maybe pass, maybe X - and as much as I'd like to award a split score, this being ACBL that's not permitted and I believe we have to go with "worst possible", i.e. 5D (W) making for both sides.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

N should be bidding a lot more than 2♠ over the X but the issues are that 4♠ makes with an overtrick with clubs 3-3, and that he has no UI at this point unless his partner looked uncomfortable when he explained 2♣. When he walks the dog with 2♠ and hears 3♣-3♥ I think this more than likely exposes what's going on, made certain when he hears 4♥ so the club lead is auto.

Therefore the problem is with S. Did he think 2♣ was natural or clubs and a major or clubs and spades ?

After his misbid is revealed to him, he should certainly be raising spades if he thought 2♣ was natural as his partner without the explanation is showing him no club fit and a real spade suit rather than preference. At this vul, I'd be bidding 4♠ like a shot with the S hand in that case, it's not clear what I'd do if I thought it was either of the others, but 3♣ would be in the frame.

[helene_t]

I thought that ACBL is ok with split scores, just not with weighted scores?

Anyway, I don't see how South's failure to raise spades can be linked to West's choice to bid hearts rather than diamonds. The table result was presumably +200 for NS and it is hard to see how South raising spades could have lead to a worse result for NS. I don't believe that EW would let 3♠ play undoubled but even if they did, 3♠+2 is, conveniently, +200 as well.

But obviously a PP to South.

[TylerE]

So, south screwed up. It happens. I don't think it deserves a PP most of the time, unless it's really a habit (e.g. more than once per session).

What call could S make over 2♠, for those of you arguing for punitive actions against N/S, could S have taken? Pass, 3♠, and 4♠ all seem MORE likely to me to result in a good result than 3♣.

[aguahombre]

ahydra, on 2015-February-16, 05:41, said:

Well I'm not sure what to make of 3H, or why East thinks his hand is worth an upgrade, but that's not the point.
ahydra

Maybe it IS the point.

1) E/W bid as if 2C did not show the majors.
2) E/W were not given MI, according to the agreement on N/S's CC.
3) The only MI seems to be East's opening NT range.
4) If anything, the misbid might have launched E/W toward the favorable 5D contract and away from a heart contract.

As for N/S --
1) Whatever EI caused North to bid only 2S, as if his correct explanation of their agreements was wrong here, might be worthy of investigation. But it didn't result in a better score for N/S than if he had just done the right thing (4S).***
2) South seems to have taken advantage of UI with his 3C rebid. I wouldn't buy a hypothetical excuse that (expecting further competition) he bid 3C as a lead director planning to raise spades later.
3) But, whatever less-than-ethical action South took, it was inferior to a totally ethical and justified leap to 4S.

IOW, nothing here to warrant a score adjustment.... maybe something in all this for punitive action.

Edit:
*** BTW, all you dog-walkers.. This scenario is one of the many reasons the worn-out ploy is a bad thing.

[antonylee]

I was North, and was convinced before alerting that my partner had likely forgotten, because of my shape and because he frequently forgets what's on the CC. This is why I bid only 2S. Because my own hand and partner's propensities are AI to me, I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that there is no problem there. (As a side problem, let's say I had a more extreme shape, say xxxxx xxxxx - Axx and decided to gamble a pass of 2C. Should I mention "but partner often forgets" when alerting? While this is certainly something extra I know, having to alert this seems to create a huge can of worms.)

The directors ruled 3N+1 EW because "West would cue 3S if 2S comes back to him to check for a stopper, East would bid 3N and (...) South would not find the spade lead". I didn't care much about the event so didn't appeal, but believe this is way too harsh (200 N/S and perhaps a PP seems more reasonable).

[TylerE]

antonylee, on 2015-February-16, 11:06, said:

I was North, and was convinced before alerting that my partner had likely forgotten, because of my shape and because he frequently forgets what's on the CC. This is why I bid only 2S. Because my own hand and partner's propensities are AI to me, I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that there is no problem there.

You're (probably) wrong there, depending on jurisdiction. If it happens frequently enough that you are considering the possiblity, it should probably be alerted to the opponents. In many cases (but, at least in ACBLand) NOT in this specific case, this may be an illegal agreement.

E.g. since only 1NT-(2♣) is allowed to not contain a known suit, an effective agreement of a 2♦ overcall, say, showing "majors, but he's quite possibly forgotten and has ♦", would NOT be a legal agreement.

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2015-February-16, 05:41, said:

It's South who has the UI (unexpected alert). He surely should bid 3S over 2S. Not sure what West would do next - maybe 4D, maybe pass, maybe X - and as much as I'd like to award a split score, this being ACBL that's not permitted and I believe we have to go with "worst possible", i.e. 5D (W) making for both sides.

helene_t, on 2015-February-16, 05:55, said:

I thought that ACBL is ok with split scores, just not with weighted scores?

The relevant laws are 12C1{e} and 12C1{f}:

Quote

Law 12C1: (e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of {c}*:
(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.
(f) The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.

* For ACBL sanctioned events, 12C1{c} does not apply and 12C1(e) does apply (see Elections 1, p. 136).

So Helene is right, split scores are allowed. But was there damage?

On the question of a PP for South, Law 16 says that a player in receipt of UI "may not" choose an LA suggested over another by the UI. "May not" is the second strongest negative wording in the laws, so should incur a PP "more often than not". Yeah, "nobody does that". So? If "nobody" is the only one who does that, he's the only one who's right.

antonylee, on 2015-February-16, 11:06, said:

I was North, and was convinced before alerting that my partner had likely forgotten, because of my shape and because he frequently forgets what's on the CC. This is why I bid only 2S. Because my own hand and partner's propensities are AI to me, I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that there is no problem there.

When you know something about partner's tendencies which is germane to the auction and which opponents cannot be expected to know, failure to include that information in your explanation of partner's bidding, whether alerted or not, is MI. So Tyler's "should probably be alerted" is an underbid. It should definitely be alerted, and explained.

[antonylee]

Good to know, thanks.

[Vampyr]

antonylee, on 2015-February-16, 11:06, said:

because he frequently forgets what's on the CC. This is why I bid only 2S.

Why hasn't the CC been changed yet?

2♠ seems to me like fielding a misbid. I might give both North And South a PP (assuming there is no automatic penalty for fielding a misbid).

TylerE, on 2015-February-16, 11:11, said:

You're (probably) wrong there, depending on jurisdiction. If it happens frequently enough that you are considering the possiblity, it should probably be alerted to the opponents. In many cases (but, at least in ACBLand) NOT in this specific case, this may be an illegal agreement.

E.g. since only 1NT-(2♣) is allowed to not contain a known suit, an effective agreement of a 2♦ overcall, say, showing "majors, but he's quite possibly forgotten and has ♦", would NOT be a legal agreement.

So 2♣ = clubs or majors is legal in the ACBL? I am surprised.

[ahydra]

Sorry, I got my weighted and split scores mixed up. I wanted to award a weighted score based on various actions by West.

ahydra

[whereagles]

In principle result stands. But I would certainly ask North why he only bid 2♠. He has an obvious 4-bid.

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2015-February-17, 07:55, said:

In principle result stands. But I would certainly ask North why he only bid 2♠. He has an obvious 4-bid.

See post # 7. The question was answered.

But, the answer brought up more problems, IMO.

North' explanation in this case should have been, "We have Majors marked on our convention cards, but when partner bids 2C we really have no agreement because he forgets so often."

Now, a rational E/W would not use Double of 2C as Stayman when 2C is Landy; but how do you compete against a fully disclosed propensity for Convention Disruption?? This is merely a theoretical question for other instances...by the time it got back around to West this time, everyone should have known what had happened.

West was probably showing Hearts but not spades stopped with the 3H bid, but East probably guessed West had 5 hearts.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-17, 00:48, said:

So 2♣ = clubs or majors is legal in the ACBL? I am surprised.

Quote

ACBL General Convention Chart, Item 10 under "Responses and Rebids": 10. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct overcall, EXCEPT for natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges). See #7 under DISALLOWED.

My read says this allows "clubs or majors". I don't know what a TD would say at the table, though. Well, I know what I would say, but I've read the regulation.

#7 under "disallowed" has to do with the exception, and does not apply here (we're told that 1NT is "15-17").

Oops. Mis-remembered the auction. 2♣ being an overcall, the appropriate part of the GCC is

Quote

Item 7 under "Competitive": DEFENSE TO:
a) conventional calls (except see #10 RESPONSES and REBIDS above and #7 under DISALLOWED below),
b) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls, other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.
c) opening bids of two clubs or higher.

So wrong part of the chart originally, but the right conclusion: 2♣ over 1NT can have any meaning.

[Bbradley62]

ahydra, on 2015-February-16, 05:41, said:

... I believe we have to go with "worst possible", i.e. 5D (W) making for both sides.

I'm sometimes not good at these analyses, but... after ♣A and ruff, can't NS sit back and wait for their heart trick?

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-17, 10:22, said:

ACBL General Convention Chart, Item 10 under"Responses and Rebids" said:

10. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct overcall, EXCEPT for natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges). See #7 under DISALLOWED.

My read says this allows "clubs or majors". I don't know what a TD would say at the table, though. Well, I know what I would say, but I've read the regulation.

#7 under "disallowed" has to do with the exception, and does not apply here (we're told that 1NT is "15-17").

It appears to me that this Item is addressing bids by the side of the NT bidder, not bids by the other side.

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-17, 10:25, said:

I'm sometimes not good at these analyses, but... after ♣A and ruff, can't NS sit back and wait for their heart trick?

Maybe "worst possible" means a rookie cover of the first Heart. But, since I am not adjusting the score, I don't have to worry about it.

[karlson]

Seems like any ethical route gets NS a plus score (either in 4♠ or 5♦). So I don't really see how EW can claim damage and don't really understand the adjustment to 3n with no spade lead.

On the other hand, north gets a penalty for blatant misinformation. The fact that partner often forgets means that the de facto agreement is "clubs and another or majors". Thankfully for you, that's actually a legal agreement! (2♣ can be anything)

South also gets hit with a penalty for blatant use of UI. (If 2♠ is natural opposite clubs and another, bidding game in spades is clear. If 2♠ is pass/correct, pass is clear).

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2015-February-17, 10:03, said:

North' explanation in this case should have been, "We have Majors marked on our convention cards, but when partner bids 2C we really have no agreement because he forgets so often."

Not sure I agree with this. Partner's consistent deviation from the explicit agreement ("majors") creates an implicit agreement ("majors or clubs"). It seems this is legal, but as pointed out upthread, the legality should be checked in such cases. IAC, I think "no agreement" is wrong here.

It occurs to me that this implicit agreement may be illegal for another reason: if the player who does not forget their implicit agreement always has the majors when he bids 2♣, then the pair are playing different meanings for the same bid, depending which one of them bids it. Pretty sure that's illegal, though I can't right now point from memory to a law or regulation that says so. Might be in the General CoC.