[lamford]

---

Table result 2NT-1 by East; MPs converted to VPS; somewhere in England in 2014, not at a North London club.

2♦ was explained, when North asked prior to his second call, as hearts. 2♣ was explained prior to East's second call as "both majors", and the TD established that this was a correct explanation of NS methods. There was a hesitation before East bid 2♥.

Director’s statement of facts:
I was called to the table after the end of the hand. North/South thought that West had bid 2NT using the unauthorised information of the alert and explanation of his 2♦ bid.
I wanted to establish logical alternatives. I polled 6 players – 3 said they would pass, 3 said they would bid 3♦. I first thought that 2♥ would go off two, but East/West gave a case that they would make seven tricks which I accepted.

Director’s ruling:
I ruled 2♥ - 1 for the same score

Details of ruling:
At the time both sides accepted the ruling, but my event Chief TD later over-ruled my ruling and adjusted to 2♥ - 2, +200 on the grounds that only 6 tricks can be made in normal play.

Appeals Committee decision:
Chief TD's revised ruling upheld.
Chief TD waved the deposit..

Appeals Committee’s comments:
We upheld the amended TD decision on the basis of the poll and 2NT was suggested by the unauthorised information. We have given the non-offending side the benefit of the doubt in the play and are happy that six tricks for East/West is a fair result.

My questions are as follows:
a) what do readers consider are LAs for West after East's 2♥, assuming 2♦ was not alerted?
b) if readers consider that 3♣ and 3♦ are the only LAs, what action would they take now on the East hand, and what other calls would they seriously consider?
c) what ruling would you make, in weighted-ruling-territory?
d) would you include any of 2♥-2 in the weighting?

[mink]

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 15:08, said:

My questions are as follows:
a) what do readers consider are LAs for West after East's 2♥, assuming 2♦ was not alerted?

3♦ and 3♣. Pass is not an LA, because nobody wants to play in a 4-2-fit when opp likely has 5 cards in that suit. In the poll, the question was either not asked the right way, or the players who wanted to pass did not pay much attention to the problem.

The UI suggests bidding 3♦, so the correct bid is 3♣.

Quote

b) if readers consider that 3♣ and 3♦ are the only LAs, what action would they take now on the East hand, and what other calls would they seriously consider?

East thinks that West has ♥ and ♣, so 3nt is not an option, as there seems to be no ♦ stopper. East could bid 3♥ or 4♥. If the 3♣ is only inviting to game, 3♥ seems right. If it is inviting to slam, I bid 4♥.

Quote

c) what ruling would you make, in weighted-ruling-territory?

W 5♣x-5. West must think that East's second ♥ bid agrees on ♣, and as there seems to be no ♠ stopper the final destination must be 5 ♣.

Quote

d) would you include any of 2♥-2 in the weighting?

Never.

Karl

[nige1]

Agree with Karl. Give EW the benefit of the doubt and assume that (without UI) the mix-up could become apparent below the 7-level. 5♣X-5 is the kind of result you'd expect before the advent of alerting.

(The director might consider imposing a penalty on West's use of UI if Pass is an LA, e.g. East could open 1N with
♠ A K x x ♥ J T x x x ♦ x ♣ A x x )

If directors started to enforce the rules more fairly, Ghestem "misunderstandings" and the like would become less common

[akwoo]

I think we really need to know what EW's actual methods are here. In particular, we need to know what West would have thought East's 2H bid would mean without the alert.

If they have no agreement, I will go based on what their agreement is on super-accepts.

Case 1If their side suit super-accepts show weakness, I think West's only LA is 3D. (Surely no game is possible opposite any 12-14 hand with xx in hearts.)

The only possible UI East has is that West did not ask about the alert, but that does NOT suggest passing 3D. So East CAN pass 3D, and I would rule that he does so IF this pair has some history of playing 'forget transfers'. This comes out to 3DX-2, I think. Of course, 'forget transfers' creates an MI case here, but that's why I'm ruling 3DX, not 3D.

If East isn't likely to pass 3DX, I'd rule East bids 3H. If super-accepts show weakness, then 3H has no possible meaning, so West has AI that the bidding has gone off the rails. I give 3H-3.

Case 2If their side suit super-accepts show strength in the suit, I think West also has LAs of 3C, 4D, and (if they play splinters in any situation) 3S. I think all roads lead to 5HX-5 (unless they lead to 6HX-6 or 6CX-6, but surely -1400 is already a 0) in this case. If they have a history of 'forget transfers', I would disallow 3D as suggested and rule 5HX-5. If they don't, I'd rule 20% 3DX-3, 80% 5HX-5. (If East bids 3H over 3DX, West is likely to bid on, since if 2H shows strength and diamond support, 3H CAN have meaning.)

Case 3If they don't play side suit super-accepts at all, then 2H is an offer to play, in which case I agree with 2H-2.

[Cyberyeti]

If 2♥ shows something exceptionally fitty like AKx, AQ10x, J10xx, xx and is an invite in diamonds/NT, 3♦ no LA from W.

Another alternative is that it shows 5♥ possibly after a mis-sort with <2♦, in which case 2N would be both minors with significantly better/longer diamonds (to distinguish between that and 3♣) and is the normal bid provided S showed 5♥, if he only showed 4 then pass is very much in the frame.

I also consider doing N for a fielded misbid, where is his 2♥ bid or double

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-April-18, 01:57, said:

Another alternative is that it shows 5♥ possibly after a mis-sort with <2♦, in which case 2N would be both minors with significantly better/longer diamonds (to distinguish between that and 3♣) and is the normal bid provided S showed 5♥, if he only showed 4 then pass is very much in the frame.

I also consider doing N for a fielded misbid, where is his 2♥ bid or double

I can't agree with either of these observations. While East could have five hearts, nobody would bid them if South had shown the majors and West had bid a non-forcing 2♦. From West's point of view, 2♥ shows something in hearts, and is a diamond raise. 3NT is certainly possible opposite something like A9xx Kxx Kxxx Ax.

And North was told that 2♦ showed hearts, before he passed. So the question of a fielded misbid does not arise, as 2♥ would presumably be takeout of hearts, not natural. Pass is automatic on his hand.

[mink]

akwoo, on 2016-April-17, 22:02, said:

... I will go based on what their agreement is on super-accepts. ...

For East, the 2♥ bid is not a superaccept, but simply executes the transfer.

West, thinking he bid natural ♦, will never think about superaccepts as there was no transfer from his point of view (disregarding the UI). So I fail to understand what your writing about superaccept is all about.

Karl

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-April-18, 03:58, said:

I can't agree with either of these observations. While East could have five hearts, nobody would bid them if South had shown the majors and West had bid a non-forcing 2♦. From West's point of view, 2♥ shows something in hearts, and is a diamond raise. 3NT is certainly possible opposite something like A9xx Kxx Kxxx Ax.

And North was told that 2♦ showed hearts, before he passed. So the question of a fielded misbid does not arise, as 2♥ would presumably be takeout of hearts, not natural. Pass is automatic on his hand.

I disagree with both your statements, but you haven't said whether S had shown 4 or 5 hearts (or spades) which potentially changes everything in the first case.

To take the second first, if S and W have both shown 5 hearts, the opener has shown 2 and you have 4, somebody has psyched/misbid and you can't assume it's partner. Either what is actually going on has happened, or transferring to an opp's known suit as T/O of that suit is what's happening and do you really want to have to bid 3♥ when the auction comes back at 3♣.

Why would bidding a suit partner has shown be takeout of that suit, when he's known to hold 5 and also known to hold spades, what sort of takeout maneuver are you making.

If S has 5 spades, 3N is no guarantee on a spade lead if S has A♥ and only one spade honour, and also a) I'd upgrade the hand you gave b) N would have bid 2S if he knew partner had 5.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-April-18, 04:56, said:

I disagree with both your statements, but you haven't said whether S had shown 4 or 5 hearts (or spades) which potentially changes everything in the first case.

To take the second first, if S and W have both shown 5 hearts, the opener has shown 2 and you have 4, somebody has psyched/misbid and you can't assume it's partner. Either what is actually going on has happened, or transferring to an opp's known suit as T/O of that suit is what's happening and do you really want to have to bid 3♥ when the auction comes back at 3♣.

Why would bidding a suit partner has shown be takeout of that suit, when he's known to hold 5 and also known to hold spades, what sort of takeout maneuver are you making.

If S has 5 spades, 3N is no guarantee on a spade lead if S has A♥ and only one spade honour, and also a) I'd upgrade the hand you gave b) N would have bid 2S if he knew partner had 5.

I presume 2C was 5-4 either way, and, yes North knows that someone has misbid, and must assume it is West. But the explanation was that 2D showed hearts, not was a transfer to one of your suits, so you do not want to "get in the way" at this point. If the correct explanation for 2♦ was "transfer to hearts, presumably takeout of hearts", then you will have been misinformed, and it is bonkers to bid 2H as North and stop them spiralling towards 5Cx. If anything 2H by North is a game try in spades, with 2S just competitive. As a bid of the suit West is "known" to have five of, it should not be natural.

There is no guarantee of making 3NT whatever partner's hand, so whether you cooperate or not is a mooot point. But you cannot pass 2H, and bidding 3D will also cause East to jump to game in hearts, as he must assume South has misbid.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-April-18, 05:08, said:

There is no guarantee of making 3NT whatever partner's hand, so whether you cooperate or not is a mooot point. But you cannot pass 2H, and bidding 3D will also cause East to jump to game in hearts, as he must assume South has misbid.

Why assume S has misbid, if he's only shown 4, hearts can still be 4450 round the table.

There are some (often older) EW pairs that would never consider making this sort of 2♥ bid as a diamond raise, which is why I offered the alternative. If you don't play this sort of raise, 2♥ is an acknowledgement that the weak no trump you thought you held actually had 2 3 card heart suits. I've had this issue in more spectacular fashion with ♣xxxx, ♥ Axx, ♦xx, ♣AKQx or similar, 1N-P-2♥(♠)-P- to you.

Also without any UI and with 4 hearts, E has not bid 3/4♥ over 2N, so E has worked out that 2♦ was natural, so to say he'd bid 4♥ over 3♦ seems odd.

Basically E knows his original explanation of 2♦ was wrong when he asks about 2♣. I'm not sure what he should do at that point, but I'd ask the director whether either he and I can leave the table to talk, or partner could be sent away so that I could explain what had happened and that 2♦ was natural.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-April-18, 05:53, said:

Why assume S has misbid, if he's only shown 4, hearts can still be 4450 round the table.

That would mean opener bid 1NT with a heart void.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-April-18, 08:26, said:

That would mean opener bid 1NT with a heart void.

I think Cyberyeti means 4504 with North having a void. This is what East will think, and when he only bids 3H, with a great hand for hearts, and his partner presses on with a game try, he has now guessed that his partner has misbid. The fielded misbid finger should be pointed firmly at East, and the use of UI firmly at West, whose 2NT without a spade stop is unauthorised panic. The auction should go either 3C or 3D from West instead of 2NT. If that is not accompanied by any grimace or indication that something is amiss, then East will treat it as either a game try in hearts or game forcing. East is surely going to jump to 4H in either case. West might well pull this to 5D, which will be doubled by North, so some large penalty beckons. If East thinks that South has misbid, he is more likely to reach game in hearts. If he thinks his partner has misbid, then he is fielding.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-April-18, 09:06, said:

I think Cyberyeti means 4504 with North having a void.

yes

Quote

This is what East will think, and when he only bids 3H, with a great hand for hearts, and his partner presses on with a game try, he has now guessed that his partner has misbid. The fielded misbid finger should be pointed firmly at East, and the use of UI firmly at West, whose 2NT without a spade stop is unauthorised panic. The auction should go either 3C or 3D from West instead of 2NT. If that is not accompanied by any grimace or indication that something is amiss, then East will treat it as either a game try in hearts or game forcing. East is surely going to jump to 4H in either case. West might well pull this to 5D, which will be doubled by North, so some large penalty beckons. If East thinks that South has misbid, he is more likely to reach game in hearts. If he thinks his partner has misbid, then he is fielding.

WHAAAAAAAAAT ?

E never bids 3♥ in a million years. He didn't over 2N, he won't over 3♦. What's happened is clear, he knows when he asks what 2♣ was that his partner in all probability doesn't have hearts now and he's misalerted, and that their agreement changes when S has shown the transfer suit. I think he can actually call the TD, cancel the alert on 2♦ and give N his bid back, but may not have known what to do. He may have thought that having announced this as a transfer he had to complete it.

Really depends on whether EW have a clue what they're doing (which in Norfolk club bridge, it would be odds on they don't).

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-April-18, 09:20, said:

E never bids 3♥ in a million years. He didn't over 2N, he won't over 3♦.

So, what happened between East bidding 2♥ on the second round and passing 2NT on the third? He knew that South had both majors by the former. He might indeed have had second thoughts and realised that his original explanation was wrong, but then he should have called the TD at that point:

20B4. If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

Presumably East-West had some "broad-sweep" agreement of "system on" after double and 2m or after double and 2♣ or some such. As you say, they are pretty clueless, but that does not exonerate them from UI considerations. West might have tried 2NT hoping East would pass that. I wasn't there, but I'd bet his manner told his partner that he didn't have hearts.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 15:08, said:

a) what do readers consider are LAs for West after East's 2♥, assuming 2♦ was not alerted?

Since I play superaccepts, 2♥ is a cue, (semi)GF and should show the ace in the light of the 2♣ by S. My bid would probably be 2♠, also a cue. What happens after that, is hard to predict. E might bid 3♠, 3♥, 4♥ or maybe even pass. Only a poll can make clear what are the probable alternatives and, based on that, you can weigh the scores.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-April-18, 09:20, said:

E never bids 3♥ in a million years. He didn't over 2N, he won't over 3♦. What's happened is clear, he knows when he asks what 2♣ was that his partner in all probability doesn't have hearts now and he's misalerted, and that their agreement changes when S has shown the transfer suit. I think he can actually call the TD, cancel the alert on 2♦ and give N his bid back, but may not have known what to do. He may have thought that having announced this as a transfer he had to complete it.

You do have to assume that partner knew what their bidding meant.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-18, 17:59, said:

You do have to assume that partner knew what their bidding meany.

Yup, I've been in exactly this position before, and now know you call the TD immediately although it was much more complicated in that it was a match played privately when it happened to me. My strong suspicion is panic of an inexperienced or bad player once he realises he's screwed up the explanation.

When it happened to me, opps with a card that basically said benji acol opened 2♣ alerted. Partner overcalled 2♠ which I alerted and explained our panama, the bidding proceeded and it later became apparent that the 2♣ bid in their version of benji contained a weak 2 in diamonds so 2♠ was natural as partner had checked the inside of the card while I'd only checked the headline.

[campboy]

mink, on 2016-April-18, 04:11, said:

West, thinking he bid natural ♦, will never think about superaccepts as there was no transfer from his point of view (disregarding the UI). So I fail to understand what your writing about superaccept is all about.

It's difficult to see what the meaning of 2♥ can be (from West's point of view) except "even though you want to sign off in diamonds, I want to try for game". The only question is: what sort of game-try is it? Should West expect strength or weakness in hearts? It's unlikely that they have any specific agreements about this case to tell us the answer. However, it's basically analogous to a super-accept of a transfer (meaning "even if you wanted to sign off, I want to try for game"), and so their agreements about that situation are the best guide we have to what sort of hand East should have in this situation.

I don't think I'd consider anything other than 3♦ no matter what sort of game-try I interpreted it as, though.

[akwoo]

campboy, on 2016-April-19, 02:51, said:

It's difficult to see what the meaning of 2♥ can be (from West's point of view) except "even though you want to sign off in diamonds, I want to try for game". The only question is: what sort of game-try is it? Should West expect strength or weakness in hearts? It's unlikely that they have any specific agreements about this case to tell us the answer. However, it's basically analogous to a super-accept of a transfer (meaning "even if you wanted to sign off, I want to try for game"), and so their agreements about that situation are the best guide we have to what sort of hand East should have in this situation.

I'm confirming this is indeed what I meant in my previous post.