[peterb001]

---

EBU regulations.

NS is a regular, experienced partnership. EW is an occasional partnership, with no convention card. 1NT was announced as 12 - 14, the double is 15+, primarily for penalties (sorry - I didn't manage to include this information in the diagram). When asked by South, West explained the 2H as natural, showing 5+ hearts. The accurate answer should probably have been 'No partnership agreement'. Many in the club do play this sequence (1NT x 2H) as a transfer to spades.

The table result was 3NT-2. At the end, NS claimed they had been damaged by the explanation in the bidding and the play.

The double dummy analysis says that NS can make 9 tricks in hearts, and 7 in any other denomination.

Actual table results were a very mixed bag. 1NT* = W, 2S -3 E; 3S -1 E; 2NT -3 S; 4H = S; 2NT = N; 1NT +2 N.

I made a ruling at the time, but I would like to get some feedback on what should have been done. Thanks

[ahydra]

I guess you've got to figure out how the auction might go if 2H is explained correctly. This would depend on NS system. For example, perhaps South doubles (penalties) and then this is passed around to East who runs to 2S - now it's clear what's going on to all four players. North doubles that and it looks like EW will take perhaps 5 or 6 tricks. So you might adjust to 2SX (E) down 3, NS +500.

ahydra

[lamford]

How did 3NT go off? Surely there was no body language or other gesture causing West not to lead the king (or jack) of hearts and continue the suit after South ducks (with the putative Ax of hearts). Looks like ten tricks to me.

Now if East did something to stop West leading a heart, we are in PP territory and an adjusted score. If West led a club, I would be asking him why he did this when his partner had shown five hearts.

[steve2005]

 lamford, on 2018-June-03, 06:32, said:

How did 3NT go off? Surely there was no body language or other gesture causing West not to lead the king (or jack) of hearts and continue the suit after South ducks (with the putative Ax of hearts). Looks like ten tricks to me.

Now if East did something to stop West leading a heart, we are in PP territory and an adjusted score. If West led a club, I would be asking him why he did this when his partner had shown five hearts.

wow

[peterb001]

 lamford, on 2018-June-03, 06:32, said:

How did 3NT go off? Surely there was no body language or other gesture causing West not to lead the king (or jack) of hearts and continue the suit after South ducks (with the putative Ax of hearts). Looks like ten tricks to me.

Now if East did something to stop West leading a heart, we are in PP territory and an adjusted score. If West led a club, I would be asking him why he did this when his partner had shown five hearts.

West lead D4. I’m not sure if I would lead a heart away from K against a freely bid 3NT, when partner has run from 1NTx, and can’t have much .... maybe nothing.

Nothing was mentioned to me about any action by East to prevent a heart lead, so I presume this wasn’t the case.

South said he misplaced the cards based on the explanation, though I think you have to be suspicious that the bidding doesn’t add up, with at least 7 hearts promised by EW. I suspect South finessed JS, and will then struggle after a club return.

So based on the responses so far, you all take this as a mistaken explanation, which has damaged NS, and so is worthy of an adjusted score. The next question is how to determine what the adjusted score should be. It is very likely that the auction started 1NT X at every table, so with the varied results you can see that there is no single, obvious sequence.

[weejonnie]

My 2 penworth - is that you base the adjusted score on what would South (and North) do if he had received the correct information "No partnership agreement" - this is required by EBU regulations.

In that case it seems that South won't do anything, since it appears that East very likely has spades and opponents are about to play in a transfer.

So I'll rule the final contract as 2H -4 by East. (or whatever you think it will make). (You can't really make use of what happened at the other tables since I would wager that at none of them did the auction go

1N X 2H (Alerted as undiscussed) ...)

I do understand why West did not lead a heart - partner bids 2H and then a 2NT overcall (natural) would put me off from leading from a tenace position.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2018-June-03, 12:59, said:

So I'll rule the final contract as 2H -4 by East.

That seems very reasonable. And I would lead a heart playing partner for Qxxxx. Anything else could be worse. And even if partner has xxxxxx a heart lead could be right

[pescetom]

 weejonnie, on 2018-June-03, 12:59, said:

My 2 penworth - is that you base the adjusted score on what would South (and North) do if he had received the correct information "No partnership agreement" - this is required by EBU regulations.

In that case it seems that South won't do anything, since it appears that East very likely has spades and opponents are about to play in a transfer.

Probably it's just late, but I don't understand this. If West had replied that there is no partnership agreement, why should South consider it very likely that East has Spades, instead of Hearts ? Without agreement one makes a natural bid, not a transfer bid.

[lamford]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-03, 14:37, said:

why should South consider it very likely that East has Spades, instead of Hearts ? Without agreement one makes a natural bid, not a transfer bid.

He wouldn't necessarily, but would be quite happy defending 2H if East does have them; and West thinks East does.
Shut up, brain, or I’ll stab you with a Q-tip! -Homer Simpson

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-03, 14:37, said:

Probably it's just late, but I don't understand this. If West had replied that there is no partnership agreement, why should South consider it very likely that East has Spades, instead of Hearts ? Without agreement one makes a natural bid, not a transfer bid.

I don't know what's common in the UK, but on this side of the pond the most common agreement is systems on over double and 2♣ interference. So if I heard that the opponents hadn't discussed it, that's what I'd assume (although holding 5 hearts in my own hand might tip me the other way).

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2018-June-04, 08:42, said:

I don't know what's common in the UK, but on this side of the pond the most common agreement is systems on over double and 2♣ interference. So if I heard that the opponents hadn't discussed it, that's what I'd assume (although holding 5 hearts in my own hand might tip me the other way).

Not in the UK, usually system off

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2018-June-04, 08:42, said:

I don't know what's common in the UK, but on this side of the pond the most common agreement is systems on over double and 2♣ interference. So if I heard that the opponents hadn't discussed it, that's what I'd assume (although holding 5 hearts in my own hand might tip me the other way).

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-June-04, 08:47, said:

Not in the UK, usually system off

I guess this choice is mainly linked to strength of NT and typical meaning of interference. Many in Italy agree that systems remain ON over double or 2♣ unless they show major(s), which is very common here.

But putting the technical debate aside, there is an interesting question of principle raised here. My assumption was that "No agreement" implies "Natural", as it would be illogical to play a convention without agreeing to do so beforehand. But you both seem to suggest that it is acceptable to play a convention in the mere hope (or fear) that partner will expect it without actually agreeing anything explicitly. Of course we all do this from time to time (playing with unknown partners on BBO it is inevitable) but I wouldn't have the courage to explain "no agreement" when I do play or expect a certain convention, and if I did so I would expect to be on the wrong side of the laws. Am I mistaken here?

[blackshoe]

Yes, you are.

[VixTD]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-04, 11:36, said:

My assumption was that "No agreement" implies "Natural", as it would be illogical to play a convention without agreeing to do so beforehand. But you both seem to suggest that it is acceptable to play a convention in the mere hope (or fear) that partner will expect it without actually agreeing anything explicitly.

I think if you ask about a call and receive the answer "no agreement" there's at least an implication that it could have a systemic or conventional meaning, but that your opponent is not sure, so I don't think it's the same as if they had not alerted and said "natural".

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2018-June-04, 17:30, said:

Yes, you are.

thank you
Could you please explain why, and how it reconciles with things like the WBF policy to alert bids below 4-level which are not natural ?

[pran]

 VixTD, on 2018-June-05, 06:28, said:

I think if you ask about a call and receive the answer "no agreement" there's at least an implication that it could have a systemic or conventional meaning, but that your opponent is not sure, so I don't think it's the same as if they had not alerted and said "natural".

This (apparently common) understanding of "no agreements", "undiscussed" or words to similar effect makes no sense to me.

Law 40 C 1 said:

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [...]

Consequently if a player has any reason at all (however minute) to be aware that his partner's call may have a meaning different from what his opponents have reason to expect then not properly clarifying such possibility is misinformation.

[pescetom]

 VixTD, on 2018-June-05, 06:28, said:

I think if you ask about a call and receive the answer "no agreement" there's at least an implication that it could have a systemic or conventional meaning, but that your opponent is not sure, so I don't think it's the same as if they had not alerted and said "natural".

I can see the need to reply "no agreement" when partner has made an undiscussed call that has no likely natural explanation, for example a jump cuebid of the suit that opponents have already bid and raised, or a 2♠ response to 1NT when transfers for the majors only has been agreed. But that's a long way from recognising that a call that may be a convention that has not been discussed, not alerting it, explaining it only when asked and saying just "no agreeement" without mentioning my inference that it may have a certain precise conventional meaning, and then bidding myself as if it did have that conventional meaning. If this is what people are suggesting.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2018-June-05, 07:04, said:

Consequently if a player has any reason at all (however minute) to be aware that his partner's call may have a meaning different from what his opponents have reason to expect then not properly clarifying such possibility is misinformation.

You can explain something like "If there had been no interference it would have been a transfer, but we haven't discussed whether or not this applies after interference." Now the opponents know everything you do, which is all they're entitled to.

[pran]

 pran, on 2018-June-05, 07:04, said:

Consequently if a player has any reason at all (however minute) to be aware that his partner's call may have a meaning different from what his opponents have reason to expect then not properly clarifying such possibility is misinformation.

 barmar, on 2018-June-05, 09:48, said:

You can explain something like "If there had been no interference it would have been a transfer, but we haven't discussed whether or not this applies after interference." Now the opponents know everything you do, which is all they're entitled to.

Precisely!
(But only stating "No agreement" or "undiscussed" is misinformation.)

[blackshoe]

 pescetom, on 2018-June-04, 11:36, said:

But putting the technical debate aside, there is an interesting question of principle raised here. My assumption was that "No agreement" implies "Natural", as it would be illogical to play a convention without agreeing to do so beforehand. But you both seem to suggest that it is acceptable to play a convention in the mere hope (or fear) that partner will expect it without actually agreeing anything explicitly. Of course we all do this from time to time (playing with unknown partners on BBO it is inevitable) but I wouldn't have the courage to explain "no agreement" when I do play or expect a certain convention, and if I did so I would expect to be on the wrong side of the laws. Am I mistaken here?

If you have reason to expect that your partner will understand a conventional meaning to a call you make when you have no explicit agreement about the meaning of that call, then you need to examine why you have that reason. If it's because you know that he plays it that way with others, or you know that he knows that you play it that way with others, or one or both of you have done it before, then this information needs to be disclosed, because you have an implicit agreement. But the basic reason why I said you're mistaken is your assumption that "no agreement" implies "natural". "No agreement" implies there is no agreement. It might not be logical to bid something intending a non-natural meaning when your partner doesn't know what you're doing, but people do illogical things all the time.