[manudude03]

---

This is a hand from the club tonight. West is known to be a bit of a maverick, often doing things without thinking. Also they do not have a convention card (quite common playing at a regular club evening.

2C was intended as landy (majors), but when asked by North (before doubling), East explained it as natural. North intended his double as penalty (not alerted, just showing clubs), but South thinking it is takeout bids 2D. West now bids 2H and the rest of the bidding was as shown.

The explanation wasn't corrected before the lead and the contract made. After the board, director is called claiming West should never bid 2H with that hand after the 2C bid was misexplained and asks for a ruling. How do you rule?

When you ask them what their agreement is, West insists it is majors and East insists it is natural....

[vigfus]

Law 75B. Wrong Explaination. No question about that.
Law 16B. Extraneous Information from partner. No question about that.

There are two questions to be answered.
1. Was N/S damaged because of Wrong Explaination or Unauthorzed Information?
2. Did E/W use Unauthorzed Information?

The answer to both those questinons is YES.
For south having right information about 2♣ he would have passed that bid. That was South's damage.
So is pass Logical Alternative for West when it comes to him to bid on 2♣ doubled?
Yes. Partner can easily hold 1-2-4-6

I rule 2♣ doubled West (Not redoubled) 4 tricks. -800 ( Well some would rule 5 tricks, -500 )

[mycroft]

Okay, I agree with most of this, but there are two questions:

1) what is N/S agreement about 1NT-2C-X if 2C is natural? And what meanings for this are not Alertable? East - who has no UI - may have something to say, if for penalty is Alertable. I don't think so with this hand, but it's also worth checking.

2) After hearing -X00, West then says to the ruling given "Pass means 'pick your better major', obviously. Even without agreement or discussion, that's what it would have to mean. If East was interested in playing in clubs, he would have redoubled." Is that call (the "you pick" pass) Alertable in the EBU? If not, it's a hard argument to get around.

Having said that, West is absolutely wrong - given that he claims afterward that 2♣ shows majors by agreement - in not correcting the explanation. If that had been done before the opening lead, North would get his pass back (and he likely wouldn't do anything, but he might try to *sohl to 3♣ before they bid hearts. East wouldn't bid 3♥ right over 2NT (she thinks 2♣ is natural, remember?) and are they going to find 3♥ now? 3♣ could easily make, from the South hand.

I don't know how I would rule, because I don't have access to the EBU Alerting documents at the moment. But there are certainly issues.

A PP to an experienced West for not correcting the misinformation at the proper time, when clearly in a situation where not correcting could hinder the defence, wouldn't go awry in my estimation (although if I do rule -lots00 I'm likely to make it a warning, unless said West is one of those people who have explained to me in the past that they are going to listen to and use partner's explanations).

[flametree]

I don't get that, sorry.

South heard partner double a supposedly natural 2C bid, and chose not to leave that double in, believing it was takeout. The only way south would leave the double in is if he/she heard a different explanation from east, in which case the overcall would be artificial and the double would show something in the suit. In which case west would have heard a "correct" explanation, and so could have been entitled to remove the contract to 2H.

I don't see how 2C doubled, a contract that simply could never have existed, can be the fair contract. I agree NS are due some rectification, but south shouldn't be rewarded for misreading his/her partner's double, surely?

[mycroft]

flametree, on 2012-January-24, 00:12, said:

The only way south would leave the double in is if he/she heard a different explanation from east,

which he is entitled to, by law,

Quote

in which case the overcall would be artificial and the double would show something in the suit.

Exactly. South would have no problem understanding the double in that case (although, as I said above, North may not have made that call).

Quote

In which case west would have heard a "correct" explanation,

which he can not use by law (Alerts, explanations and answers to questions by partner are UI)

Quote

and so could have been entitled to remove the contract to 2H.

And any competent TD hearing that explanation from West for pulling (as opposed, say, to mine above - which still might not fly) would rule it back to 2♣X so fast you'd feel the wind in section S. With a pretty hefty PP added on if West was *at all* experienced. In receipt of UI, one must carefully avoid using the UI - pulling because "partner thinks I have clubs and I don't" is carefully *using* the UI.

Quote

I agree NS are due some rectification, but south shouldn't be rewarded for misreading his/her partner's double, surely?

Unfortunately (for our sense of fairness), by the time the auction gets to South the first time, the damage has already been done. There was a misunderstanding between N-S about the meaning of 1NT-(2♣ natural)-X, but there would be *no possibility* of misunderstanding with the correct explanation.

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2012-January-24, 00:07, said:

2) After hearing -X00, West then says to the ruling given "Pass means 'pick your better major', obviously. Even without agreement or discussion, that's what it would have to mean. If East was interested in playing in clubs, he would have redoubled."

Really? When asked to pick a major via 2♣, and East has long clubs and doesn't want to be in a major, he has to let partner play 2♣xx rather than just doubled?

No. When asked to pick a major, and I don't pick a major ---I don't want partner to pick a major.

[RMB1]

I think that NS will not misunderstand North's double if 2♣ is explained differently, so NS are entitled to adjustment for misinformation on the basis that the auction starts 1NT-2♣-X-P-P.

But I am not sure that Pass is a logical alternative for West at his second call on either auction 1NT-2♣-X-P-P/2♦-? In an environment of players with poor partnership understanding, where they don't know what 1NT-2C is, nevermind what 1NT-2C-X-P is, I don't think you will find any of West's peers who will not bid again with 5-5 in majors. I would need to find a player who would pass before adjusting to 2CX going down.

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2012-January-24, 01:46, said:

But I am not sure that Pass is a logical alternative for West at his second call on either auction 1NT-2♣-X-P-P/2♦-? In an environment of players with poor partnership understanding, where they don't know what 1NT-2C is, nevermind what 1NT-2C-X-P is, I don't think you will find any of West's peers who will not bid again with 5-5 in majors. I would need to find a player who would pass before adjusting to 2CX going down.

I would not be one of West's peers, because I would not bid again with 5-5 in majors when I have already shown 5-5 in the majors.

The fact that East hedged with 3-card club support by passing the (presumed takeout because there aren't 17 clubs in the deck) double tells me he wasn't really as sure as he claims that the bid was natural. Then after failing to raise what was probably a six-card club suit and constructive over a weak notrump ---East now raises a presumed 4-card side suit? No, East was hedging and expected West to use UI by bidding again with the majors instead of clubs.

[gnasher]

Regarding West's action over 2♦, I don't agree that 2♥ is suggested by the UI. If anything, I'd be inclined to rule that bidding 2♥ is required by law and pass is illegal.

If you pass, you are likely to defend 2♦. If you bid 2♥, you will play there if partner has four of them or if he is 3=2 in the round suits, but otherwise you will probably find yourself in 3♣ in a 2-2 or 2-3 fit. Defending 2♦ may be poor, but not as bad as playing 3♣x. He won't often have four hearts, and he will often have three or more clubs. Hence 2♥ has a worse expectation than pass.

Having said that, I don't think pass is a logical alternative anyway - it just looks obvious to act. It looks more obvious to double than to bid 2♥, but it doesn't sound like the sort of game where such doubles are takeout.

[campboy]

Provided you believe, as West did, that you do actually have an agreement that 2♣=majors which partner has forgotten, then it is likely that bidding 2♥ will wake him up and so it is suggested IMO. I also believe passing is an LA and there is damage. So, just considering the UI, I would adjust to 2♦ by South.

Of course, the UI was not the only infraction so if the MI also caused damage we should consider adjusting for that instead. I don't think it did, however; I agree with Robin that if the auction starts 1NT 2♣ (majors) dbl (showing clubs) pass (undiscussed) pass it is not logical to assume that partner has lots of clubs and opponents are misbidding.

[ahydra]

mycroft, on 2012-January-24, 00:07, said:

Okay, I agree with most of this, but there are two questions:

1) what is N/S agreement about 1NT-2C-X if 2C is natural? And what meanings for this are not Alertable? East - who has no UI - may have something to say, if for penalty is Alertable. I don't think so with this hand, but it's also worth checking.

2) After hearing -X00, West then says to the ruling given "Pass means 'pick your better major', obviously. Even without agreement or discussion, that's what it would have to mean. If East was interested in playing in clubs, he would have redoubled." Is that call (the "you pick" pass) Alertable in the EBU? If not, it's a hard argument to get around.

Having said that, West is absolutely wrong - given that he claims afterward that 2♣ shows majors by agreement - in not correcting the explanation. If that had been done before the opening lead, North would get his pass back (and he likely wouldn't do anything, but he might try to *sohl to 3♣ before they bid hearts. East wouldn't bid 3♥ right over 2NT (she thinks 2♣ is natural, remember?) and are they going to find 3♥ now? 3♣ could easily make, from the South hand.

I don't know how I would rule, because I don't have access to the EBU Alerting documents at the moment. But there are certainly issues.

If 2C is Landy it is alertable. Assuming 2C is artificial, if X shows clubs (lead-directing or penalty) then it is NOT alertable. If 2C is natural, then X is alertable if it is not for takeout (this applies to all doubles of natural suit bids below 3NT). As for that pass (asking partner to pick a major after 2C-X)... I think it would be alertable.

I take it EW don't have a CC. It'd be nice therefore to pick the worst possible outcome for EW (2CX down a few) . [I'm not sure I buy campboy's argument that, after 1NT-2C-X showing clubs, we can't assume partner has lots of clubs. Normally a double like this shows at least 5. With 3 likely defensive tricks in our hand as well, pass looks more than reasonable.]

The problem is that can N/S get a ruling based on 2C = majors? After all, 2C wasn't alerted by East and it was explained as natural. I really ought to enrol on those TD training courses - that way I'd know whether, because everything points to 2C being natural from N/S point of view, whether we can really allow 2CX. My feeling is not, particularly if N/S have agreed the double as takeout (over a natural 2C), and hence a ruling 2D by South making however many seems right.

Is it time to the law to be more flexible with split scores? 2CX for EW, and 2D for NS seems "fairest" even if not legal.

ahydra

[campboy]

ahydra, on 2012-January-24, 05:53, said:

I take it EW don't have a CC. It'd be nice therefore to pick the worst possible outcome for EW (2CX down a few) . [I'm not sure I buy campboy's argument that, after 1NT-2C-X showing clubs, we can't assume partner has lots of clubs. Normally a double like this shows at least 5. With 3 likely defensive tricks in our hand as well, pass looks more than reasonable.]

I was saying West won't interpret East's pass as showing long clubs, on the grounds that North should have five for his double, South has at least two and West has two himself. Of course South will pass the double, but West will run.

[ICEmachine]

NS didnt get it right to double 2♣ given the explanation that 2♣ = ♣. So we cannot change the result to 2♣x.

On the other hand we could say that West has UI and his 2♥ could be guided by that.

I would cancel the 2♥ bid and when I look at the East hand I dont think he has a bid over 2♦ as he didnt bid anything right away.


So I would suggest that the score should be changed to 2♦ in South and by a quick glance there seem to be 7 tricks NS in diamonds.


Ah... I just changed my mind... I think West needs to bid something over 2♦, but his partners explanation made him bid 2♥ instead of f.ex. double.
Personally I would double to show extra and even majors.

Now the ruling becomes a bit more complex as you need to think about all possible contracts. One of them being f.ex. 3♣

[bluejak]

When I bid 2♣ to show the majors and then bid 2♥ freely I have shown longer hearts than spades unambiguously.

When a player hears his partner misdescribe his hand and has a clear and obvious double to describe his hand [more distributional/strong than his original bid] then 2♥ is unauthorised panic, and is illegal.

I do not know how you adjust, but 2♥ is definitely and clearly illegal. If West was any form of real bridge player I would start with a PP for him before I worked out the adjustment [if any].

[ICEmachine]

bluejak, on 2012-January-24, 11:34, said:

When I bid 2♣ to show the majors and then bid 2♥ freely I have shown longer hearts than spades unambiguously.

When a player hears his partner misdescribe his hand and has a clear and obvious double to describe his hand [more distributional/strong than his original bid] then 2♥ is unauthorised panic, and is illegal.

I do not know how you adjust, but 2♥ is definitely and clearly illegal. If West was any form of real bridge player I would start with a PP for him before I worked out the adjustment [if any].

I agree that the 2♥ bid should be withdrawn. But now you have to come up with a sensible auction if you f.ex. want to weight the score....

I think doing it over an Icelandic beer during the weekend would be a sensible choice

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-January-24, 11:34, said:

When I bid 2♣ to show the majors and then bid 2♥ freely I have shown longer hearts than spades unambiguously.

I'm sure that's true, but I'm unsure of the relevance of this piece of information. Do you think that you are in the same class of player as West?

[bluejak]

ICEmachine, on 2012-January-24, 13:55, said:

I think doing it over an Icelandic beer during the weekend would be a sensible choice

Seems a reasonable idea: see you then, you are buying.

gnasher, on 2012-January-24, 14:38, said:

I'm sure that's true, but I'm unsure of the relevance of this piece of information. Do you think that you are in the same class of player as West?

No idea, since I do not classify myself and I do not know West's classification. But the relevance is that I was making a point and I think I did make it: 2♥ is highly dubious as a legal action.