[Cyberyeti]

---

2N was not alerted and is on the card as natural 10-12/11-12 bal

N said he thought he was making a forcing bid.

**edit he actually bid 6♦ over 5♦ **

EW contended that N has UI that his partner had bid 5♦ over an inv balanced 2N so is now showing more than he would show over a forcing 2N which would be a 10 count with 7 diamonds.

It gets worse:

Declarer had:

---

The opening lead was a spade to E's ace and declarer's K (should play the Q in case E tries to cash another) and now E is trying to find W's ace. E can see the missing trump so a heart return pretty much can't cost given the auction, but E returned a club and the heart went away on ♠J.

Any suggestion how you sort this out ?

[blackshoe]

EW's contention doesn't make sense to me. Is a 16-18 balanced 2NT raise alertable in England? If that's what North thought he was showing, and it's not alertable, he has no UI, and no reason to bid on over 5♦.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-07, 17:19, said:

EW's contention doesn't make sense to me. Is a 16-18 balanced 2NT raise alertable in England? If that's what North thought he was showing, and it's not alertable, he has no UI, and no reason to bid on over 5♦.

Alertable in the UK whether it's a raise, baron or whatever I believe, anything other than natural and invitational.

[blackshoe]

Well, North knows South didn't alert. What inference can he make from that? How does the inference affect his choices over 5♦?

[mink]

Edit: The following was written when the contract was 5♦ according to the OP.

By the missing alert North has 2 UIs:

• South is stronger than I would expect him if he alerted.
  
• South thinks that I am weaker than I am.

Both UIs suggest that I should bid more. However, there are too many Aces and Kings missing, and in general a jump to 5 of a minor should deny interest in slam. As usual I would make a poll to learn what players would call when not knowing this hand and hear an auction that includes an alert of 2NT.

The defenders were not misinformed if the card reflects the true agreements of N/S, so their error is not compensated if the poll results in the score not being adjusted. I also cannot see any clue why they would play differently if the contract was 6♦. So even if the poll suggested that the score should be adjusted to 6♦, this adjustment would not take place because it would be unfavourable for the non-offending side.

[Cyberyeti]

mink, on 2018-January-07, 18:20, said:

By the missing alert North has 2 UIs:

• South is stronger than I would expect him if he alerted.
  
• South thinks that I am weaker than I am.

Both UIs suggest that I should bid more. However, there are too many Aces and Kings missing, and in general a jump to 5 of a minor should deny interest in slam. As usual I would make a poll to learn what players would call when not knowing this hand and hear an auction that includes an alert of 2NT.

The defenders were not misinformed if the card reflects the true agreements of N/S, so their error is not compensated if the poll results in the score not being adjusted. I also cannot see any clue why they would play differently if the contract was 6♦. So even if the poll suggested that the score should be adjusted to 6♦, this adjustment would not take place because it would be unfavourable for the non-offending side.

Defenders are not claiming MI, merely UI, they were looking for an adjustment to 5♦+1 from 6♦=.

I included the play because the defence included what I would consider a serious error, but I suspect the law does not.

[steve2005]

Neither possible meaning of 2NT is alertable unless it shows ♦ support(at least it isn't here). So, unless somebody asked what 2NT means before North bid 6♦ there is no UI.
North is merely hoping South has the right hand for 6♦.

[FelicityR]

This bidding (using 2NT as an inverted raise/force over a minor) suggests that the partnership are regular and experienced. Were they? If so, they should be penalised as the information on their convention card is false. 2NT was not alerted. If an experienced partnership cannot complete their convention card correctly, tournament directors should have the power to use that primarily as evidence that UI has occurred as a first port of call in any decision. What happens at the table is secondary. I am of the opinion that the score should be adjusted to 5♦=, not even 5♦+1. Best defence should be automatically considered when making a decision too.

[sfi]

If I have AKQ in a suit where partner has just jumped to the 5-level, it's going to take a lot to convince me not to try 6. The UI that I have a king more than partner might expect isn't enough to do so - pass just doesn't look like a logical alternative.

Given the information provided, I would not adjust.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-07, 18:38, said:

Defenders are not claiming MI, merely UI, they were looking for an adjustment to 5♦+1 from 6♦=.

I included the play because the defence included what I would consider a serious error, but I suspect the law does not.

A "serious error" is absurd; something even a novice would not do.

steve2005, on 2018-January-07, 20:20, said:

Neither possible meaning of 2NT is alertable unless it shows ♦ support(at least it isn't here). So, unless somebody asked what 2NT means before North bid 6♦ there is no UI.
North is merely hoping South has the right hand for 6♦.

Probably confusing the matter with the regulations from another jurisdiction is unhelpful.

The abuse of UI in the OP borders on the "c" word, IMO.

[FelicityR]

sfi, on 2018-January-07, 22:36, said:

If I have AKQ in a suit where partner has just jumped to the 5-level, it's going to take a lot to convince me not to try 6.

I agree with that, however, if partner has a 7 card suit and knows that his partner has inverted support for his suit - which suggests 5 cards as minimum - there is a good enough reason not to raise to 6♦. He already knows that your suit is headed by AK, AQ or KQ. That's why partner has bid 5♦ because he can see only a loser if the suit is headed by KQ

[Cyberyeti]

FelicityR, on 2018-January-08, 04:43, said:

I agree with that, however, if partner has a 7 card suit and knows that his partner has inverted support for his suit - which suggests 5 cards as minimum - there is a good enough reason not to raise to 6♦. He already knows that your suit is headed by AK, AQ or KQ. That's why partner has bid 5♦ because he can see only a loser if the suit is headed by KQ

Read the descriptions of the bids:

a) the diamond is 4+ cards so an invert wouldn't show 5
b) 2N was not necessarily a raise (baron 2N is used over here) the bidder was sure it was forcing but not sure what it was
c) 5♦ was bid assuming it was opposite a balanced c.11 count as 2N wasn't alerted and that is the ONLY unalertable meaning here

[lamford]

We assume that partner has explained 2NT as natural and invitational, and then establish the LAs by polling.

For slam to be good we need partner to have two side aces and a side king, but he chose 5D instead of 3NT. He will have a singleton or void for sure. Give him something like AKx none Jxxxxxx KJx and he is too good for 5D opposite 11-12 balanced (4H looks about right) and yet slam is very poor indeed. If partner had alerted and said "undiscussed but forcing, perhaps Baron", then I would not regard 6D as an LA either. Any hand that makes it good would have cued on the way to 5D, or splintered. So, partner has not selected an LA that is demonstrably suggested by the UI, and I would not adjust.

Cyberyeti usually thinks that failing to find a Merrimac Coup with the opening lead is SEWoG, but most have more liberal standards for self-inflicted error and serious error is nowhere near the case here.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-January-08, 05:53, said:

Cyberyeti usually thinks that failing to find a Merrimac Coup with the opening lead is SEWoG, but most have more liberal standards for self-inflicted error and serious error is nowhere near the case here.

This case is nothing like that, it was my failure to find the correct switch, and when I thought about it afterwards, I realised I'd made what for me was a serious mistake, what I did could never gain and could only lose. If declarer has 7 diamonds, K or KQ in spades (KQ10 was not possible, I had A109x) and no other 4 card suit, there is no possible holding for him where playing a heart is wrong and a club is necessary.

I think what the law considers a serious error is too restrictive.

There was also the issue that in the event being played, there were 7 sensible bridge players that could reasonably serve on an appeals committee or even be sensibly polled as a peer, 6 of them were in the two teams involved, so an appeals process would have been very random. It never happened because the result of the appeal wouldn't have mattered to the overall result.

[weejonnie]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-08, 08:04, said:

This case is nothing like that, it was my failure to find the correct switch, and when I thought about it afterwards, I realised I'd made what for me was a serious mistake, what I did could never gain and could only lose. If declarer has 7 diamonds, K or KQ in spades (KQ10 was not possible, I had A109x) and no other 4 card suit, there is no possible holding for him where playing a heart is wrong and a club is necessary.

I think what the law considers a serious error is too restrictive.

There was also the issue that in the event being played, there were 7 sensible bridge players that could reasonably serve on an appeals committee or even be sensibly polled as a peer, 6 of them were in the two teams involved, so an appeals process would have been very random. It never happened because the result of the appeal wouldn't have mattered to the overall result.

First of all: the [exrremely] serious error has to be unrelated to the infraction - thus revoking, failing to play to a trick are examples.

Secondly: A poor play will be very rarely described as an extremely serious error. Playing declarer for 14 cards is not counted as an extremely serious error, for instance. Now had you held both aces, failure to cash both (or attempt to) might (I say maight) be regarded as a serious error, but not failing to work out which one partner might have.

Thirdly - the only other option is 'gambling' - which is now defined as taking a speculative action in the anticipation that if it fails you'll get a score adjustment anyway. That does not seem to be the case here.

[Cyberyeti]

weejonnie, on 2018-January-08, 08:22, said:

First of all: the [exrremely] serious error has to be unrelated to the infraction - thus revoking, failing to play to a trick are examples.

Secondly: A poor play will be very rarely described as an extremely serious error. Playing declarer for 14 cards is not counted as an extremely serious error, for instance. Now had you held both aces, failure to cash both (or attempt to) might (I say maight) be regarded as a serious error, but not failing to work out which one partner might have.

Thirdly - the only other option is 'gambling' - which is now defined as taking a speculative action in the anticipation that if it fails you'll get a score adjustment anyway. That does not seem to be the case here.

Oh I'm fully aware of how the law works and what it means, I just feel it's idiotic as phrased atm.

[weejonnie]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-08, 08:34, said:

Oh I'm fully aware of how the law works and what it means, I just feel it's idiotic as phrased atm.

Well the point is, you have to draw the line somewhere - how would you define 'serious error' in terms of playing ability? If a beginner makes a beginner mistake is that a serious error? If not - when do you start considering a player not to be a beginner. The usual argument is : Is a man with 10,000 hairs bald? if not 1,000? if not 100? 50?, 40?, 20?, 10?. How many books form a library? 1? 2? 10? 100? 1000? If you put a line in anywhere than at the start the next question is : why did the removal/ addition of 1 hair/ book make the man bald/ create a library?

Since this sort of definition is pretty well impossible to make - the laws make everything black and white rather than shades of grey.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-08, 08:04, said:

This case is nothing like that, it was my failure to find the correct switch, and when I thought about it afterwards, I realised I'd made what for me was a serious mistake, what I did could never gain and could only lose. If declarer has 7 diamonds, K or KQ in spades (KQ10 was not possible, I had A109x) and no other 4 card suit, there is no possible holding for him where playing a heart is wrong and a club is necessary.

I think what the law considers a serious error is too restrictive.

There was also the issue that in the event being played, there were 7 sensible bridge players that could reasonably serve on an appeals committee or even be sensibly polled as a peer, 6 of them were in the two teams involved, so an appeals process would have been very random. It never happened because the result of the appeal wouldn't have mattered to the overall result.

I haven't seen the full hand, but I can't see why declarer cannot have KQ ATx JTxxxxx K when you have to cash your club or declarer can make. Any opinion that playing a club is a serious error is, er, ... a serious error. If West had the ace of clubs, underleading it would probably scrape in as a serious error.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-January-08, 11:21, said:

I haven't seen the full hand, but I can't see why declarer cannot have KQ ATx JTxxxxx K when you have to cash your club or declarer can make. Any opinion that playing a club is a serious error is, er, ... a serious error. If West had the ace of clubs, underleading it would probably scrape in as a serious error.

Partner would have had an obvious WJO with at least ♣ AJ10xxx so I'd discounted a stiff club, and also would almost certainly have not led a spade.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-08, 14:18, said:

Partner would have had an obvious WJO with at least ♣ AJ10xxx so I'd discounted a stiff club, and also would almost certainly have not led a spade.

We have not been given the EW hands, so how can we judge whether partner would or would not have bid? And I would certainly not making a WJO on AJTxxx at game all. It is a recipe for 1100 or more. Whatever the hands are, you are not in the ballpark at all on what constitutes a serious error. I suggest you re-read the White Book and compare with the example there.