[lamford]

Scoring: IMP



North East South West
1NT* Pass 2♠* 2NT
3♣ 3♠ Pass 3NT
Dble Pass* Pass 4♦
All Pass

Table Result 4♦= N/S -130

---

1NT was 12-14, and 2♠ a transfer to clubs, both alerted. 2NT was not alerted and North enquired and was told "natural". East's penultimate pass was stated by North-South to be in an annoyed manner, and described by the TD in his presentation of facts to the AC as an "angry" pass. West stated to the AC that his partner always bid in that manner.

The TD stated that there were two elements of UI, and that he had consulted with other players and that his opinion was that Pass of 3NTX was an LA.

The original decision was 100% of 3NTX-1 by West, on the basis that North would always lead a club. East-West appealed, believing that there was no LA to 4♦. North-South appealed on the basis that North may well lead a spade or a diamond, leading to +800 and +300 and a weighted score was appropriate. North stated that she would not have led a club on the auction, as that could easily be declarer's ninth trick.

The AC upheld the TD decision (100% of 3NTX-1) and returned both deposits. Your views? Croatia is a jurisdiction which allows 12C1c weighting.

[pran]

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP



North East South West
1NT* Pass 2♠* 2NT
3♣ 3♠ Pass 3NT
Dble Pass* Pass 4♦
All Pass

Table Result 4♦= N/S -130

---

1NT was 12-14, and 2♠ a transfer to clubs, both alerted. 2NT was not alerted and North enquired and was told "natural". East's penultimate pass was stated by North-South to be in an annoyed manner, and described by the TD in his presentation of facts to the AC as an "angry" pass. West stated to the AC that his partner always bid in that manner.

The TD stated that there were two elements of UI, and that he had consulted with other players and that his opinion was that Pass of 3NTX was an LA.

The original decision was 100% of 3NTX-1 by West, on the basis that North would always lead a club. East-West appealed, believing that there was no LA to 4♦. North-South appealed on the basis that North may well lead a spade or a diamond, leading to +800 and +300 and a weighted score was appropriate. North stated that she would not have led a club on the auction, as that could easily be declarer's ninth trick.

The AC upheld the TD decision (100% of 3NTX-1) and returned both deposits. Your views? Croatia is a jurisdiction which allows 12C1c weighting.

On the assumption that 2♠ is specifically a transfer to clubs and not to either minor I vote for the TD decision (possibly with a 10% or 20% weight for a diamond lead because of the AQ tenace in clubs).

Otherwise I vote for a weighted score according to 50% each for a lead in clubs or in diamonds.

A spade lead looks to me far too dangerous even when considering that the club lead may cost a trick.

[lamford]

pran, on Sep 15 2010, 07:43 AM, said:

On the assumption that 2♠ is specifically a transfer to clubs and not to either minor I vote for the TD decision (possibly with a 10% or 20% weight for a diamond lead because of the AQ tenace in clubs).

Yes, 2♠ showed clubs and 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds. The fact that 2NT was intended to be a two-suiter was not evident until the conclusion of the hand, and no failure to alert was volunteered. I was interested as to why you thought a spade lead "far too dangerous" as West is marked with 10 red cards and a club stop. Perhaps you could elaborate.

[jallerton]

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

The TD stated that there were two elements of UI, and that he had consulted with other players and that his opinion was that Pass of 3NTX was an LA.

OK, but did the TD explain why pulling to 4♦ could demonstrably be suggested by the two elements of UI?

Did the TD ascertain from West exactly what West believed 2NT to mean at the point when he selected this call?

[pran]

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 15 2010, 07:43 AM, said:

On the assumption that 2♠ is specifically a transfer to clubs and not to either minor I vote for the TD decision (possibly with a 10% or 20% weight for a diamond lead because of the AQ tenace in clubs).

Yes, 2♠ showed clubs and 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds. The fact that 2NT was intended to be a two-suiter was not evident until the conclusion of the hand, and no failure to alert was volunteered. I was interested as to why you thought a spade lead "far too dangerous" as West is marked with 10 red cards and a club stop. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I could of course hope, but I wouldn't expect to find partner with any spade honor after this auction.

[lamford]

pran, on Sep 15 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 15 2010, 07:43 AM, said:

On the assumption that 2♠ is specifically a transfer to clubs and not to either minor I vote for the TD decision (possibly with a 10% or 20% weight for a diamond lead because of the AQ tenace in clubs).

Yes, 2♠ showed clubs and 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds. The fact that 2NT was intended to be a two-suiter was not evident until the conclusion of the hand, and no failure to alert was volunteered. I was interested as to why you thought a spade lead "far too dangerous" as West is marked with 10 red cards and a club stop. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I could of course hope, but I wouldn't expect to find partner with any spade honor after this auction.

If you don't is there not a danger that your proposed club lead will give declarer two spades, a heart, a club and five diamonds? I wouldn't expect partner to have a diamond honour on this auction.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 15 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

The TD stated that there were two elements of UI, and that he had consulted with other players and that his opinion was that Pass of 3NTX was an LA.

OK, but did the TD explain why pulling to 4♦ could demonstrably be suggested by the two elements of UI?

Did the TD ascertain from West exactly what West believed 2NT to mean at the point when he selected this call?

The TD's opinion on the first point was that his partner might have a weaker hand to bid 3S over a natural 2NT than to bid 3S over a two-suited 2NT. Coupled with the "angry" pass - his words - that made pulling suggested in his view.

West stated, "for me, 2NT is two-suiter, and over 3S from partner there is no bid other than 3NT. I was prepared to take a chance on this but not when it was doubled."

[jallerton]

I have one other question. What did the TD determine the actual E/W agreement to be? [For many pairs, I suspect that the answer would be "no agreement"!]

[pran]

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 11:20 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 15 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

lamford, on Sep 15 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 15 2010, 07:43 AM, said:

On the assumption that 2♠ is specifically a transfer to clubs and not to either minor I vote for the TD decision (possibly with a 10% or 20% weight for a diamond lead because of the AQ tenace in clubs).

Yes, 2♠ showed clubs and 2NT would have been a transfer to diamonds. The fact that 2NT was intended to be a two-suiter was not evident until the conclusion of the hand, and no failure to alert was volunteered. I was interested as to why you thought a spade lead "far too dangerous" as West is marked with 10 red cards and a club stop. Perhaps you could elaborate.

I could of course hope, but I wouldn't expect to find partner with any spade honor after this auction.

If you don't is there not a danger that your proposed club lead will give declarer two spades, a heart, a club and five diamonds? I wouldn't expect partner to have a diamond honour on this auction.

No, but a diamond lead would hardly give away any trick.
If declarer needs to be given the ninth trick then why help him?

If at the table we decide that declarer has his 9 tricks unless partner has one of the high spade honors then a spade lead becomes almost obvious, but do we really think that?

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 16 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

I have one other question.  What did the TD determine the actual E/W agreement to be?  [For many pairs, I suspect that the answer would be "no agreement"!]

E/W, like 95% of pairs in Pula, did not have a convention card. I would agree with you that the most likely was no agreement. West prefaced his statement to the AC with "For me ..." East did not attend.

[lamford]

pran, on Sep 16 2010, 03:05 AM, said:

No, but a diamond lead would hardly give away any trick.
If declarer needs to be given the ninth trick then why help him?

If at the table we decide that declarer has his 9 tricks unless partner has one of the high spade honors then a spade lead becomes almost obvious, but do we really think that?

I agree that the passive diamond is quite attractive, and should have some weighting in the decision. And a spade may not be successful. But would East really be annoyed to pass with AQxxx xxx xxxx x opposite x Axxxx AKQxx Kx? It looks like he has worse spades than that. The lead that looks really bad on all layouts is the club, the one that the AC decided was a 100% action.

[pran]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 10:00 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 16 2010, 03:05 AM, said:

No, but a diamond lead would hardly give away any trick.
If declarer needs to be given the ninth trick then why help him?

If at the table we decide that declarer has his 9 tricks unless partner has one of the high spade honors then a spade lead becomes almost obvious, but do we really think that?

I agree that the passive diamond is quite attractive, and should have some weighting in the decision. And a spade may not be successful. But would East really be annoyed to pass with AQxxx xxx xxxx x opposite x Axxxx AKQxx Kx? It looks like he has worse spades than that. The lead that looks really bad on all layouts is the club, the one that the AC decided was a 100% action.

Tempo - tempo!

[jallerton]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 09:52 AM, said:

jallerton, on Sep 16 2010, 01:51 AM, said:

I have one other question.  What did the TD determine the actual E/W agreement to be?  [For many pairs, I suspect that the answer would be "no agreement"!]

E/W, like 95% of pairs in Pula, did not have a convention card. I would agree with you that the most likely was no agreement. West prefaced his statement to the AC with "For me ..." East did not attend.

It is necessary for the TD to determine the actual E/W agreement in order to rule properly on this board; if the TD has not done so then the AC should attempt to determine the agreement (or lack thereof).

If it is determined that there was "no agreement" and the AC agrees with the TD's decsion to "roll back" the contract to 3NT, then "no agreement" is all North is entitled to know about when selecting her opening lead. She cannot draw the conclusion suggested upthread that West necesarily has ten red cards; indeed from her point of view, why can't West hold a 2NT opener?

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 16 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

If it is determined that there was "no agreement" and the AC agrees with the TD's decsion to "roll back" the contract to 3NT, then "no agreement" is all North is entitled to know about when selecting her opening lead.

It is difficult to establish what the actual E/W agreement was in the absence of any convention card, and in the absence of one of the players. The CoC specified that all players should have convention cards, but as one TD commented, "we would have no tournament if we enforced this." The TD therefore has to fall back on 75C and:

"the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

There was no evidence to the contrary. Indeed West's hand suggested the opposite - that 2NT was alertable. North is therefore entitled to this information before the opening lead, and this, to my mind, makes a spade, diamond or club all reasonable choices. I think the last is poor, but I have no objection to some weighting of all three, polling say 10 players of North's standard and weighting accordingly.

[Poky]

Director should show effort to determine the facts, but anyway, it is pretty obvious what happened here.

West bid 2NT. Why?
- He had a club stopper, hoped the diamonds will run and expected a raise with 9-10 points. And even if partner interprets 2NT as some kind of two-suiter, he has something like that.

East bid 3♠. Why?
- He had 5 spades, some values, but not enough to bid game alone. If partner had a superfit then he surely expected to be raised.

North doubled. Why?
- He wanted to show a maximal hand.

West passed 3NTx in disbelief. Why?
- Hard to tell. Probalbly felt partner made some confusion in bidding (as example: felt 3♠ was forcing). In any case, east had the hand he has already shown (some 6-8 points) so there was NO EXTRA UI. Even the mathematical expectation of his HCP (40-28)/2=6 is in the range.

West run to 4♦. Why?
- Because if his line has at most 22 (14+8) HCP, playing 3NTx with a weak long suit and just one vulnerable stopper is madness, not bridge. Running to a statistically safer spot is THE ONLY LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE!

So, according to:
a ) authorised informations, and
b ) simple bridge logic
it is possible to deduce 4♦ is a perfectly legal contract although East should be warned to bid in properly manner.

The director's and AC's decision are pure horror, for many reasons (of course a weighted score is in order, if UI's were estabilished). But that's nothing new. All decisions here in Croatia are like this one.

[lamford]

Poky, on Sep 17 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

Director should show effort to determine the facts, but anyway, it is pretty obvious what happened here.

West bid 2NT. Why?
- He had a club stopper, hoped the diamonds will run and expected a raise with 9-10 points. And even if partner interprets 2NT as some kind of two-suiter, he has something like that.

No, he told the AC that 2NT was, for him, a 2-suiter. When it was not alerted, he knew it had been interpreted as natural, and it was described as such when North asked.

Poky, on Sep 17 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

West passed 3NTx in disbelief. Why?
- Hard to tell. Probalbly felt partner made some confusion in bidding (as example: felt 3♠ was forcing). In any case, east had the hand he has already shown (some 6-8 points) so there was NO EXTRA UI. Even the mathematical expectation of his HCP (40-28)/2=6 is in the range.

It was East who passed 3NTx, not West. East had bid 3S in response to an unalerted 2NT which West believed was a 2-suiter. It is not acceptable for West to judge how 2NT was interpreted by the explanation. If East had alerted 2NT and responded that this showed a 2-suiter, then 3S would, presumably, be a try for game, presumably showing a fit for one suit, and values in spades. 3D would be pass or correct, I guess, and 3H would be natural. West knows that 3S is bid opposite what East thinks is a balanced hand, but that is UI to West.

Poky, on Sep 17 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

West run to 4♦. Why?
- Because if his line has at most 22 (14+8) HCP, playing 3NTx with a weak long suit and just one vulnerable stopper is madness, not bridge. Running to a statistically safer spot is THE ONLY LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE!

Why on earth would his partner bid 3S with 6-8 points opposite a two-suited 2NT? He would surely just bid 3D, pass or correct. He knows that his partner does not have that from the failure to alert and from the "angry" pass of 3NTx. The TD consulted with players who did not agree that 4D was the only logical alternative, using the authorised information.

Poky, on Sep 17 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

The director's and AC's decision are pure horror, for many reasons (of course a weighted score is in order, if UI's were estabilished). But that's nothing new. All decisions here in Croatia are like this one.

I think that is going too far. In my view the only thing they got wrong here was the weighting, which should have been something like 40% of +800, 40% of +300 and 20% of +100, not the 100% of +100 that they decided. That seems just like a woolly compromise.

[jallerton]

lamford, on Sep 16 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

jallerton, on Sep 16 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

If it is determined that there was "no agreement" and the AC agrees with the TD's decsion to "roll back" the contract to 3NT, then "no agreement" is all North is entitled to know about when selecting her opening lead.

It is difficult to establish what the actual E/W agreement was in the absence of any convention card, and in the absence of one of the players. The CoC specified that all players should have convention cards, but as one TD commented, "we would have no tournament if we enforced this." The TD therefore has to fall back on 75C and:

"the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

There was no evidence to the contrary. Indeed West's hand suggested the opposite - that 2NT was alertable. North is therefore entitled to this information before the opening lead...

As I mentioned earlier, the TD/AC should make every effort to gather evidence.

Presumably East was present when the TD was originally called, so the TD had a chance to ask East his opinion on the E/W agreements.

Yes, it's harder for the AC without East's presence, but that shouldn't stop them trying. I would ask West (i) how long East/West had been playing together, (ii) whether this sequence had come up before and (iii) whether 1NT-P-2♦/♥-2NT had ever come up before in this partnership.

Yes, the TD/AC might have to fall back on Law 75C and "presume Mistaken Explanation", but that it not the same as presuming that East/West actually have an agreement, or that North is allowed to know the contents of the West hand.

As you state yourself that "the most likely was no agreement" the TD/AC might reasonably conclude that the actual explanation of "natural" was a mistaken explanation and that "no agreement" was the correct explanation. In that case North is not entitled to know any more than "no agreement".

Perhaps one of our Croatian readers can tell us whether or not "no agreement" should be alerted in Croatia.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 17 2010, 04:35 PM, said:

Yes, it's harder for the AC without East's presence, but that shouldn't stop them trying.  I would ask West (i) how long East/West had been playing together, (ii) whether this sequence had come up before and (iii) whether 1NT-P-2♦/♥-2NT had ever come up before in this partnership.

Yes, the TD/AC might have to fall back on Law 75C and "presume Mistaken Explanation", but that it not the same as presuming that East/West actually have an agreement, or that North is allowed to know the contents of the West hand.

As you state yourself that "the most likely was no agreement" the TD/AC might reasonably conclude that the actual explanation of "natural" was a mistaken explanation and that "no agreement" was the correct explanation.  In that case North is not entitled to know any more than "no agreement".

Perhaps one of our Croatian readers can tell us whether or not "no agreement" should be alerted in Croatia.

The AC did none of this. They listened to both sides, and then went off to eat. One of the AC joked that East ought to take up another game if he "always bid in an angry manner", a response to West's statement that East's bids had been in the same manner throughout.

East had nothing to say when the TD came, other than that West had not understood when we agreed that the penultimate pass was made in an annoyed manner.

The players seemed of a reasonable standard - and I would have expected East to interpret 2NT as a two-suiter. Without a convention card it is impossible to be sure what their agreements were; they were playing Polish Club with quite a few relays, so I guess this was not their first time together.

If there was misinformation that 2NT was natural, then the only other plausible meaning would be a two-suiter, surely, so I think North would know West's hand type without the MI.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

The players seemed of a reasonable standard - and I would have expected East to interpret 2NT as a two-suiter. Without a convention card it is impossible to be sure what their agreements were; they were playing Polish Club with quite a few relays, so I guess this was not their first time together.

Why would you "expect" East to interpret 2NT as a two-suiter? Why should a Croatian pair you don't know play it the way you expect them to? In the two partnerships where we've discussed it, I play it as natural and strong (and it's in our system file as such).

But I'd been playing in the same partnership for 15+ years before we actually got around to discussing this sequence, so it's quite possible to be not playing for the first time, but still not to have an agreement.

All this stuff about them not having convention card is irrelevant. This auction is not on any convention card I've ever seen, including some quite well-filled in WBF ones. There's almost no equivalent sequence that will be on the card. (One card says "2NT in competition is rarely natural" but that still wouldn't apply here.)

Quote

If there was misinformation that 2NT was natural, then the only other plausible meaning would be a two-suiter, surely, so I think North would know West's hand type without the MI.

You still seem to be missing the point here. There are two plausible meanings, but three plausible things you are entitled to know about their agreements: natural, a two-suiter, and no agreement. All you are entitled to know is "no agreement" (if that is in fact the case), not that West actually has a two-suiter.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 18 2010, 09:33 AM, said:

You still seem to be missing the point here. There are two plausible meanings, but three plausible things you are entitled to know about their agreements: natural, a two-suiter, and no agreement.  All you are entitled to know is "no agreement" (if that is in fact the case), not that West actually has a two-suiter.

OK, if there was "no agreement", West should, prior to the opening lead, have indicated that his partner's explanation of natural was not correct, and that the correct answer was "no agreement". He did not do this. In fact he stated, to the AC, "for me, 2NT was two-suiter". The fact that the final contract was 4D, not 3NT, only means that there was no damage from the failure to correct.

I would still be quite happy with a ruling that took into account the probability that their agreement was "two-suiter" and that their agreement was "no agreement". And the % of each lead against each. I think a club is wrong in both cases, but one thing I am certain of is that the 100% of a club lead is not right.

And I quite like the method of playing 2NT as strong balanced and may take it up.