[VixTD]

This was not one of my rulings, but it occurred in the Swiss Pairs.

---

1♦ was Precision (alerted)
1♥ was either natural, or invitational and balanced (alerted)
2♦ was alerted late, and tentatively explained on enquiry as both majors, but South obviously wasn't sure.

Result: 2♠(S)+1, NS +140

West led ♣2 to the king. East led a small club back, hoping partner had the queen. Thus EW made only one trick in each suit.

EW called the TD and said that they would have led a spade given a correct explanation (or a timely correction by North) and would probably have taken two club tricks. I don't know the extent of NS's agreements, but let's assume (as is highly likely) that they have an agreement that had this sequence been natural then 2♦ would have shown the majors, but they haven't discussed this particular situation, so have no agreement.

Would you adjust the score?

[TylerE]

On what basis is EW looking for a ruling? It doesn't sound like NS had an agreement, or if they did that it was 2♦=majors. You can hardly sue NS for not alerting an agreement they don't have. What was the actual alert on 1♦? Does it promise at least 2? 1? 0? Might effect my feeling.

[billw55]

What is the law here - does west have to offer any reason that his lead would be different, or can he just double dummy the lead and expect to be granted it?

[blackshoe]

The law does not require a player who asks for a ruling to state anything more than what happened that induced him to ask for it. The law does not give players freebies once they've seen all four hands.

[TylerE]

In any case isn't the damage solely caused by E's failure to cash the 2nd club?

[VixTD]

TylerE, on 2013-September-04, 09:07, said:

On what basis is EW looking for a ruling? It doesn't sound like NS had an agreement, or if they did that it was 2♦=majors. You can hardly sue NS for not alerting an agreement they don't have. What was the actual alert on 1♦? Does it promise at least 2? 1? 0? Might effect my feeling.

1♣ / 1♦ opening bids are announced in England if they could be short ( <3 cards) and are non-forcing, but alertable if they are forcing. I'm not sure how EW play their 1♦ opener, but it's quite likely they were correct to alert it.

The problem was not the failure of NS to alert 2♦ immediately, it was the incorrect explanation that it showed the majors.

[TylerE]

I'm not convinced it was an incorrect misexplanation. At least here in ACBL-land, it is very common, even for club expert level pairs, to treat a precision 1♦ as natural.

[Trinidad]

These cases come up time after time and I find them really annoying. The common theme: A player explains a bid as X and immediately acts as if he doesn't believe it himself. And -surprise, surprise- partner's hand doesn't look like X.

Is there anybody on this planet who would bid a mere 2♠ with the South hand when he thinks that North has just shown both majors?

If you are going to treat the 2♦ bid as "I don't have a clue" then explain it as "I don't have a clue". Do not say -not even tentatively- that North has both majors when you are not willing to believe it yourself and bid as if North has both majors (unless you are looking at 10 spades in your own hand).

In this case it is clear that South didn't believe his own explanation. It is also clear that North doesn't believe South's explanation (at least he didn't when he chose to bid 2♦). When there is an explanation and both players of the pair really seem to think it was incorrect (as evidenced by the hands they held and the bids they made) then that should be enough evidence that there was misinformation.

The next problem is the question of whether the misinformation caused the poor result for EW. I can follow that East tried to find the ♣Q with West and I can follow that East would not be tempted to do that if West had led a trump. But I can't follow why it would be more attractive to lead a trump if you would hear that North has diamonds instead of the majors (or that South didn't have a clue). So, I would ask West (or anybody here on the forum) to explain that to me before I would rule.

In addition, I would want to investigate whether South had any UI before his 2♠ bid. If he could see from North's reaction that North might not hold both majors, that is UI. Then the obvious LA is 4♠ and 2♠ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. That would lead to an adjusted score of x% 4♠-2 + (100-x)% 4♠X-2 (+ the normal PP for using UI).

Rik

[TylerE]

The south hand is only 22 Zar points, which would tend to indicate it isn't an opening hand. I wouldn't force to game with it. The long trumps are only valuable if I can in fact ruff something usefully. Partner is capped at around 14 highs if opponents both have minimums. This doesn't feel like an auto-bid 4♠ to me at all. If I had ATx of ♥ and Jx in ♦ I might feel differently, but I don't.

[mycroft]

I've been told that East has a (potentially light) opener (what's their NT range here, by the way?); West has a hand that is, if partner's "majors" claim is valid, likely to be invitational and balanced. I can count to 40, and partner knows I can count to 40. Why am I having to treat North's call as anything but competitive? I'll probably take the push to 3, but I don't have the shape for a 20-point game.

I don't see an issue with 2♠. I especially don't see an issue with it after the explanation of "I'm clearly not sure - majors?"

I'd be surprised if, after 1♦-1♥ natural, 2♦ would likely be majors, but I don't know the bridge over there. I wouldn't be surprised if, after 1♦-1♥ BAL INV, 2♦ was majors.

I understand that East-West wanted to hear "it's natural, we have that agreement after your weird system" from North - and that, combined with South's obvious lack of confidence, makes a trump lead more likely. I don't know the difference between "we have no agreement on this auction, but it would be majors if 1♦ were 3+ and 1♥ were guaranteed 4+", and what South said - at least in terms of finding an opening lead. I really don't see where, after knowing that West has a couple of trumps we expected North to have, East couldn't find the spade that supposedly saves them a club trick instead of trying the risky underlead.

[Cyberyeti]

How did EW avoid making 2 spades ?

[TylerE]

I assume the argument is something like magically finding the K♦ lead and then scoring multiple ♦ ruffs in the west hand.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2013-September-04, 11:44, said:

These cases come up time after time and I find them really annoying. The common theme: A player explains a bid as X and immediately acts as if he doesn't believe it himself. And -surprise, surprise- partner's hand doesn't look like X.
Is there anybody on this planet who would bid a mere 2♠ with the South hand when he thinks that North has just shown both majors?
If you are going to treat the 2♦ bid as "I don't have a clue" then explain it as "I don't have a clue". Do not say -not even tentatively- that North has both majors when you are not willing to believe it yourself and bid as if North has both majors (unless you are looking at 10 spades in your own hand).
In this case it is clear that South didn't believe his own explanation. It is also clear that North doesn't believe South's explanation (at least he didn't when he chose to bid 2♦). When there is an explanation and both players of the pair really seem to think it was incorrect (as evidenced by the hands they held and the bids they made) then that should be enough evidence that there was misinformation.
The next problem is the question of whether the misinformation caused the poor result for EW. I can follow that East tried to find the ♣Q with West and I can follow that East would not be tempted to do that if West had led a trump. But I can't follow why it would be more attractive to lead a trump if you would hear that North has diamonds instead of the majors (or that South didn't have a clue). So, I would ask West (or anybody here on the forum) to explain that to me before I would rule.
In addition, I would want to investigate whether South had any UI before his 2♠ bid. If he could see from North's reaction that North might not hold both majors, that is UI. Then the obvious LA is 4♠ and 2♠ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. That would lead to an adjusted score of x% 4♠-2 + (100-x)% 4♠X-2 (+ the normal PP for using UI).

Agree with Trinidad. The director must be called after attention has been drawn to a possible infraction. It is up to the director to determine how much damage EW suffered. If the director judges deliberate misinformation or failure to correct a misexplanation of NS methods, then he may impose a PP on NS.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-04, 16:30, said:

How did EW avoid making 2 spades ?

The only thing I can think is that EW's one diamond trick was a ruff, rather than the K.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2013-September-04, 11:44, said:

The next problem is the question of whether the misinformation caused the poor result for EW. I can follow that East tried to find the ♣Q with West and I can follow that East would not be tempted to do that if West had led a trump. But I can't follow why it would be more attractive to lead a trump if you would hear that North has diamonds instead of the majors (or that South didn't have a clue). So, I would ask West (or anybody here on the forum) to explain that to me before I would rule.

I think a corrected explanation by North would make a trump lead attractive, but not as attractive as it already was.

With a corrected explanation, West would suspect that the opponents were in a 3-3 fit. Against a 3-3 fit it's often right to lead trumps.

However, it's also often right to lead trumps against a two-suiter. With the explanation that was actually given, holding ♥A10xxx in front of dummy's five-card side-suit, a trump lead looks automatic.

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2013-September-04, 07:28, said:

EW called the TD and said that they would have led a spade given a correct explanation (or a timely correction by North) and would probably have taken two club tricks.

Who leads trumps away from 10xxx when there is no evidence the opponents have a fit? The correct explanation reduces, rather than increases, the likelihood of a trump lead.

No adjustment.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-September-05, 02:57, said:

I think a corrected explanation by North would make a trump lead attractive, but not as attractive as it already was.

With a corrected explanation, West would suspect that the opponents were in a 3-3 fit. Against a 3-3 fit it's often right to lead trumps.

However, it's also often right to lead trumps against a two-suiter. With the explanation that was actually given, holding ♥A10xxx in front of dummy's five-card side-suit, a trump lead looks automatic.

Those were my thoughts too, but perhaps I had overlooked a powerful reason to lead or not lead a trump. So, there was no causal link between the infraction and the result and there is no reason for an AS.

Rik

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on 2013-September-05, 02:57, said:

With a corrected explanation, West would suspect that the opponents were in a 3-3 fit.

Can we make an adjustment on the basis that W will receive a later correction, and thus be able to deduce a misunderstanding; rather than on the basis that he was correctly informed throughout and thus unable to deduce a misunderstanding, given that it looks like S never believed his own explanation and there wasn't in fact a misunderstanding?

[campboy]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-05, 04:47, said:

Can we make an adjustment on the basis that W will receive a later correction, and thus be able to deduce a misunderstanding; rather than on the basis that he was correctly informed throughout and thus unable to deduce a misunderstanding, given that it looks like S never believed his own explanation and there wasn't in fact a misunderstanding?

Where there is MI, as by a failure to correct, and this affects a decision by the NOS, and the NOS get a worse score as a result, we adjust. It doesn't matter whether the MI gives NOS a better or worse idea of the OS's hands; all that matters is whether there was MI and whether there was damage as a result.

Anyway, I agree that different information is not going to make a spade lead more attractive. I am also sceptical about the whole issue of MI here. When South is obviously unsure what 2♦ means, and you play a method which is as bizarre as this one, do you really need to be told that N/S haven't actually discussed a defence to it?

[Lanor Fow]

Is a potentially short diamond in a strong club system really that bizarre?

Even it it is quite unusual, we are talking a main even in a large congress. I can't remember last sitting down against a pair at the Brighton swiss pairs who didn't have a convention card (occasionally you see wbf cards rather than EBU, but even this is unusual). The EBU cards have a section on the front for both basic system and agreements opponants should note.

Are NOS really meant to assume that opponants, not having an agreement to a not particually unusual bid (which they could have easily found out about and discussed before the round had they not already discussed such situations) telling NOS they do have an agreement will not correct this at the proper time? Moreover does it become NOS's own fault that they assume OS have not broken the laws if misinformation becomes apparent later?