[BudH]

East attempted to replace 2NT with Double.

---

West dealer, none vulnerable, average level club game

West North East South

Pass - 1H - 2NT changed to Double - Director, please!

The Director determines West pulled the 2NT bid out of the bidding box and had it touching the table when he put it back and changed it a Double. The Director ruled the 2NT bid was made with the attempted changed to Double (Law 25B).

2NT systemically shows the minors over the opponent's 1♥ opening bid.

South did not accept the changed call and the initial 2NT bid stood. West was cautioned per Law 16B and 16C regarding unauthorized information and that a call (or later, a play, if a defender) suggested by the unauthorized information may not be chosen over a logical alternative. Said to West by the Director: "In simplified terms, if you have two or three choices all of which players similar to yourself would choose or seriously consider, you are not allowed to choose one likely to be more successful demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information."

11 tricks made, East-West +460.

As Director, do you adjust the score and/or (seriously consider) penalizing East-West for using UI?

[jillybean]

Was E/W asked what their agreement of 3NT is?

Yes, I seriously consider an adjustment + penalty and would need to look at LA's. 4♣ seems a likely candidate. Partner's 2nt bid has presumably shown 55 in the minors and he is now bidding on showing controls in the majors.
If you let this stand, you may as well remove Law 16 too.

(obviously if E/W are newbies, the penalty may be waived but if these are regular players, a penalty is in order)

[blackshoe]

East doesn't have UI, West does.

[jillybean]

Yes, imo pass of 3nt is clearly suggested by the UI

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2023-June-05, 22:18, said:

Yes, imo pass of 3nt is clearly suggested by the UI

Agreed, but if there was no UI at all, and if there was no partnership agreement on 3NT, it's still possible that the only definition of 3NT is "oops, 2NT was wrong", which is the one time you're allowed to wake up.

A hand with a control in either or both majors, slam interest or searching for 3NT, would have continued with 3♥ or 3♠, so I don't think that's an option. And can there really exist a hand with stoppers in both majors that wants to bid a natural 3NT?

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2023-June-05, 22:42, said:

Agreed, but if there was no UI at all, and if there was no partnership agreement on 3NT, it's still possible that the only definition of 3NT is "oops, 2NT was wrong", which is the one time you're allowed to wake up.

A hand with a control in either or both majors, slam interest or searching for 3NT, would have continued with 3♥ or 3♠, so I don't think that's an option. And can there really exist a hand with stoppers in both majors that wants to bid a natural 3NT?

Yes, E is allowed to wake up and if in doing so, it does not create any UI, all is good.

"2NT - oops - I want to double" creates very clear UI
And that UI clearly signals to partner that they should pass 3NT/3♦

[blackshoe]

So what bid(s) is pass suggested over?

[Cyberyeti]

You would have to get fairly deep into their methods to assess whether there is any damage at MPs

Example

E bids 3N as per the current auction:

do EW play split range good/bad unusual, is 3N an offer to play ? unlikely, but if not what is it ? It's a reasonable argument it doesn't exist.

W probably should bid some number of diamonds with cards only in partner's suits 4/5/6 ?

E will convert to NT at pairs, what this means will vary particularly if 4♥ would be the ace ask. You may be able to get out in 4N/5N.

What was led ? 6N can't be made but there is a pretty simple misdefence that allows it to be if a spade is led, and if a spade was led against 3N is there any reason to assume it won't be v 6N.

Passing 3N is use of UI, but if 3N doesn't exist, what is W supposed to do ?

[pescetom]

I'm all in favour of defining follow-ups thoroughly, but I don't remember any description of Unusual NT that defines 2NT - 3m - 3NT (even the original booklet by Alvin Roth). To be coherent with my own system it could be defined as non-serious (good hand but doubt about honours in the chosen minor), but it isn't and so the meta-agreement that any unexpected 3NT is to play would prevail. I guess in most partnerships it would be taken it as to play, however unlikely that hand may be, so Pass has no LA with this hand (I don't think it needs a poll).

I'm not so sure it is automatic that East had no UI, we aren't told exactly how he woke up to forgetting that 2NT was Unusual. I imagine OP is ACBL and so Unusual is taken for granted and not alertable. But even if East was woken up by UI from partner, he would still be bidding 3NT over a 3♦ advance so no big deal anyway.

So I think they get to keep 3NT+2. If this is the first time East tries to replace a call that was his original intent then he gets a warning and an explanation of the law, if not then he gets a significant penalty.

[mycroft]

Call the TD! Sure if you do there will be some issues, but not as obvious as now.

I'm more aggressive than many, and would certainly consider more than 3 diamonds with a 10-card fit, especially because North's hearts must be long for no raise. But 5332 is awful, and the colours are such that 5♦ could easily be 500 territory (partner's 3 major cards are losers, and we could be losing two minor tricks with bad breaks or lies). Definitely if E-W are the kind that don't think about heavy pushing preempts over say 1NT-2♦ majors with 5 spades or the like (which I keep being told here happens all the time), they're not going to think any differently here. If you get peers not to bid 5 directly, then fine.

4 looks like a fielder's choice; for me it's 5 or 3.

Now 3NT. Do they play mini-maxi? If so, we are looking at (Kx A) AKxxx KQxxx (or at worst, ♣KJxxx) or the like. Which, if North will open on that kind of garbage 10, certainly leaves enough room for North's opener. Okay, maybe 6♦ is in the picture, but "partner said '3NT is an option, I have good cards for 3NT'" seems reasonable. If they play "decent hand", then this shows extras again, but maybe not quite as many. But we should still be looking at a hook through the strong hand for 3NT, and I'm still looking at 3 losers in 5♦.

Obviously both of west's calls are suggested by the UI that "partner has a strong balanced hand, not 5-5 in the minors". But I'm not sure they're not the right calls absent the UI either. Whether that goes down to "LA" level; well, are E-W peers of me?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-June-06, 09:04, said:

I'm more aggressive than many, and would certainly consider more than 3 diamonds with a 10-card fit, especially because North's hearts must be long for no raise. But 5332 is awful, and the colours are such that 5♦ could easily be 500 territory (partner's 3 major cards are losers, and we could be losing two minor tricks with bad breaks or lies). Definitely if E-W are the kind that don't think about heavy pushing preempts over say 1NT-2♦ majors with 5 spades or the like (which I keep being told here happens all the time), they're not going to think any differently here. If you get peers not to bid 5 directly, then fine.

4 looks like a fielder's choice; for me it's 5 or 3.

It didn't register on me that West had those diamonds, I agree that a poll of peers to see whether 3♦ had less favoured alternatives makes sense.

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2023-June-05, 21:50, said:

East doesn't have UI, West does.

East has the UI that West "knows" that 2NT was not unusual, and logically could be a balanced hand stronger than a 1NT overcall. What would a 3NT rebid by East show in a normal unusual 2NT auction and should West pass over whatever 3NT by the unusual NT was trying to show? Maybe East's 3NT isn't based on UI, but East definitely has UI.

[johnu]

BudH, on 2023-June-05, 18:37, said:

As Director, do you adjust the score and/or (seriously consider) penalizing East-West for using UI?

I would adjust the contract to 5♦ as a jump to 5♦ with at least a 10 card diamond fit and no real defense against game in hearts or spades is certainly a logical alternative.

[BudH]

West clearly has UI.

But East knows that West is going to have to bid her hand as if 2NT shows the minors but knowing West knows it's probably a huge balanced hand (which it is).

I know you should poll, although not easy in a 6-table club game at which this occurred. I would think West would be bidding 3♦, 4♦, or 5♦. If considering a group of experts, with the ♣Axx on the side, I'd consider 5♦ to likely be the expert's choice. And I assume East is not forced to bid any higher.

Note 5♦ fails only on a heart lead which I doubt would be a clear majority choice and perhaps not a minor majority choice, either. We might be assuming West fails at 5♦ about half the time or perhaps slightly less.

If West bid 3♦ or 4♦, what do we assume East's possible calls might be?

[axman]

johnu, on 2023-June-06, 19:40, said:

I would adjust the contract to 5♦ as a jump to 5♦ with at least a 10 card diamond fit and no real defense against game in hearts or spades is certainly a logical alternative.

Doesn't the remark suggest that pard has values to open 2N demonstrably suggest the partnership has the values to succeed in 5D while the inference that 2N by agreement typically has preemptive values in long lower unbid suits that likely will fail at 11 tricks?

[johnu]

axman, on 2023-June-07, 20:23, said:

Doesn't the remark suggest that pard has values to open 2N demonstrably suggest the partnership has the values to succeed in 5D while the inference that 2N by agreement typically has preemptive values in long lower unbid suits that likely will fail at 11 tricks?

5♦ is bid as a sacrifice. For me, 3♦ and 4♦ are not bids that I would make.

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2023-June-06, 19:34, said:

East has the UI that West "knows" that 2NT was not unusual, and logically could be a balanced hand stronger than a 1NT overcall.

If you make an insufficient bid, and replace it with a completely different bid, partner is barred from the auction. The fact that partner will be barred is AI; you're allowed to 'gamble' with a high level bid that you would never have made otherwise.

From East's perspective, is the fact that partner will be constrained here due to UI, also AI?

It seems like you could get into very meta territory.. is 5♦ suggested because it has a hope of game over a strong 2NT, or is 3♦ suggested because it gives partner another chance to correct their mistake with 3NT.. or can East make a bid that would suggest the opposite of what he actually wants West to bid.., thus making sure West chooses it.. etc :/

[johnu]

smerriman, on 2023-June-07, 21:02, said:

If you make an insufficient bid, and replace it with a completely different bid, partner is barred from the auction. The fact that partner will be barred is AI; you're allowed to 'gamble' with a high level bid that you would never have made otherwise.

Of course, that's not this situation. Partner hasn't been barred from the auction and the auction should proceed normally. Both partner's only AI should be that 2NT was unusual. Anything else is UI.

smerriman, on 2023-June-07, 21:02, said:

From East's perspective, is the fact that partner will be constrained here due to UI, also AI?

Well, I don't see how that can be AI. That's why the meaning of 3NT needs to be examined (although I would have changed the contract to 5♦ so maybe all these questions are moot). Do they have an agreement about 3NT that makes bidding 3NT a crazy bid? Does 3NT suggest playing in 3NT? Does it show stoppers, or ask for stoppers? How strong can 2NT be?

[axman]

johnu, on 2023-June-07, 20:55, said:

5♦ is bid as a sacrifice. For me, 3♦ and 4♦ are not bids that I would make.

I understand the theory behind bidding a high contract that rates to go minus when the indicated capacity suggests that every minus score will be disastrous. I also think it is a bad theory.

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2023-June-08, 04:24, said:

Of course, that's not this situation.

I'm aware. My point was there exist other situations where it's perfectly legal to compensate for the knowledge that partner will be constrained by UI. Why does that not apply here?