BBO Discussion Forums: Misinformation without damage? - BBO Discussion Forums

MP Tournament.



South opens 1NT announced as 15-18. North bids 2NT (not alerted or announced) and South bids 3NT, all pass. North then informs the table that South failed to announce the 2NT bid which was a transfer to ♦. East calls the TD, explains what has happened and then asks if he can speak to the TD away from the table. TD declines and asks East to speak up, East says that he would not have passed had he received the correct explanation of North's bid - he then shows his hand to TD. TD nods and asks all to play on and call him back later. West who had not yet faced his bid now does so (small spade) and NS make 3NT. TD rules that no damage was done and result stands. East takes his word, but when the tournament is over he realises that 4♥x-2 would have been an excellent score and wonders if opponents would really have risked 5♦ over that.

Under national regulations, 2NT as a transfer to ♦ should have been announced, in absence of which it is to be considered natural. Both partnerships are regular, NS being more experienced. In NS agreements, the only replies to the transfer are 3♣ positive and 3♦ negative, 3NT is undefined. In EW agreements, 3♥ by East over 2NT would be natural, 2♠ by East over 1NT would have promised spades plus a minor.

Your thoughts on this?

[Edited to correct errors pointed out below]

Do we really believe E would have bid 3♥ rather than waited for N to indicate that 3♦ was as far as he wanted to go ?

My first thought is that you have north and south reversed in your third sentence. My second thought is that East should not have needed to call the TD when he did, because whichever of north or south spoke up about the failure to alert, he should have called the director himself before speaking up. My third thought is that I wonder what North would have done after a proper alert (okay, announcement) and a 3!D bid from South. And what both South and North would have done over a 3!H bid by East over 2NT. Which is not to say that I think East would necessarily have bid 3!H at that point. I suppose if I knew him...

Do your regulations really say that announcements shall be made by the player who makes the affected call himself?

Such a regulation makes a joke of the entire auction. The only sensible regulation here should be that it is South who is responsible for announcing the 2NT bid by North.

pran, on 2019-October-10, 01:24, said:

No,the sentence in OP erroneously swapped N and S sorry, as those S and W of Norway guessed

Cyberyeti, on 2019-October-09, 14:35, said:

East advised the director before the play was commenced that he would not have passed - that is usually an indication that he would have bid 3♥ given the chance.

North Southj may be more experienced - but they are not experienced.

First of all, the TD made a serious error by letting E speak at the table and looking at the hand is also not good. Secondly, bidding 3♥ on this hand, with a 1NT on your left, is begging for trouble. That 4♥x - would W really have raised? - gives a good score, might be clear afterwards, but during the auction you can’t know whether the result will be -2, -3 or -4, -4 being quite likely. But, if E was seriously considering 3♥, why didn’t he ask about the 2NT? Actually, I think EW were lucky that E didn’t make the call. I don’t see that 4♥ is likely and an opening lead with hearts might have resulted is all kinds of discarding problems when the diamonds were cashed. A spade lead makes sure that the result is 3NT= and not one up.

weejonnie, on 2019-October-10, 05:41, said:

Yes, but that's very easy to do when you know that if it's disastrous, you won't be held to it.

Cyberyeti, on 2019-October-09, 14:35, said:

East had passed both over 2NT and over 3NT, so it is not clear whether he meant that with correct information he would bid immediately over the transfer or just that he would no longer pass out 3NT. TD did not ask.

blackshoe, on 2019-October-09, 16:07, said:

Correct of course.

blackshoe, on 2019-October-09, 16:07, said:

South should bid 3♣ positive, over which North should bid 3♠ splinter, game force. If South forgot that and bid 3♦ then North might either pass, splinter 3♠ or bid 3NT signoff.

blackshoe, on 2019-October-09, 16:07, said:

Minor transfers are relatively new to them and I doubt North ever discussed a conventional defence to interference with South (who is insufferent to conventions in general). So by South almost certainly double would be punishment, 3NT natural with stop, 4♦ invitational, pass not contemplated. Given that, I expect North would pass over double or 3NT but raise 4♦ to game. If you polled South's peers I suspect 3NT would prevail.

sanst, on 2019-October-10, 06:14, said:

To be fair to TD, it was East who made him look at the hand, but clearly in an attempt not to speak further at table. The situation is delicate, as West had not yet faced his bid, and presumably anything said or implied would be AI to North South. Of course it's not rocket science for anyone to figure out that East must be short in diamonds and probably have a long major.

sanst, on 2019-October-10, 06:14, said:

As said, we don't know if East meant that he would interfere over 2NT. He had no particular reason to ask about the 2NT, most players in the club play it as a natural invite and that is what no announcement or alert means. Even if he would interfere ♥ over a diamonds splinter I doubt he would contemplate it over a balanced invite, missing all top honours.

I also think it's unlikely they would actually reach 4♥ if East overcalls. West has poor heart support and some defensive tricks, why would they continue the preempt?

And while down 2 in 4♥ is possible, so is down 3 if you don't play perfectly.

pescetom, on 2019-October-10, 07:27, said:

Yeah, I misread your OP, sorry.

barmar, on 2019-October-10, 08:30, said:

Yes I agree West is unlikely to join in. If they reach 4♥ it is because East bids it over 3NT, whether or not he bids 3♥ over 2NT as transfer. The question is I think whether East West deserve a poll here, once TD has decided what East intended to bid when.

barmar, on 2019-October-10, 08:30, said:

The double dummy outcome is down 2, as TD could have known before ruling and all knew after the tournament. Yesterday I played it through just in case it was based on some unlikely play and I made down 2 easily, but maybe I misplayed defence somewhere.

pescetom, on 2019-October-10, 09:37, said:

No, I think it just depends on declarer playing well -- either playing South for honor doubleton in clubs or picking up the entire spade suit by cashing the King and then taking a deep finesse.

barmar, on 2019-October-11, 09:04, said:

Yes you have to think about spades a bit, but with long diamonds on your right and NT on your left the King seemed fairly obvious.