[Codo]

Sorry, I still don´t get it. All of you share more or less one opinion, so I must be wrong, but here are my thoughts:

Yes we all play 2 NT for the minors. But we all alert 2 NT don´t we?

So why on earth shall a not alerted 2 NT bid show the minors?
The op did obviously not discuss this issue, so they have no agreement, they aren´t even on the same wavelength. Even if the 2 NT bidder had been asked, the correct and in my view only explanation was: No agreement.
And if I have no agreement about a jump to 2 NT, what is it? Obviously stronger then 1 NT, bridge is easy.

The lady with the minors tried a convention, hoping that her pd will understand. She did not. This happens and normally creates a bad score for the pair that misunderstood. This time it was a bad score for their opponents. Bad luck for their opponents, but no need to rule against the op.
There simply is no rule against misunderstandings.

And they are an occasional partnership or first time partners, so there are many aspects where they had not discussed their bidding system in all details.

So in my opinion, the ruling: Score stand 4 Spade -2 = 200 is clear cut and it is not even close.

To invite a fee in this special moment is ...I miss the english words for it... so I will try bullsh*t, which is the closest translation.

As all of you had set the score to 4 Spade X -2 (or worse), I won´t find harsh words for the committee. But in my opinion, they have no idea what they are talking about. If they decide about something a player did, they must decide it according to her experience and her level. So a ruling like: "In this group, you must know" is simply wrong. They must ask themselves, what players of the class of this lady would do, they must not ask, how they want it do be.

To call someone a liar could be taken to a normal court, it is never allowed. It should not happen in a bridge club anywhere and be punished by the club.

I would call this bridge club: The once and never club, because I would visit it once and never again.

In my view, they have no ideas about the spirit of the game. I could stand one or two pairs like the ep, but a TD and a committee behaving in this way is a reason to stop playing in the club.

Okay, all of you had decided like the TD, so I must be wrong, but I still don´t see where.

[Free]

These op's should learn to say they don't have an agreement instead of guessing. But I'm not sure what the best way is...
The attitude of the ep's is unacceptable and should be punished heavily.

[42]

Codo, I am with you (please reserve a dance for me in the Gewölbekeller!!! ).

But to leave the score 4♠ -2 is hard (I would like to, of course) because the 2NT-bidder did not call the TD at the right time, she lost her rights imo. The probability is near 100% that the ep pair would have changed the bid to 4♠ dbl after the clarification that 2NT was intended to show minors, weak.

The partner of the 2NT-bidder was convinced that she gave the correct explanation and that 2NT is -when not explicitely discussed and therefore not alerted- strong. Why should she be punished that she gave a "wrong" explanation? When a situation is not discussed or documentated there is no wrong or right, or? When all the world plays 2NT in this situation as minors + weak, why must the bid be alerted?

Not every bidding misunderstanding creates necessarily a zero

[Fluffy]

42, on Jun 22 2007, 10:15 AM, said:

because the 2NT-bidder did not call the TD at the right time

I am not sure on this, but I think you cannot lose your rights for not calling director at the proper time, just some of your credibility (director will tend to think you only asked him afer you saw a bad result for your side).


To Codo: I think most of the posters disagreed with TD, -500 was not the correct score.

[Codo]

42, on Jun 22 2007, 07:15 PM, said:

Codo, I am with you (please reserve a dance for me in the Gewölbekeller!!! ).

But to leave the score 4♠ -2 is hard (I would like to, of course) because the 2NT-bidder did not call the TD at the right time, she lost her rights imo. The probability is near 100% that the ep pair would have changed the bid to 4♠ dbl after the clarification that 2NT was intended to show minors, weak.

The partner of the 2NT-bidder was convinced that she gave the correct explanation and that 2NT is -when not explicitely discussed and therefore not alerted- strong. Why should she be punished that she gave a "wrong" explanation? When a situation is not discussed or documentated there is no wrong or right, or? When all the world plays 2NT in this situation as minors + weak, why must the bid be alerted?

Not every bidding misunderstanding creates necessarily a zero

Hi Caren,

meeting you in the Gewölbe will be a highlight.. just 5 more weeks.

I don´t understand why the 2 NT bidder should call the TD.
We agree that she intended to bid 2 NT for the minors.
But she must not share her intentions with her opponents.
She must correct wrong explanations. But there had be none.
Yes the explanation 2 NT= strong did not fit to her hand but if you have no agreement, what will 2NT be? Stronger then 1 NT, so the explanation was not wrong in that sense at all.

But I will ask our golden boys about this.

[helene_t]

I think Roland (Codo) is right. The only offense was the claim by one of the op ladies to have an agreement which she probably had not, but the ep ladies should be aware that the B-line players are capable of that. How often do you hear a B-line player saying "No special agreement" in response to a query? And yet it is quite frequently the correct answer, certainly in the case of a non-regular partnership such as this one.

Even if the TD decides that it should be treated as an offense, it looks to me as if the ep ladies were fishing, in which case they get a split score plus a warning.

[Echognome]

Sorry guys, I just disagree with you. Read Law 75 and in particular the footnote, which reads:

Law 75, on Footnote 22, said:

Two examples may clarify responsibilities of the players (and the Director) after a misleading explanation has been given to the opponents. In both examples following, North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2♦, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West’s inquiry, that South’s bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits.

Example 1 — Mistaken Explanation
The actual partnership agreement is that 2♦ is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

Example 2 — Mistaken Bid
The partnership agreement is as explained — 2♦ is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South’s bid. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North’s explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.

In both examples, South, having heard North’s explanation, knows that his own 2♦ bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is “unauthorised information’’ (see Law 16A), so South must be careful not to base subsequent actions on this information (if he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score). For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South’s responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values.

Note: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." So, unless I'm missing something from the OP's description, we must rule Mistaken Explanation.

[cherdano]

So you would rule mistaken explanation and damage even if both of the experienced players knew that there was a misunderstanding?

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Jun 22 2007, 08:33 AM, said:

So you would rule mistaken explanation and damage even if both of the experienced players knew that there was a misunderstanding?

This is a loaded question. There is a clause about being aware enough to reasonably protect yourself. But, what I'm failing to understand from people is that they somehow think it's "unfair" that the op's get ruled against, just because they didn't like the behavior of the ep's.

What I'm trying to tell people to do is to treat the issues separately! If you think the ep's misbehaved, the either issue them a PP, give them a warning, or don't complain!

If the ep's well and truly knew what was going on, I would probably assign a split score under 12C2.

I can understand the sympathy for the op's, but is it really doing them a favor to not apply the law to them. You can say "in the future, if you have no agreement, you are best served to say that to the opponents, or call the TD." But, once they've committed an infraction, why are we pretending it didn't happen?

[Echognome]

Sorry, I forgot to answer part of your question.

I don't see how I can possibly assess damage without seeing the hands. That may change things entirely.

[Codo]

Echognome, on Jun 23 2007, 01:42 AM, said:

I can understand the sympathy for the op's, but is it really doing them a favor to not apply the law to them. You can say "in the future, if you have no agreement, you are best served to say that to the opponents, or call the TD." But, once they've committed an infraction, why are we pretending it didn't happen?

Because it was a wrong bid no wrong explanation. Yes as TD we should rule as much as possible wrong explanation, but there must be cases where you can rule
Mistaken bid. And this is one.

And if you rule: Mistaken bid TD should not correct the score.

I don´t know whether you do them a favour if you not apply to the laws, but we may discuss this point in another thread. I donßt ask you to do so. But I ask you to rule while looking through their eyes. And if you do this, there is simple a mistaken bid, nothing else.

I guess you still believe that the answer "strong" is worse then "no agreement". But I don´t see why.