[mr1303]

Scoring: MP

---

N/S are a pick-up partnership. They have agreed Acol but not much else.

North opens 2D. (EBU rules so all 2 level openings have to be alerted or announced).

South looks confused and after a searching look from East, explains that he isn't sure what 2D means

East passes. South bids 2S.

West passes, North nows bids 3S, followed by a pass from East and 3NT from South, which ends the auction.

On a small club lead, South makes 11 tricks for +660.

E/W call the director and ask for a ruling.

1) What extra information would you request as director?
2) If you can rule with the information given, please do so.

[hotShot]

First of all, why do E/W ask for a ruling?

The TD is called immediately after an irregularity is noticed.
Since E/W called after the board is finished, they did not notice an irregularity before.
The timing of a TD call is often a very important fact.
If E/W feel damaged, they have to explain how the damage was caused by opps.
If they can't point out how they where damaged, it is most likely that they were not damaged by opps at all.

It's the TD's job to check:
1) Did a MI occure.
2) Is the NOS damaged.
3) Is the damage caused by the MI.

If the NOS can't make a plausible claim how they were damaged, the TD won't start an investigation, because obviously 3) is not the case.

It's not the TD's job to find ways how E/W could be damaged.


Assuming f2f bridge without screens:

1) Did North alert South 2♠ bid?
2) Do many pairs play Acol in that environment.
3) Did e/W ask about the 2♠ bid?

What went wrong:
1) The 2♦ bid was not properly alerted.
2) The 2♦ bid was not properly explained.

Since South made his confusion quite clear and this is a pick-up partnership, I would see no reason to act up to here, but South confusion is UI to North.

3) The 2♠ bid was not alerted.
4) The TD was called at the end of the game. (The TD was not called when E/W discovered that South bid 2♠ with a void.)

I see no evidence that North used the UI that South is confused, however the missing alert of 2♠ might be MI and needs investigation.

1) What is the agreement on 2♦?
Acol with nothing extra has strong natural 2-level openings.
Acol with Benjamin has strong 2♣ and 2♦ bids and weak 2 in the majors.
Acol with Multi seems to be what is actually played.
What are the local Acol habits ?
2) What is the meaning of 2♠ and why was it not alerted?

Since N/S won't have a system description or CC to back their claim, the TD should assume MI, if the hands don't fit the bid.

What would East or West have done differently, having the right information?
Without that information no ruling in favor of E/W is possible.
So until I get that information I would have to let the result stand.

[Trinidad]

mr1303, on Jul 20 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

1) What extra information would you request as director?
2) If you can rule with the information given, please do so.

1) I would ask EW what they think the infraction is.

2) If I get the answer that I think I will get ('2♦ was not alerted' or 'How can they bid like this?') the result stands.

I will have to restrain myself to make sure that I am not congratulating South on taking 11 tricks in 3NT.

Rik

[jtfanclub]

A club is probably the best lead. How would proper alerting possibly have made a difference? Where is the damage here? Just because a bid wasn't alerted properly doesn't mean that there has to be an adjustment.

Result stands. Next board.

[LH2650]

First, the Director should have been called when South could not explain the 2 ♦ bid. HotShot blames EW, but everyone is equally at fault here. Second, I can't imagine that South is making a psychic response to a bid he claims he doesn't understand, so he thought there was some agreement (presumably pass or correct). North also apparently assumed that 2♠ was P/C, and therefore should have alerted it (Is it alertable in the EBU?). Also, was North's 3♠ bid systemically correct, or was it based on the UI from South's obvious confusion? Questioning them on these bids should be very revealing.

One final point: EW are not required to put together an argument as to how they were damaged. If the Director can see that they were (presumably collecting two spade tricks, and perhaps even setting the contract, if they had some idea that the 2♠ bid was conventional), he should adjust the score.

[jtfanclub]

LH2650, on Jul 20 2008, 10:55 PM, said:

First, the Director should have been called when South could not explain the 2 ♦ bid. HotShot blames EW, but everyone is equally at fault here. Second, I can't imagine that South is making a psychic response to a bid he claims he doesn't understand, so he thought there was some agreement (presumably pass or correct). North also apparently assumed that 2♠ was P/C, and therefore should have alerted it (Is it alertable in the EBU?). Also, was North's 3♠ bid systemically correct, or was it based on the UI from South's obvious confusion? Questioning them on these bids should be very revealing.

One final point: EW are not required to put together an argument as to how they were damaged. If the Director can see that they were (presumably collecting two spade tricks, and perhaps even setting the contract, if they had some idea that the 2♠ bid was conventional), he should adjust the score.

EW was supposed to think that NS knew they had a 6-4 spade fit but decided to play in 3NT anyways? I think when you see the dummy it's pretty obvious that South doesn't have spades.

North alerting South's bid is very dangerous here, because North's explanation of South's bid will tell South what North is playing. As it turned out, they were both playing Multi.

2♦= Weak 2 in either major (possibly other options too).
2♠= Wants to play in game if the weak 2 is hearts, in 2♠ if opener has spades.
3♠= Weak 2 in spades, but unusually strong weak 2.
3NT = to play.

At least, that's how I learned Multi. When EW see dummy, it should be fairly clear what's going on. Not setting up dummy's spades turns out to be the wrong choice, but there's nothing about this auction that tells them South has a spade void and 6 diamonds, so it's understandable. I can certainly rearrange South's hand so that the only way to make it is for the opponents to lead spades repeatedly, and it would still fit the auction.

"I don't know" is a perfectly legal answer, especially with a pickup partner or a sub. Everybody was equally in the dark. It's not like if EW calls the director that North has to tell them what his opening meant.

I am assuming that Multi is fairly common at this club, so it's not a big shock that when two players are guessing what the other one means, they would both guess Multi.

[mr1303]

A few answers to the additional questions:

1) If you ask South why he bid 2S, he will explain the following:

"We have no agreement on what 2 bids we are playing. It is unlikely that he has a strong or weak 2 in diamonds given that I have 6 of them, particularly so now East has passed. A Benjamin 2 bid is a possibility, but I have a fair hand myself. Given I have a spade void, it is likely that partner has a weak 2 in spades. Many good players in this club, including my regular partner play the multi here, and so it is likely that partner has assumed that is what we are doing tonight."

2) If you ask North why he raised, he will explain the following:

I am aware that we have no formal agreement on the matter. However, I have a very strong spade suit with good intermediates, plus a super-maximum for my bidding. I believe that my initial decision to open a weak 2 was incorrect, so I am trying to catch up.
I did not alert 2S as I did not want my partner to "wake-up" as a result of the explanation (he is a director himself).

3) Virtually everyone plays Acol in the club. Around 40% of players play some variant of the multi (usually the stronger players).

4) The play proceeded as follows:

Club lead to the Q and A.
Small diamond to the king, then diamond ducked into West hand.
Club lead to the 10
Head to the Q and A
Club lead to the king
Cash winners. Hearts broke 3-3

West thought East might have the king of clubs. East had Kxx of spades and did not want to switch.

[Rossoneri]

I would agree that NS have no agreement to the 2D bid, hence there was no MI. I also do not see how there is any UI involved as well.

I also fail to see how any of this damaged EW. Nothing illegal with NS managing to land on their feet into a 3NT contract.

[hotShot]

mr1303, on Jul 21 2008, 09:03 AM, said:

2) If you ask North why he raised, he will explain the following:

I am aware that we have no formal agreement on the matter. However, I have a very strong spade suit with good intermediates, plus a super-maximum for my bidding. I believe that my initial decision to open a weak 2 was incorrect, so I am trying to catch up.
I did not alert 2S as I did not want my partner to "wake-up" as a result of the explanation (he is a director himself).

I find North argument highly problematic.

He should alert the 2♠ bid.
The information that South did not understand North 2♦ bid is UI to North.
South 2♠ response gives no indication that South did not get the meaning of North bid.
There is no legal way for him to know that South needs a "wake-up".
In this statement North admits that he used the UI, he should refresh his TD license.
(He deserves a procedural penalty for that!)


But the question remains, what would have happened, if the irregularity did not occur.

Would E/W have bid, knowing the right explanations, I don't think so. Up to now there is no indication that East or West have the strength or shape to act.

(If they had claimed that dbl over an artificial 2/3♠ would have been lead directing, I could ignore the question, if that is a likely agreement. I could adjust and leave it to the AC to be smarter.)

Would they lead/play differently knowing that there is a small chance that South might not have ♠.
Opps hold ♠ Axxx opposite Kxx both holdings are not very attractive to lead, if at least one opponent bid ♠.

So I still don't see that a different outcome is likely if the explanations where correct.
(Especially if the explanations is "No agreement" or "Undiscussed".)

[LH2650]

jtfanclub, on Jul 20 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

North alerting South's bid is very dangerous here, because North's explanation of South's bid will tell South what North is playing.  As it turned out, they were both playing Multi.

It may be dangerous, but it is also required.

jtfanclub, on Jul 20 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

It's not like if EW calls the director that North has to tell them what his opening meant.

This is not so clear. If called when South stated that he was unsure of the meaning of 2♦, a good director will send South away from the table, and ask North if he believes that they have an agreement. If he says yes, then he will be told to explain that agreement. Of course, he could believe that they have none, but he may remember some discussion that South does not.

It is quite possible that West, knowing that South could be void of spades, and seeing that he is not attacking spades (which would seem to be an obvious play if he had the missing honor), would shift to a spade, get a club back, and beat the contract when EW get in with the ♥ Ace.

[jtfanclub]

LH2650, on Jul 21 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

It is quite possible that West, knowing that South could be void of spades, and seeing that he is not attacking spades (which would seem to be an obvious play if he had the missing honor),

Yes, emphasis on obvious.

I mean, there's the auction, where South pulled spades to NT. There's the play, which as you point out doesn't look like South has a spade honor. And there's the fact that lots of people play multi at the club, so they have to know that one possibility is that 2♠ denies spades.

I'm sorry, but knowing that North would have said "Well, if he agrees with me that we're playing multi, 2♠ would have had the standard meaning in multi" would have changed what, exactly?

It should be obvious that South doesn't have anything in spades, from both the auction and the play, and it shouldn't require an alert from North to figure it out. Although that still doesn't mean that a spade switch is right.

[hotShot]

jtfanclub, on Jul 21 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

North alerting South's bid is very dangerous here, because North's explanation of South's bid will tell South what North is playing. As it turned out, they were both playing Multi.

To understand the correct behavior of North it is helpful to imagine that there were screens.

North would have alerted his 2♦ bid, and when the tray comes back from the other side he would alert partners 2♠ bid.

With screens North cannot know, if his partner alerted both bids to his screenmate.
North is not allowed to know or use that South did not get the full meaning of his bid.

You are right that North alert of his 2♠ bid is UI to South, but the TD can easily deal with that.

[helene_t]

I don't see the problem. Result stands, I suppose.