[mycroft]

I must admit, I don't recognize this game.

- North: We have 21-25 high, a 10- or 11-card club suit, LHO has bid 2NT with the rest of the points, and I *pass* 2NT?
- East: Partner overcalls 2C with 2NT natural, I have 14 - to two club honours, so South has Kxxxxx at best - and I'm not even looking for slam? Especially as it seems I can right-side the contract - by the way, do they play Texas transfers over natural NT overcalls? If so, do they have the "4H - you play spades, 4S - I play spades" agreement? Because if they don't, I'm Not Happy with the explanation...
- At MPs, South has got to believe that they've managed to right-side the contract (may be different in Rightpondia, but here, the "normal" auction, given the explanations, would be (1C)-1NT-transfer, spades-game (if necessary)). So, maybe South has to be aggressive to make up for the fact that North is leading most of the time, but it also does look like most leads North makes are going to be bad, too. I don't know what I think of D8 - it's *risky*, but not unreasonable. The problem is that it's either going to work or not work.

However, on a "I have no idea what is going on" explanation, the spade lead (as pretty much the only "safe" lead) is much more likely; on a spade lead, North will split honours, and 4S will go down. Here, we'd give it to them (or maybe we'd give it to E/W, and let 4S make for N/S); in England, I see something like 60 -1 -40 = weighted score.

But I still don't recognize this game.

[bluejak]

Even in North America, some players play strong club systems and open natural 2♣ bids. It is not impossible that opponents will not know what they are doing over a 2♣ opening. So the game seems possible over there!

There are some posts which assume the TD did not know what he is doing. I can see no reason for this, and I do not think it very interesting whether the ruling would be different if the facts were different - of course it would, just as if we changed the hand, the form of scoring and everything else.

The question here might be best put as: Do you agree with the ruling, based on the hand, and the facts that the defence had no agreement about the meaning of 2NT. Despite some unnecessary [in my view] scepticism, it is quite common for people not to know what they are doing over non-standard openings [even more common in the ACBL, I would have thought ] but sadly one of the most common mistakes over the application of Laws is for people to answer a question as to their agreements with an answer that indicates they have an agreement ["I am taking it as ..."] even when they do not. TDs just have to deal with it.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jan 11 2010, 07:07 PM, said:

The question here might be best put as: Do you agree with the ruling, based on the hand, and the facts that the defence had no agreement about the meaning of 2NT.

No, I do not agree with the ruling.

If South had been given the correct explanation of "no agreement", South would almost certainly assume that West had a natural 2NT overcall, on the basis that virtually everyone plays that way.

Therefore, I believe that this particular South would have made the same lead as he did at the table. The table result should stand.

[mycroft]

Note, David, that the only person I wasn't boggling over was West - who made what I think is the wrong decision for the meaning of 2NT, but not anything that doesn't make sense.

I know people don't know what to do over a Precision 2C - I play it after all. What is getting me is that the Precision players *also* have no idea how to bid over a Precision 2C, and that East is willing to say one thing, and then bid as if he didn't believe it.

I understand that poor (er than me, I guess) players are like that - they bid what they can see and don't think - but here, it was pretty spectacular.

That's all I meant by "I don't recognize this game".