[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

             2♣
2NT P 4♠ P
 P   P

Result:
4♠/E +1
NS -450
Lead: ♦8

---

2♣ was announced as "Intermediate", ie natural with opening values. They were playing Precision.

2NT was intended as unusual, showing the lowest unbid suits, but was not alerted. N/S asked, and East told them it was 15-18, balanced, with a club stop.

The TD enquired: they could not remember ever running into a Precision 2♣ opening before, and they really had no agreement whatever.

South said he led the ♦8 because he expected all the points to be on his left, and would have led a safer lead if he had known the position. After the lead ran round to the jack and queen, declarer ruffed a club and played a spade to the ten when North did not split, only losing two hearts.

[pran]

If i may cast my vote:

Misinformation is established and South's argument must be accepted ("Doubtful points shall be resolved in favour of NOS").

On any lead other than a Diamond East should really go down with two tricks in hearts and one trick each in spades and diamonds to the defence.

However, the fact that North did not split his spades makes me believe that he would have done the same error with a luckier lead from South, so my vote is for adjusting to 4♠ just made.

(The only question which can make me reconsider is what North would have done on a not unlikely spade lead from South!)

[wank]

from north's viewpoint on the 8 of D lead it looks silly to split. from his viewpoint, south doesn't have K of D or AK of C (he'd have led one), so must have a spade honour whcih could easily be singleton. one mustn't have BBO double-dummy commentator syndrome when assessing the defence.

on a non-diamond lead he can reasonably place 1 or 2 diamond honours in his partner's hand and perforce split. of course, this is not to say, that this is what north would do, but i would for sure be asking north why she didn't split as it was, and with a suitable argument, she should be given some benefit of the doubt.

[jeremy69]

The TD should be enquiring as to why West did not correct before the lead was faced. Any damage in the play would then likely go away.
Lots of strange things about this hand. North does nt think her hand worth 3C or more opposite an internediate opening with 5 or 6 clubs and East thinks he is worth only 4S opposite a potential 18 count. It's not bridge as we know it, Jim!

[TylerE]

I'd not sure a correction is really warranted...it sounds to me like E/W have no agreement on this auction.

[RMB1]

TylerE, on Jan 3 2010, 05:20 PM, said:

I'd not sure a correction is really warranted...it sounds to me like E/W have no agreement on this auction.

But East has explained an agreement that does not exist. West should correct the explanation to "no agreement".
West should call the TD first to avoid feeling forced to reveal an agreement that does not exist.

Robin

[blackshoe]

West should call the TD first because that's what the law requires him to do.

[bluejak]

In practice, "nobody" corrects partner when he says there is an agreement and the player thinks there is no agreement.

[Ok, Frances, keep your hair on, you and I do, and some others.]

We know they should but even people who will correct when they know partner has the agreement wrong will not. Partly because they are often unsure.

[Poky]

bluejak, on Jan 3 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

South said he led the ♦8 because he expected all the points to be on his left, and would have led a safer lead if he had known the position. After the lead ran round to the jack and queen, declarer ruffed a club and played a spade to the ten when North did not split, only losing two hearts.

East didn't have an agreement for 2NT being a two-suiter, so, he misbid.
West didn't alert, since he believed 2NT w/o an agreement should be natural 15-18.
So, no MI, no adjust. End of story.

Nonetheless, what does South mean with the "all the points are left" statement as a justification for his silly lead?!? Is he playing partner to have exactly 0 HCP without the chance of having as little as Jxx? How the hell could then the small diamond lead be good! Come on...

[pran]

Poky, on Jan 4 2010, 12:34 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 3 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

South said he led the ♦8 because he expected all the points to be on his left, and would have led a safer lead if he had known the position.  After the lead ran round to the jack and queen, declarer ruffed a club and played a spade to the ten when North did not split, only losing two hearts.

.............
Nonetheless, what does South mean with the "all the points are left" statement as a justification for his silly lead?!? Is he playing partner to have exactly 0 HCP without the chance of having as little as Jxx? How the hell could then the small diamond lead be good! Come on...

For instance by forcing declarer to make a choice in trick one with AQ of Diamonds in Dummy?

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Jan 4 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

In practice, "nobody" corrects partner when he says there is an agreement and the player thinks there is no agreement.

[Ok, Frances, keep your hair on, you and I do, and some others.]

We know they should but even people who will correct when they know partner has the agreement wrong will not. Partly because they are often unsure.

Keeping my hair firmly attached, I think that most people would correct if there was no agreement and partner's explanation was inconsistent with what they intended the bid to mean. Why wouldn't you? The rules require it, it protects the opponents from misinformation, and by saying nothing you're risking an adverse ruling.

If there's no agreement but partner's explanation is also what I intended my bid to mean, I'd usually say nothing, because no good would be served by saying anything, and the correction might lead the opponents to think I have something different. Anyway, if we both assumed it meant the same thing, it might be argued that we have an implicit agreement about it anyway.

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Jan 4 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

In practice, "nobody" corrects partner when he says there is an agreement and the player thinks there is no agreement.

If the explanation given happened to match West's hand, there is a case for not correcting the explanation: after all opps may take "correction: we have no agreement" as suggesting that West had something else.

In this case I think it's a gross infraction not to correct the explanation.

[jeremy69]

At the point when West bid 2NT he believed, IMO. that his agreement in this partnership was that 2NT was unusual. East could bid 4S natural whether it was natural or unusual. The only way he knows that he and his partner are not on the same wavelength is because of the failure to alert. In my view that gives him a duty to "correct" before the opening lead is made. It is also something that, again IMO, an ethical player should do rather than try to hide behind the "we had no agreement" shield.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Jan 4 2010, 11:48 AM, said:

Keeping my hair firmly attached, I think that most people would correct if there was no agreement and partner's explanation was inconsistent with what they intended the bid to mean.  Why wouldn't you?  The rules require it, it protects the opponents from misinformation, and by saying nothing you're risking an adverse ruling.

I am sure you are wrong. While you argue most persuasively that they should, they do not. I play enough and have enough opponents doing something wrong to be quite sure of this.

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on Jan 4 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

At the point when West bid 2NT he believed, IMO. that his agreement in this partnership was that 2NT was unusual. East could bid 4S natural whether it was natural or unusual. The only way he knows that he and his partner are not on the same wavelength is because of the failure to alert. In my view that gives him a duty to "correct" before the opening lead is made. It is also something that, again IMO, an ethical player should do rather than try to hide behind the "we had no agreement" shield.

Are you sure? Whilst partner's explanations and alerts are unauthorised for the purposes of the calls and plays you make, this information is authorised for the purposes of determining the correct partnership agreement to explain to the opponents.

Although West clearly intended 2NT to show the red suits originally, if following partner's lack of alert, he remembers that the actual agreement is natural, he is obliged NOT to comment on the lack of alert; if partner now bids, for example, 3♥, he should alert it and explain "transfer to spades", even though for the purposes of his own bidding he will assume that 3♥ was natural preference.

If the correct agreement is "no agreement" then presumably he does not need to "correct" the lack of alert, although as Robin says, any "15-18 balanced" explanation should be corrected to "no agreement".

[bluejak]

The TD decided that N/S had been misinformed, and the correct answer was "no agreement". He explained to declarer that he should not make up agreements ["I am taking it as ..."] and to dummy about correcting wrong explanations before the lead.

He then adjusted. I was intrigued by

Quote

...  South's argument must be accepted ...

which seems an unusual approach. Suppose South had said something outrageous?

More normal is to decide what the player might do in the absence of the MI. Remember the correct description is "no agreement" and on the auction South might conclude even without agreement that it sounded like a strong balanced hand on his left, so he might lead the same card.

But of course, he might go for a more normal lead. And North might split his honours on a different defence - certainly on a spade lead, for example.

The best result for N/S is probably on a club lead, North splits his spade honours and the defence always plays clubs, declarer will come down to the diamond guess. He will quite likely get it right, but not certainly. So he could go two off.

I cannot remember what weighting the TD gave, nor whether it included two off. I think it was a mixture of 11, 10 and 9 tricks, probably something like 30%, 30%, 40%.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 03:10 PM, said:

I was intrigued by

Quote

...  South's argument must be accepted ...

which seems an unusual approach. Suppose South had said something outrageous?

My statement referred to the specific argument South made in this specific situation.

It never occurred to me that anybody could take my statement as a "Carte Blanche" for South to present whatever argument he could make up and have it accepted?

[jeremy69]

Quote

Although West clearly intended 2NT to show the red suits originally, if following partner's lack of alert, he remembers that the actual agreement is natural.......

Why should we assume that when partner does not alert 2NT the subsequent recollection of it being strong and balanced is correct? Assuming there is nothing on the card(and there is unlikely to be in this case) then I think the presumption should be for MI rather than misbid.
If this happened to me I repeat my earlier comment that were I declarer or dummy then I would let my opponent know that I believed our agreement was that 2NT was unusual at the point I bid it. It maybe partner is right, it maybe we have never discussed it and only general principles apply but to say nothing is hiding behind old womens skirts! In any event it mitigates any damage during the play.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Jan 2 2010, 07:17 PM, said:

South said he led the ♦8 because he expected all the points to be on his left, and would have led a safer lead if he had known the position.

With a "no agreement" explanation, South would not have known the position. What would South have assumed? While I can accept a weighted score, I would rule damage not related to infraction.

[peachy]

If East believes partner has 15-18, which IMO would be the "normal holding" absent any agreements, he would be investigating slam. Apparently East had doubts about the meaning, and I am basing this assumption on the fact that he did not investigate slam. We/I have no way of finding out (absent any confirmation of this by East) where these doubts - *if* the doubts existed - might have originated (perhaps a prior auction where something weird in similar lines happened; perhaps, holding AJ of clubs and partner also having promised a club stop in an auction where _opponent_ promises six good clubs).
These speculations aside, if there was no agreement, the explanation was MI. If opponents were damaged by the MI, adjust. I think the lead was affected by the MI and I would adjust to making four after a more normal lead. One of the declaring side players should have corrected the explanation to be "no agreement" before the opening lead was made.