[jallerton]

Scoring: IMP

P-P-1♣-2♦-
P-3♦-P-3♥-
P-4♥-P-P-
P

---

Final contract: 4♥+1 by N, N/S +450

E/W play 5-card majors, 1♦=4+,

1♣ was alerted. North asked about 1♣ and was told that it was natural or balanced 12-14/18-20 without 4♦, so can be a doubleton if 4432 in that order.

N/S normally play Michaels Cue Bids, but after 1♣ with minimum length 2 they switch to playing a 2♣ overcall as natural and a 2♦ overcall as both majors (a note on their convention card confirms this).

South forgot the agreement over Short Clubs and hence did not alert 2♦. Over a natural 1♣ opener a 2♦ overcall would show a weak jump overcall in diamonds. A 2♦ opening bid by South would have been a form of Multi.

East claims that with correct explanation she would have bid 2NT showing both minors [E/W have agreed to play both 1♣-(2♣*)-2NT and 1♦-(2♦*-2NT as both minors; they have not discussed 1♣-(2♦)*-2NT but both East and West think it should logically apply here too]. East is also concerned that North is in possession of UI.

All four players have several national titles to their names.

How do you rule?

[Siegmund]

Jumping in where angels fear to tread...

There has been MI, and we have to see what would have happened had EW been in possession of a correct explanation .... but it looks to me like 5 of either minor is going for 500, so EW did not suffer any damage from not discovering their fit. So no adjustment. (PP is possible if NS habitually 'forget' things.)

[campboy]

It would be much harder for N/S to get to 4♥ if E/W are correctly informed, since that would allow them to compete to 4♣; I imagine a poll would establish that it is an LA for North to pass 4♣ even if there is no LA to 3♥ with opponents silent.

[bluejak]

Siegmund, on Jun 15 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

Jumping in where angels fear to tread...

There has been MI, and we have to see what would have happened had EW been in possession of a correct explanation .... but it looks to me like 5 of either minor is going for 500, so EW did not suffer any damage from not discovering their fit. So no adjustment. (PP is possible if NS habitually 'forget' things.)

'might' not 'would', I think. Many people assume TDs try to work out the likely auction to adjust [or decide whether there is damage] but in practice, TDs work out the range of possible auctions. Having done so, they decide whether there is damage, and decide an adjustment by applying likelihoods to the various possibilities and put them in order. Having done so, they adjust according to weightings based on the possibilities and the order [Law 12C1C] or by picking the possibility most favourable to the non-offenders that fits the standards best [Law 12C1E].

[CSGibson]

Have N-S discussed what 3♦ would be as a follow-up to their bid in this auction? That influences strongly my thoughts on possible misinformation in this auction (i.e., is North correcting because partner forgot he didn't have diamonds, or because systematically, South has either asked a question or shown some sort of hand type where he would naturally continue 3 hearts with the correct information).

Either way, I find East's argument to be persuasive, and I would adjust to some percentage of 5♣ down 1 (what the heck is an earlier poster thinking that this goes for 500? Losing 1 spade & 2 diamonds, nothing else).

[mich-b]

(Disclaimer : The following is not how this should be dealt with now. It is how I wish the rules would be dealing with this.)

Since NS (a pair with several national titles) have failed to remember (and explain)
a conventional bid on the 1st round of the bidding, and by doing so made the board almost unplayable (other than guessing what E or W or South would have done , if South had explained correctly) rule "Convention Disruption" against NS , assign them -3 IMPs (or whatever) , and hope that next time they will be more responsible as to remember their basic agreements and not spoil the game for their opps.

Don't you think this is fair, simple, transparent and constructive?

[dburn]

campboy, on Jun 15 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

It would be much harder for N/S to get to 4♥ if E/W are correctly informed, since that would allow them to compete to 4♣; I imagine a poll would establish that it is an LA for North to pass 4♣ even if there is no LA to 3♥ with opponents silent.

This is not altogether clear. If over what South thought was a natural 2♦ East bid 2NT, alerted and explained by West as minors, would South now be permitted to remember his agreement?

If so, North-South would have no difficulty in reaching 4♥ - one would then have to consider the chance that the vulnerable East-West would save over it, and the chance that North-South would continue to 5♥ anyway. But the procedure for doing that is well understood - my first question, though, is not.

[Bbradley62]

mich-b, on Jun 16 2010, 02:47 AM, said:

Don't you think this is fair, simple, transparent and constructive?

It is not only fair, simple, transparent and constructive, but it is exactly the correct answer under the Laws 12C2a and 12C2b "when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained". In this case, it's probably a perfectly reasonable ruling by the director, but could easily be subject to an appeal.

The conditions of this question did specify that the hand was played in England, but I'm intrigued that ACBL's rules specify that directors do not do the weighting procedure that Bluejak correctly described, but rather go directly to awarding the non-offenders the best likely result.

[mgoetze]

In reality, when E bids 2NT to show both minors, S will immediately remember that 2♦ showed both majors and bid 4♥.

[dburn]

mgoetze, on Jun 16 2010, 04:01 AM, said:

In reality, when E bids 2NT to show both minors, S will immediately remember that 2♦ showed both majors and bid 4♥.

Depends on the reality. This would actually be quite a tough problem with screens in the usual alignment (North-East and South-West as screen-mates).

[campboy]

Bbradley62, on Jun 16 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

mich-b, on Jun 16 2010, 02:47 AM, said:

Don't you think this is fair, simple, transparent and constructive?

It is not only fair, simple, transparent and constructive, but it is exactly the correct answer under the Laws 12C2a and 12C2b "when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained". In this case, it's probably a perfectly reasonable ruling by the director, but could easily be subject to an appeal.

A result not only can be obtained, but has been obtained, so it is not correct.

[VixTD]

dburn, on Jun 16 2010, 04:08 AM, said:

mgoetze, on Jun 16 2010, 04:01 AM, said:

In reality, when E bids 2NT to show both minors, S will immediately remember that 2♦ showed both majors and bid 4♥.

Depends on the reality. This would actually be quite a tough problem with screens in the usual alignment (North-East and South-West as screen-mates).

One way of looking at it is to construct imaginary screens. Another would be to imagine South is playing online and asks the computer for an explanation of what 2NT would mean in EW's methods if 2♦ were natural. Presumably it is on the basis of this explanation that South would choose their subsequent action.

[FrancesHinden]

CSGibson, on Jun 16 2010, 07:29 AM, said:

Have N-S discussed what 3♦ would be as a follow-up to their bid in this auction?

By a non-passed hand, 3D would be natural and constructive.
They haven't discussed the meaning by a passed hand.

[FrancesHinden]

dburn, on Jun 16 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

campboy, on Jun 15 2010, 05:31 PM, said:

It would be much harder for N/S to get to 4♥ if E/W are correctly informed, since that would allow them to compete to 4♣; I imagine a poll would establish that it is an LA for North to pass 4♣ even if there is no LA to 3♥ with opponents silent.

This is not altogether clear. If over what South thought was a natural 2♦ East bid 2NT, alerted and explained by West as minors, would South now be permitted to remember his agreement?

I think one should rule on the basis that South receives full disclosure of the EW agreements i.e. that his knowledge of the meaning of the 2NT bid is

"If 2D is natural, 2NT is natural
If 2D shows a 2-suiter excluding clubs, 2NT shows clubs plus the fourth suit not particularly strong
If 2D shows a weak jump overcall in a major, 2NT shows clubs
If....."

[Siegmund]

Quote

(what the heck is an earlier poster thinking that this goes for 500? Losing 1 spade & 2 diamonds, nothing else).

Yeah, I looked to see that N would be able to trump the 3rd diamond without looking to see if he had any trumps. Oops. Living in 12C1E land, I would be OK with assigning 200, judging NS competing to 5H isn't inevitable.

I do not buy the argument that NS will have trouble finding a heart raise if EW are correctly informed, though.