A problem with suggested defense...

[awm]

Here's a weird one that came up last week at a regional tournament.

 

2♦!(1) - X!(2) - XX!(3) - 3♥(4)

Pass - 3NT - All Pass

 

(1) Alerted as multi, showing a weak two in either major

 

In ACBL events, multi requires an official suggested defense. The opening side had the required two copies of the defenses, and their opponents had agreed to play defense two.

 

(2) 13-15 balanced or semi-balanced, or any 19+ according to ACBL defense two

 

(3) Alerted and explained as "please bid your major."

 

(4) ACBL defense two specifies that in this auction over a redouble meaning "I have a good diamond suit" bidding 3♥ is an invitational or better transfer to spades. This is how the 3♥ bid was intended when made at the table. However, ACBL defense two does not say anything about the meaning of follow-up bids in this auction where redouble is "bid your major." The 3♥ bidder's partner thus assumed that 3♥ was natural and showed a good hand. Holding ♥Ax and ♠AJT he chose to bid 3NT over this.

 

Assuming that a better contract could/should have been reached if the 3♥ bid was understood to show spades, should there be any ruling here?

[bluejak]

I sat on an ACBL appeal at an NABC many years ago in a similar case: we wanted to give both sides a good score and charge the ACBL the difference!

 

Unless the ACBL creates a regulation as to what to do if the defences are inadequate it is not clear what can be done. I think they should produce such a regulation.

[greenender]

I can't see any basis for a normal score adjustment, because the side opening the Multi have done all that the regulations required.

 

I suppose that if, as the Multi side, I had noticed when providing the opponents with the defence that there was a gap, I would probably have pointed it out and given them the opportunity to agree something, but that is a matter of "personal ethics".

 

I wonder, however, whether the combination of the regulation and the fact that the agreed meaning of redouble doesn't feature in the suggested defence, has made normal play of the board impossible. We could then give both sides the good score bluejak would like to see. But this is only really appropriate if the TD is called during the auction if the dilemma is noticed. Otherwise a bridge result has been obtained, and if the opening side has got a good score, they should be entitled to keep it.