Misinformation

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=st53h983d72caq963&w=s7ht75dakjt63cj52&n=sak2hkj62dq4ckt74&e=sqj9864haq4d985c8&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n2s2np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

2NT was intended as Lebensohl, and was marked as such on the card. North forgot and assumed it was natural, and as a result bid 3NT.

 

Opening lead was a low spade. NS made 8 tricks, -100.

 

EW claim they were damaged, and say that West would bid 3D after 2NT.

 

How do you rule?

[billw55]

If 2NT was alertable, then they have a valid point. Might as well go ahead, give them an adjustment from +100 to +110. Yippee.

[mycroft]

I think they want +400, though :-) I'm not sure that N/S is going to get to 3NT after 3♦, but it is possible.

[gordontd]

If 2NT was alertable, then they have a valid point. Might as well go ahead, give them an adjustment from +100 to +110. Yippee.

Maybe it's pairs.

[HighLow21]

I'm not clear on the rules... but if partner forgets the meaning of my bid, and as a result ends up in the wrong contract and goes down, how exactly is the opposition damaged? I'm not clear on the ruling when partner forgets the meaning of a conventional bid. I do agree that E/W can do better than +100.

 

Also, I think E/W can make 11 tricks in diamonds, double-dummy, not merely 9. A heart lead can jeopardize that but is unlikely. The real loss is the value of bidding and making the 11-trick vulnerable game, not simply +110 vs. +100.

[dicklont]

I think they want +400, though :-) I'm not sure that N/S is going to get to 3NT after 3♦, but it is possible.

They either alert and bid 3♣ or forget and bid 3NT. EW can't get both, can they?

[blackshoe]

It's not the fact that he forgot the meaning, really. It's that he failed to properly disclose the agreement he forgot. 2NT requires an alert, the opponents didn't get one. They contend that West would have bid 3♦ over 2NT had it been alerted. 3♦ does better than the +100 they got for defeating 3NT one trick. So they were damaged.

[HighLow21]

That seems reasonable. This is a ruling issue much more than an analytic issue. To me, if the ruling is that they were damaged, they should get +600 for 5♦=.

[gordontd]

They either alert and bid 3♣ or forget and bid 3NT. EW can't get both, can they?

Yes they can.

 

They have the benefit of knowing their opponents' agreements, and the benefit of them having forgotten those agreements.

 

Of course, in this case if West bids 3D, North won't be bidding 3C.

[ArtK78]

All I can say is, are you kidding me? Why would West bid 3♦ into a live auction when he has no fit for his partner's spade suit? Now, if 2NT were alerted as Lebensohl, why wouldn't West wait to see if the auction goes 3♣ - Pass - Pass back to him before bidding 3♦? Even then, bidding 3♦ is dangerous.

[c_corgi]

All I can say is, are you kidding me? Why would West bid 3♦ into a live auction when he has no fit for his partner's spade suit? Now, if 2NT were alerted as Lebensohl, why wouldn't West wait to see if the auction goes 3♣ - Pass - Pass back to him before bidding 3♦? Even then, bidding 3♦ is dangerous.

 

I wondered about this, but with such good diamonds I'm not sure it is so unreasonable. But I am curious as to how such possible actions are judged and what scores might be awarded depending on how plausible they are deemed.

[MickyB]

All I can say is, are you kidding me? Why would West bid 3♦ into a live auction when he has no fit for his partner's spade suit? Now, if 2NT were alerted as Lebensohl, why wouldn't West wait to see if the auction goes 3♣ - Pass - Pass back to him before bidding 3♦? Even then, bidding 3♦ is dangerous.

 

Bidding 3♦ on the first round is safer and more productive than letting RHO show his suit and then backing in.

[mgoetze]

Mayhaps a Poll of West's peers, to determine whether 3♦ is plausible given the correct explanation, would be in order. If it is deemed plausible, then -150 sounds fair to me.... certainly not -600.

[phil_20686]

I dont think 3d is reasonable. Bidding here with a stiff in partners suit and a strong nt on your left is asking for trouble.

[mycroft]

They either alert and bid 3♣ or forget and bid 3NT. EW can't get both, can they?

As Gordon said, E-W is entitled to know their *agreements*; and North is not entitled to remember. So, when ruling, we work as if South had (self-)Alerted 2NT and said it was Lebensohl, but North (who didn't hear any of this) bids as if it's natural and invitational.

 

So the question is, given [hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n2s2n(North%20thinks%20it%27s%20invitational)3d]133|100[/hv] whether North would bid 3NT. I'm not sure they would.

 

I can't see them bidding 5♦, but I can see them making it; 4 at least. +130 is going to be a good score; +150 probably better.

 

So, since this is a weighted score jurisdiction, say

20% 3NT N-1 NS -100 (am I allowed to give some part of the table ruling here, because I'm not sure that West would bid?)

30% 3♦ W+4 NS -130

30% 3♦ W+5 NS -150

20% 3NT N-4 NS -400?

 

As someone not used to weighted scores, this is a massive shot in the dark, and corrections/suggestions are very welcome.

[campboy]

(am I allowed to give some part of the table ruling here, because I'm not sure that West would bid?)

Yes.

[bluejak]

I'm not clear on the rules... but if partner forgets the meaning of my bid, and as a result ends up in the wrong contract and goes down, how exactly is the opposition damaged? I'm not clear on the ruling when partner forgets the meaning of a conventional bid. I do agree that E/W can do better than +100.

 

Also, I think E/W can make 11 tricks in diamonds, double-dummy, not merely 9. A heart lead can jeopardize that but is unlikely. The real loss is the value of bidding and making the 11-trick vulnerable game, not simply +110 vs. +100.

If there is MI then any adjustment is based on the possibility of the opponents' calls being different.

 

That seems reasonable. This is a ruling issue much more than an analytic issue. To me, if the ruling is that they were damaged, they should get +600 for 5♦=.

The norm for adjustments is a weighted score. Your ruling is only right if you are sure or very nearly that without the MI, all reasonable bidding sequences reach 5♦ and declarer is always or nearly always likely to make 11 tricks.

 

I really do not believe that this is anything like the case.

 

:ph34r:

 

Incidentally, if my partner bids a major in which I have a singleton, I feel more likely to want to bid an AKJTxx suit if the opponents seem on their way to 3NT than if they seem on their way to a part score, where I shall have a second chance anyway. So I think 3♦ is more likely not less over a natural 2NT so I see no damage.

[blackshoe]

The norm for adjustments is a weighted score. Your ruling is only right if you are sure or very nearly that without the MI, all reasonable bidding sequences reach 5♦ and declarer is always or nearly always likely to make 11 tricks.

 

The norm in most of the world for adjustments is a weighted score. The OP is from England, where this norm would apply, but HighLow21 appears to be in the US, where it would not.