NT really meant NT partner

[Gerben42]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj963h4dqj9764cj&w=sak8hkj93daktcq75&n=st74hat7652d82ck4&e=s52hq8d53cat98632&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2d(Multi)p2h(Relay)2np3cp3nppp&p=s7s2sjskcqckca]399|300[/hv]

 

Regional tournament. NS are experienced players, EW are club players.

 

2NT was alerted by East, and when asked he said that he doesn't really know but it might be both minors. With 3♣ he picked one (was not alerted). After 3NT by partner, he decided that it wasn't minors after all and passed.

 

A ♥ was led and the director was called when dummy was tabled.

 

In the continuing play, declarer miraculously led the ♣Q from hand, King, Ace, Jack. Making 12. Now NS are VERY unhappy.

 

When asked why West didn't respond 3♥ over 3♣, she said that she didn't want to bid ♥ which opponents had bid. I asked (as TD) if 2♥ was alerted, she said yes but she doesn't understand all this Multi stuff and treated it as natural.

 

How do you decide?

[StevenG]

I don't think you can decide anything until you ascertain whether 3♣ would be Stayman in an analogous sequence.

[iviehoff]

When asked why West didn't respond 3♥ over 3♣, she said that she didn't want to bid ♥ which opponents had bid. I asked (as TD) if 2♥ was alerted, she said yes but she doesn't understand all this Multi stuff and treated it as natural.

3N is unauthorised panic.

 

As it's often difficult to know what you would think without the UI in curious situations, because it is hard to take the UI away, it seems appropriate to weight an average from the possibilities of what she might think.

 

So, if she didn't want to show her hearts and would, without the UI, have thought that 3C was

(1) Staymanic: she could have bid 3D. Whilst E will be confused, I think pass is a large possibility here, otherwise a return to 4C. There is some small possibility S might foolishly double 3D and they won't stand it, possibly even getting into 3N by a legal route.

(2) natural: passed or raised. She might even have raised to 5, as a weak players can get overexcited with 20 counts.

 

So I think I'd weight quite a large chunk of 3D (which probably only goes 1 off), a fair chunk of 3/4C, and a small amount of 5C and a very small amount of 3N (by a different route).

[McBruce]

3N is unauthorised panic.

 

UI doesn't prevent one from using AI and playing bridge, nor does it allow us to assume that anything that works must be UI-based.

 

Why can't West think: LHO has a six card major and I have a 20 count. Even allowing that Stayman, if that's what it is, will keep us out of the suit that may break 6-0, do we even want to be in the other suit, with potential ruffs lurking? Partner's 3 club call, whatever it may mean absent the alert and explanation, has to show something, that something likely to be some decent stuff in clubs (because I have the decent stuff in everything else) and this is probably the last chance we're getting to bid 3NT. Partner can correct to clubs if that seems appropriate.

 

Why does North need to know what 2NT is before passing with his minimum? What possible answer will convince him to try a vulnerable three-level call on his junk? Apparently "both minors" without any indication of strength didn't do it. I wonder what will.

 

"In the continuing play, declarer miraculously led the ♣Q from hand, King, Ace, Jack. Making 12. Now NS are VERY unhappy."

 

Maybe, but in the same manner as a football star trying to induce a penalty. 20 opposite 6, all suits well-stopped, don't you think most pairs will be in 3NT and make 12 tricks with the KC onside? But look at what happens now: the TD asks West some questions as N-S glare with arms folded...and we expect a pair who has no agreement about what is on over Multi to give coherent responses. I wonder if N-S feel that using Multi carries with it the right to lead opponents who know little about the convention into confusion by forcing explanations when no likely answer will affect your action, then reap the benefit by calling the TD after misdefending the hand for a normal result.

 

Score stands. E-W should get a later discussion about proper alerting procedures and what to say before the opening lead when partner's explanation doesn't match their agreements or lack of them. I suspect this N-S will demand it be done it now, in front of them, so they can express their displeasure once more through the rest of the round. If so, N-S get the lecture: on etiquette, asking questions when the answer will not affect your action, and how all this combines to destructive use of a convention.

[Fluffy]

I don't buy west's argument about multi, looks made up to avoid penalti, but being at the table might change my views.

 

There are LAs to 3NT so 3NT is ruled out. So I think iviehodd analysis is right, we have ot weight among those many possible contracts.

[AlexJonson]

I'm uneasy that smart players who say no agreement in this auction get their contract and seemingly poor players get confused and are adjusted against.

 

I guess in real life the TD will judge the situation.

[iviehoff]

I'm uneasy that smart players who say no agreement in this auction get their contract and seemingly poor players get confused and are adjusted against.

It is part of the learning process in bridge not to give daft answers to questions about what your bids mean, because it leads to a mess in which you can suffer badly at the hands of the TD.

 

But if E had said "don't know for sure" the nature of the UI is quite different, and the situation is completely different. When East said "the minors", the UI screeched "better not stay in clubs then, he might not have any, and 3D or 3H will be misunderstood" - the UI did indeed suggest 3N over other LAs, and so with other LAs present it is clearly an illegal bid. When East instead says "don't know for sure", the UI is quite different, it is no longer clear that the UI suggests bidding 3N over other LAs. Honesty is the best policy, and it isn't surprising that the honest answer is less damaging, once the TD's adjustment is taken into account.

[Lanor Fow]

Why can't West think: LHO has a six card major and I have a 20 count. Even allowing that Stayman, if that's what it is, will keep us out of the suit that may break 6-0, do we even want to be in the other suit, with potential ruffs lurking? Partner's 3 club call, whatever it may mean absent the alert and explanation, has to show something, that something likely to be some decent stuff in clubs (because I have the decent stuff in everything else) and this is probably the last chance we're getting to bid 3NT. Partner can correct to clubs if that seems appropriate.

 

He can think all of this and more if there is no UI and can make any call he likes (within regualtions). As he has UI here, he has to consider other things as well. If 3NT is suggested, and there are LAs that are not suggested, and he bids 3NT, all the rationalising in the world will not stop the score being adjusted, assuming damage (I do note that rationlisation and reasoning can affect whether there are LAs).

 

Whatever you think of N/S's actions this shouldn't affect whether you adjust or not. If N/S are guilty of something, which i'm quite sceptical of at the moment, they would perhaps be liable for a procedural penalty, but that wouldn't change if we adjust or not I don't think. If they have broken no laws and no regulations, I think your lecture would be quite misplaced.

 

As for the alerting, I'm not sure on german regulations, but they would be correct to alert in the UK if they were not sure but intended to take it as artificial.

[AlexJonson]

But if E had said "don't know for sure" the nature of the UI is quite different, and the situation is completely different. When East said "the minors", the UI screeched "better not stay in clubs then, he might not have any, and 3D or 3H will be misunderstood" - the UI did indeed suggest 3N over other LAs, and so with other LAs present it is clearly an illegal bid. When East instead says "don't know for sure", the UI is quite different, it is no longer clear that the UI suggests bidding 3N over other LAs. Honesty is the best policy, and it isn't surprising that the honest answer is less damaging, once the TD's adjustment is taken into account.

 

OP: '2NT was alerted by East, and when asked he said that he doesn't really know but it might be both minors.'

[iviehoff]

OP: '2NT was alerted by East, and when asked he said that he doesn't really know but it might be both minors.'

Makes very little difference to what I said.

[RMB1]

If West knew that 2NT was undiscussed and that it could be natural or it could be both minors, does he have any useful UI?

 

Is it possible that if the partnership understanding is that 2NT is natural or minors, then 3m in response is effectively pass or correct: pass with with both minors, rebid NT with NT hand?

[gnasher]

If so, N-S get the lecture: on ... asking questions when the answer will not affect your action

I hope this would lead to the director subsequently receiving a lecture from his boss about not making up the rules as he goes along.

 

North has a right to ask about the 2NT if he so chooses, provided that he isn't attempting to mislead, using it to communicate with his partner, or asking for his partner's benefit. It is perfectly legitimate for North to ask the meaning of 2NT simply because he wants to follow the auction. Routinely asking about alerted bids is also a good way to avoid transmitting UI, whereas asking only when you are considering action is an excellent way to create UI.

[gnasher]

If West knew that 2NT was undiscussed and that it could be natural or it could be both minors, does he have any useful UI?

 

Is it possible that if the partnership understanding is that 2NT is natural or minors, then 3m in response is effectively pass or correct: pass with with both minors, rebid NT with NT hand?

I agree with the principle, but I think it's pass with both minors, respond to Stayman with the notrump hand.

[bluejak]

When asked why West didn't respond 3♥ over 3♣, she said that she didn't want to bid ♥ which opponents had bid. I asked (as TD) if 2♥ was alerted, she said yes but she doesn't understand all this Multi stuff and treated it as natural.

The trouble with this statement is that you know it is untrue. It is a pity that people decide to lie, but sometimes it is just too clear that they are and they must be dealt with accoredingly.

 

If an opponent has shown hearts, and you have four hearts and not four spades, and partner bids 3♣ [or 2♣] which is Stayman, do you respond in hearts? The answer is sometimes: I have done so, I have decided not to do so, the same applies to my partners, and to my opponents.

 

But if anyone does not show hearts in my experience, whether me, my partner or my opponents, they deny it by bidding 3♦ [or 2♦]. Anyone who gives that as a reason for bidding 3NT over 3♣ is lying: it is pure unauthorised panic, and a small PP might be a good idea to teach them not to cheat in future.

 

Did I say cheat? Well, it is only cheating if a player deliberately, knowledgeably and for his own benefit does something unethical. A player who responds 3NT to 3♣ and lies about the reason has done so deliberately, has done so knowledgeably, and has done so for his own benefit.

[barmar]

I generally have a hard time calling something "cheating" if the player is likely to be ignorant of their obligations, as I presume most weak players are regarding UI issues.

[Gerben42]

UI doesn't prevent one from using AI and playing bridge, nor does it allow us to assume that anything that works must be UI-based.

 

Why can't West think: LHO has a six card major and I have a 20 count. Even allowing that Stayman, if that's what it is, will keep us out of the suit that may break 6-0, do we even want to be in the other suit, with potential ruffs lurking? Partner's 3 club call, whatever it may mean absent the alert and explanation, has to show something, that something likely to be some decent stuff in clubs (because I have the decent stuff in everything else) and this is probably the last chance we're getting to bid 3NT. Partner can correct to clubs if that seems appropriate.

 

Why does North need to know what 2NT is before passing with his minimum? What possible answer will convince him to try a vulnerable three-level call on his junk? Apparently "both minors" without any indication of strength didn't do it. I wonder what will.

 

 

At the table, it seemed very likely to me that North felt East was uncertain that 2NT was indeed natural and tried to score by asking. EW seemed rather clueless of the situation, also made clear by the fact that West has a 20-count for a bid that tends to show 15 - 18 (maybe 19).

 

"In the continuing play, declarer miraculously led the ♣Q from hand, King, Ace, Jack. Making 12. Now NS are VERY unhappy."

 

Maybe, but in the same manner as a football star trying to induce a penalty. 20 opposite 6, all suits well-stopped, don't you think most pairs will be in 3NT and make 12 tricks with the KC onside?

 

With AT9xxxx vs Qxx, you can either lead low to the 10 always avoiding two losers (recommended playing 3NT in a team game on a ♠/♦ lead), or play the Ace to drop the singleton King on either side to maximize your chances of no loser (also MP best play). Leading the Queen is a weird play as you haven't gained anything dropping a singleton Jack onside.

 

But look at what happens now: the TD asks West some questions as N-S glare with arms folded...and we expect a pair who has no agreement about what is on over Multi to give coherent responses. I wonder if N-S feel that using Multi carries with it the right to lead opponents who know little about the convention into confusion by forcing explanations when no likely answer will affect your action, then reap the benefit by calling the TD after misdefending the hand for a normal result.

 

Score stands. E-W should get a later discussion about proper alerting procedures and what to say before the opening lead when partner's explanation doesn't match their agreements or lack of them. I suspect this N-S will demand it be done it now, in front of them, so they can express their displeasure once more through the rest of the round. If so, N-S get the lecture: on etiquette, asking questions when the answer will not affect your action, and how all this combines to destructive use of a convention.

 

@Barry:

 

I generally have a hard time calling something "cheating" if the player is likely to be ignorant of their obligations, as I presume most weak players are regarding UI issues.

 

This EW pair was ignorant of their obligations and ignorant about the implications of Multi (and doesn't want to know about such complicated stuff).

[jallerton]

If West knew that 2NT was undiscussed and that it could be natural or it could be both minors, does he have any useful UI?

 

Is it possible that if the partnership understanding is that 2NT is natural or minors, then 3m in response is effectively pass or correct: pass with with both minors, rebid NT with NT hand?

 

I agree with the principle, but I think it's pass with both minors, respond to Stayman with the notrump hand.

 

Two good observations. It seems to me that from East's explanation and his 3♣ bid that he did not really believe West to hold both minors. On this basis, if West had responded to Stayman with 3♥,East would probably have ceased to believe that partner could hold both minors and would have continued with 3NT. West, not holding 4 spades, would pass this.

[c_corgi]

This EW pair was ignorant of their obligations and ignorant about the implications of Multi (and doesn't want to know about such complicated stuff).

 

This will make it difficult for them to fulfil their ethical obligations. It does not mean that the obligations are mitigated.

 

I generally have a hard time calling something "cheating" if the player is likely to be ignorant of their obligations, as I presume most weak players are regarding UI issues.

 

Calling it by its name is likely to be a more effective deterrent than making excuses.

 

 

I'm uneasy that smart players who say no agreement in this auction get their contract and seemingly poor players get confused and are adjusted against.

 

I guess in real life the TD will judge the situation.

 

I am not sure I have much sympathy in this instance, but I am uneasy with the principle that saying "no agreement" is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling, but making a genuine but flawed attempt at better disclosure is much more hazardous.

[Vampyr]

I am not sure I have much sympathy in this instance, but I am uneasy with the principle that saying "no agreement" is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling, but making a genuine but flawed attempt at better disclosure is much more hazardous.

 

Yes, I think that it is important to remember that people who tell their guesses are mainly trying to be helpful, even though in fact, of course they do more harm than good.

[barmar]

Calling it by its name is likely to be a more effective deterrent than making excuses.

Cheating is a very serious accusation in the bridge world, analogous to calling someone a murderer or rapist in the real world. I don't think it should be thrown around casually, it should be used for players who are knowingly using covert methods to gain an advantage (e.g. the Reese-Shapiro finger signals).

 

Players who take advantage of normal types of UI are violating the Laws, but unless they have specific agreements to do so (e.g. "if I use the STOP card, it's a weak jump, otherwise it's strong") I don't think it usually rises to the level I would call cheating.

[jallerton]

The term "cheating" includes any deliberate violation of a Law or rule. Yes, having pre-arranged signals using what ought to be UI is one form of cheating, but there are plenty of other ways to cheat. Like it or not, people find ways to cheat at most games and sports. If you believe that the last incident of cheating at the bridge table was 50 years ago, then I'm sorry, but I think you are being naive. Of course, it is unwise to accuse anybody of cheating without hard evidence to back up your accusation, but that's no different to being very careful before making any other potentially slanderous comment.

 

By the way, I suggest you edit your post to include the word "alleged" before the word "Reese".

[barmar]

By the way, I suggest you edit your post to include the word "alleged" before the word "Reese".

If Truscott didn't feel the need for this qualifier in his book, I don't think I do. Truscott's evidence and the WBF ruling are enough to convince me.

 

And this is hardly the most recent cheating incident I'm aware of, it's just one of the most well known so useful as an example. Sometime in the 2000's I was playing in a regional KO at an NABC, and one of my teammates noticed a pattern to how the opponents were facing their cards when defending, which they appeared to be using as illicit signals (it's been a while, I don't remember the specifics); we reported them to the director, and some monitoring ensued that I think supported our accusation.

[bluejak]

I generally have a hard time calling something "cheating" if the player is likely to be ignorant of their obligations, as I presume most weak players are regarding UI issues.

It is not the UI obligations to which I refer: I think even weak players know that lying to the TD is not following their obligations.

 

If Truscott didn't feel the need for this qualifier in his book, I don't think I do. Truscott's evidence and the WBF ruling are enough to convince me.

One might just as well argue that Reese's evidence and the BBL enquiry are enough to convince the other way. If we want to rehash this old matter, feel free to start a new thread, but for odd comments and to avoid too much thread drift can we please assume for these forums that the matter is not proven either way.

[olegru]

Let see.

EW had no agreement about meaning of 2NT after multy.

East alerted and explained according their agreement (no agreement). He stupidly tried to be helpful and added something else (it might be both minors). It provided to West UI that 3 ♣ might not be Stayman.

I don’t think pass is LA for West. 3 ♥, probably, is, but I see no difference it made. It is too much for me to decide EW could get in a different contract and number of tricks is the same if West will get clubs right.

 

By the way, I hate explanation given by South on his 2h bid. It should be “pass or correct,” not “relay”. NS made whatever possible to confuse opponents and after it did not work “NS became VERY unhappy” and tried to get it from director.