Misinformation ?

[DuaneC]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk762hk76d863cjt9&w=sa843hqj52dkjck42&n=sjthadaqt54cq8765&e=sq95ht9843d972ca3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1c2np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Before leading, East asks south the meaning of 2NT, and South says "natural, 2NT opening strength."

East looks at North convention card, and sees two lower unbid, and asks if that is correct. North

answers yes. South convention card is unmarked. East leads club, and 3NT makes 4. Adjust, or not?

Does answer depend on what was North was thinking when he called 2NT? And if he thought minors, how

and when he became aware or remembered his card was marked two lower unbid?

[Zelandakh]

Are you asking if North thought they held the lowest 2 unbid suits or whether East should get a PP for asking North when they were not entitled to do so?

[aguahombre]

The OP East looked at North's convention card. It does not state he asked North if it was correct ---only that North answered.

 

I believe there is enough to consider there without trying to nail E/W procedurally for a N/S irregularity. I await reading how other directors will proceed step by step.

[Zelandakh]

The OP East looked at North's convention card. It does not state he asked North if it was correct ---only that North answered.

Read it again, especially:

East looks at North convention card, and sees two lower unbid, and asks if that is correct.

 

I believe there is enough to consider there without trying to nail E/W procedurally for a N/S irregularity. I await reading how other directors will proceed step by step.

What I found amusing is that East received an explanation about the North hand that was closer to what they held than their (apparent) agreement (they have a semi-balanced opening strength hand with a club stopper) and we have no way of knowing from the OP whether the agreement is as stated or on the card; nor do we know if North misbid or not, and if they did whether they were misbidding their hand as minors or balanced. Step-by-step involves answering some of these questions along the way. I think I am probably just in a funny-Friday mood today and should perhaps have kept quiet.

[gnasher]

Are you asking if North thought they held the lowest 2 unbid suits or whether East should get a PP for asking North when they were not entitled to do so?

East is entitled to ask North whether South's explanation is a correct statement of their agreement.

[Zelandakh]

East is entitled to ask North whether South's explanation is a correct statement of their agreement.

Under which Law? 20F seems to say the exact opposite, that the first legal opportunity for a defender to give this information comes later.

 

Edit: forget this; I have declarer and defenders mixed up.

[barmar]

If EW suspect they were given MI by South, who else can they ask but North?

 

And wasn't North, in effect, correcting his partner's misexplanation, which he's required to do before the opening lead? He should have called the TD and volunteered the correction, rather than waiting for a question, but the end result is the same.

 

Why does it matter if or when North became aware that he misbid? He had no UI during the auction, so he's not under any constraints. East's questions came after the auction was over.

 

The only remaining issue is that North's hand doesn't agree with the explanation. It wouldn't be the first time someone misbid Unusual 2NT that way (I'm sure I've done it a few times).

[mink]

The answer whether to adjust or not depends mainly on what agreement North and South really had. Their convention cards were different, their explanations were different, and the North hand was even different from both CC and explanation. The only way to find out their real agreement is that the TD asks them what they agreed, an judges how believable the answers sound. My guess would be that they had no proper agreement about the 2nt at all, so this would be the information East was entitled to. In this case, I would adjust to -2, as ♥ is the likely first lead with no information available.

 

Zelandakh suggests that it is illegal for East to ask North about the 2nt call. I cannot see why, if he does so right before his first lead.

 

Karl

[barmar]

If East were given the information that they hadn't discussed it, why do you think he would find the killing lead? If I were told "undiscussed", I would assume the standard meaning, which is 2 lowest unbid. The fact that this matches one of the CCs would support that assumption.

[mink]

... The fact that this matches one of the CCs would support that assumption.

In the ideal case where East receives the correct information, there is no alert, and nothing on the convention card, and the explanation is "no agreement". For sure I would not assume lowest unbid. And for sure I would not lead ♣, but my longest suit.

 

Karl

[nige1]

Under ACBL regulations, should you alert a natural 2N jump-overcall? Were EW damaged in the bidding?

 

What is the NS agreement if any? North appears to have psyched. He has neither "a natural 2N overcall" (as South explained). Nor "the 2 lowest unbid suits" (as the system-card specified and North confirmed).

 

Did South field North's psych? How are EW meant to cope with all this prevarication? For example, East is hardly likely to lead a ♥, when North confirms that he has shown that suit. The director seems to have a lot to sort out.

[aguahombre]

It doesn't really matter here, but AGAIN: East asked if North's convention card was correct, but it doesn't say he asked North the question ---only that North answered.

 

But, thanks anyway for asking that I reread what Zel didn't reread when I brought up that point in relation to a possible PP for East.

[ArtK78]

EW are entitled to know NS's agreement. South apparently gave misinformation, but that was rectified by North in response to East's question about the agreement noted on the convention card.

 

The fact that North's hand is not consistent with the agreement on the cc is not relevant. Clearly South had no clue as to the correct partnership agreement. If the partnership agreement was that it showed the two lower unbid suits - the red suits - then North's explanation is correct, and there is no damage.

 

North is under an obligation to correct any misinformation provided by South once the bidding is over. But that does not seem to be a problem here.

[rwbarton]

Before leading, East asks south the meaning of 2NT, and South says "natural, 2NT opening strength."

East looks at North convention card, and sees two lower unbid, and asks if that is correct. North

answers yes.

 

I interpreted this as meaning that East asked North, after hearing South's explanation then glancing at North's convention card, "is that correct?", i.e., whether South's explanation was correct. Maybe DuaneC can clarify exactly what question North answered.

[blackshoe]

Facts:

 

1. The auction was (1♣)-2NT-(P)-3NT-AP, making North the declarer and putting East on opening lead.

2. Before leading, East asked South the meaning of 2NT.

3. The explanation given was "Natural, 2NT opening strength".

4. East looked at North's convention card, which said 2NT showed the two lower unbid.

5. The two lower unbid suits are diamonds and hearts.

6. North has diamonds and clubs.

 

Procedural points:

 

1. When North hears, during the Clarification period, South's explanation of the meaning of 2NT, he is required, if he disagrees with the explanation, to 1) call the TD, 2) explain, in the TD's presence, the nature of the disagreement.

2. When East, after hearing South's explanation, sees that North's system card does not match that explanation, he should call the director and ask the director to resolve the discrepancy.

3. Technically, North should not respond to East's question about North's own bid unless and until instructed to do so by the director, so when the question is asked, North should call the director.

4. The director should investigate and determine, based on the preponderance of the evidence, what the actual agreement is. Without talking to NS, I'm not going to speculate.

 

It looks to me like North is going to come to ten tricks whatever the opening lead is. So there is no damage, even if there was an infraction. No damage, no score adjustment. Now...

 

 

Questions from the OP:

 

1. Adjust, or no?

2. Does the answer depend on what N was thinking when he bid 2NT?

3. If N thought 2NT showed the minors, does it matter how or when he became aware his card was marked "two lower unbid"?

 

 

1. No. See above.

2. No.

3. Not in this case. If 2NT shows the two lower unbid, North misbid. If 2NT is natural, North misbid. North is not required to tell his opponents that he misbid.

 

A further question: did South "field" North's misbid? My answer: no.

 

Whatever the TD decides the agreement actually is, he should ensure that NS amend their system card(s) so the that explanation on both cards is the same, and matches their agreement (even if they decide they want a different agreement to what the TD decides was the agreement). If, after a reasonable time (say, by the beginning of the second round following this one), this has not been done, the TD should issue a PP.

 

Further thoughts:

 

1. There are four possible agreements here:

a) 2NT is natural

b) 2NT is both minors

c) 2NT is the two lower unbid suits

d) they actually have no agreement.

and a fifth: they have some other agreement, but I suspect the likelihood of that is pretty small. B-)

 

There is evidence (North's card) that the agreement is c). There is evidence (North's bid) that the agreement is b). There is evidence (statements from both North and South, and the fact that South's system card was blank in this area) that the agreement is a). The fact that South's card was blank might also be evidence that the "agreement" is d). The preponderance of the evidence here seems to indicate that the agreement is a), but I would want to investigate further.

 

The OP does not state his bridge jurisdiction, but he appears to be in the US, so ACBL rules would apply. Please folks, when you post a question here, let us know the jurisdiction! It may make a difference. Under ACBL rules, a natural 2NT in this auction requires an alert, so one of the questions I'd be asking is why South did not alert it. The fact he did not is evidence that perhaps it is not the case that their agreement is natural.

 

Note that in the ACBL, weighted scores do not apply, so if we were going to adjust, we would use Law 12C1{e}, not Law 12C1{c}, and the OS would get "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred", and the NOS would get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred".

[CSGibson]

 

 

It looks to me like North is going to come to ten tricks whatever the opening lead is. So there is no damage, even if there was an infraction. No damage, no score adjustment. Now...

 

 

On a heart lead there are at most 8 tricks, assuming OP does not go after clubs, and gets the spades and diamonds right - if he goes after clubs, there are 7 tricks. The tempo is vital for the defense.

[aguahombre]

which part of "acbl club" in the subtitle warranted the stock jurisdiction lecture?

[gnasher]

1. There are four possible agreements here:

a) 2NT is natural

b) 2NT is both minors

c) 2NT is the two lower unbid suits

d) they actually have no agreement.

and a fifth: they have some other agreement, but I suspect the likelihood of that is pretty small. B-)

 

There is evidence (North's card) that the agreement is c). There is evidence (North's bid) that the agreement is b). There is evidence (statements from both North and South, and the fact that South's system card was blank in this area) that the agreement is a). The fact that South's card was blank might also be evidence that the "agreement" is d). The preponderance of the evidence here seems to indicate that the agreement is a), but I would want to investigate further.

Surely the preponderance is the evidence is their agreement is (d)? One of them obviously thought it was natural, and the other obviously thought it showed a two-suiter. Nobody said "Oh yes, he's right - I forgot", and nobody said "He's wrong - we discussed it last week." The gap on South's convention card also suggests that they hadn't discussed it.

 

Anyway, the obvious thing to do is to ask each of them whether he thinks there is actually an agreement, what that agreement is, and when this agreement was formed.

 

Under ACBL rules, a natural 2NT in this auction requires an alert, so one of the questions I'd be asking is why South did not alert it. The fact he did not is evidence that perhaps it is not the case that their agreement is natural.

It's obvious from South's bidding that he thought 2NT was natural, and this is supported by his explanation. Hence his non-alert probably means only that he doesn't know the alerting rules.

[DuaneC]

I interpreted this as meaning that East asked North, after hearing South's explanation then glancing at North's convention card, "is that correct?", i.e., whether South's explanation was correct. Maybe DuaneC can clarify exactly what question North answered.

East asked South after checking his card and seeing it blank. South said natural, 2NT opening strength.

East then looked at North's convention card, and seeing "2 Lower Unbid", asked North, "I see your card

shows 2 Lower Unbid, is that right?" North said yes. Hand was played out, and director not summoned

until after the hand completed.

[rwbarton]

East asked South after checking his card and seeing it blank. South said natural, 2NT opening strength.

East then looked at North's convention card, and seeing "2 Lower Unbid", asked North, "I see your card

shows 2 Lower Unbid, is that right?" North said yes. Hand was played out, and director not summoned

until after the hand completed.

 

Thanks.

 

While I'd be the last person to subscribe to the notion of "convention disruption", for this flagrant three-way disagreement between South's explanation, North's explanation, and North's actual hand, I'd give N/S a PP for not having two identically filled-out convention cards regardless of the level of play, even though it feels a bit like getting the mob boss for tax evasion.

[blackshoe]

which part of "acbl club" in the subtitle warranted the stock jurisdiction lecture?

The part that I didn't see. B-)

[blackshoe]

On a heart lead there are at most 8 tricks, assuming OP does not go after clubs, and gets the spades and diamonds right - if he goes after clubs, there are 7 tricks. The tempo is vital for the defense.

Ah, so I see, now. Okay, fair enough.

 

Surely the preponderance is the evidence is their agreement is (d)? One of them obviously thought it was natural, and the other obviously thought it showed a two-suiter. Nobody said "Oh yes, he's right - I forgot", and nobody said "He's wrong - we discussed it last week." The gap on South's convention card also suggests that they hadn't discussed it.

 

Anyway, the obvious thing to do is to ask each of them whether he thinks there is actually an agreement, what that agreement is, and when this agreement was formed.

 

It's obvious from South's bidding that he thought 2NT was natural, and this is supported by his explanation. Hence his non-alert probably means only that he doesn't know the alerting rules.

I'm very leery of that word "obvious", especially here on the forum. I agree the TD should ask questions - assuming he's called. He should be called, but apparently he wasn't. See below.

 

East asked South after checking his card and seeing it blank. South said natural, 2NT opening strength.

East then looked at North's convention card, and seeing "2 Lower Unbid", asked North, "I see your card

shows 2 Lower Unbid, is that right?" North said yes. Hand was played out, and director not summoned

until after the hand completed.

So questions were asked, the explanations don't match up, and no one called the director? Also, it seems East did not ask North about his bid, but only whether the information on North's system card correctly described NS's agreement. There's nothing wrong with that, but at some point now the director should be explaining in no uncertain terms to North that he is obligated to call the director at the appropriate time (and what that time is) when he disagrees with his partner's explanation, and to East that when this kind of disagreement comes to light, if the opponents don't call the director, he should do so.

 

Thanks.

 

While I'd be the last person to subscribe to the notion of "convention disruption", for this flagrant three-way disagreement between South's explanation, North's explanation, and North's actual hand, I'd give N/S a PP for not having two identically filled-out convention cards regardless of the level of play, even though it feels a bit like getting the mob boss for tax evasion.

I did allude to the possibility of a PP in my earlier post, though not for anything like "convention disruption". Investigation as to the reasons for the discrepancies may lead to the judgment than an immediate PP is warranted, or it may not. I don't think it's clear from what we know at this point.

 

Revised answer to OP's question 1 ("Adjust, or no?"):

 

It appears there may have been damage. Was there an infraction? Well, we have a bit of additional information now: North said that what was on the card was the correct explanation. Now I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that whatever the actual agreement was, it was not "natural". Therefore South's explanation was MI. I would apply Law 47E2{b} if called to the table after the play. This would lead to a score adjustment to 3NT down 2 for both sides under Law 12C1{e}. If I'm called to the table when I'm supposed to be called, i.e., before the opening lead is faced, the misinformation will be cleared up, and East will be allowed to retract his unfaced opening lead, if any, and substitute another (Law 47E2{a}). In that case, there will be no score adjustment.