Brighton 3 (EBU)

[VixTD]

How did EW avoid making 2 spades ?

Sorry, I don't know the answer to this. The TD who answered the call told me they'd made a trick in each suit, but perhaps it was two spades and no diamonds. I do know they got a poor score for -140.

 

How late was the alert of 2♦? When was an explanation requested?

Not very late, probably after East's pass. I think the explanation was requested immediately after the alert, if it matters.

[blackshoe]

What happened:

 

1. The auction, East dealing, went 1♦!-(P)-1♥-2♦!-(P)-2♠-all pass.

2. 1♦ "was Precision". It's not clear whether this was explained after the alert, or indeed whether anyone asked.

3. 2♦ was alerted after East's pass, questioned (I would guess by East, even though technically it's not his turn) and described as "both majors". However, "South clearly wasn't sure".

4. EW misdefended, and 2♠ made an overtrick.

5. EW called the TD, claiming West would have led a spade "with a correct explanation".

6. OP says "let's assume (as is highly likely) that they have an agreement that had this sequence been natural then 2♦ would have shown the majors, but they haven't discussed this particular situation, so have no agreement." I infer from this and reading the BB that the sequence is not natural because the 1♦ bidder might have as few as two diamonds.

 

The correct explanation in this case would appear to be "if 1♦ were natural, 2♦ would show the majors, but we have not discussed this particular sequence".

 

IME, 1♦ "Precision" means the hand will have some 11-15 HCP and two or more diamonds, and not be suitable for some other limited opening bid (1M, 1NT or 2♣). Note: per the BB, this bid should be announced "may be two" rather than alerted, but I don't think that makes any difference to the ruling.

 

Technically, when 2♦ was alerted "late" the TD should have been called immediately, but this is rarely done, and again I don't think it makes any difference to the ruling, since it doesn't seem that East was inclined to change his pass after it.

 

North had an obligation (see Law 20F5{b}) to call the TD and correct his partner's explanation of 2♦ before the opening lead was faced. This, BTW, is a "must" law, so a PP is usually in order.

 

South's bid of only 2♠, with a weak hand "expecting" a ten card fit, is suspicious, but I suspect that he bid only two because he was unsure of their agreement. If he had explained the bid properly, I wouldn't have a problem with this, but he didn't, so it looks like he's catering for the possibility his explanation was wrong. I don't like this, but I'm not sure it's illegal. Comments?

 

I don't see why EW would have done anything differently in the defense with the correct explanation. IOW, MI didn't cause the damage. Therefore, no adjustment, but a "standard" PP to NS.

[RMB1]

1. The auction, East dealing, went 1♦!-(P)-1♥-2♦!-(P)-2♠-all pass.

2. 1♦ "was Precision". It's not clear whether this was explained after the alert, or indeed whether anyone asked.

3. 2♦ was alerted after East's pass, ...

 

According to the OP, 1♥ was alerted: 1♥ showed hearts or balanced-and-invitational. It is not clear if anyone asked about 1♥.

[blackshoe]

According to the OP, 1♥ was alerted: 1♥ showed hearts or balanced-and-invitational. It is not clear if anyone asked about 1♥.

So it was. Sorry, I missed it. I don't think it should make any difference to the ruling, though.

[VixTD]

Who leads trumps away from 10xxx when there is no evidence the opponents have a fit? The correct explanation reduces, rather than increases, the likelihood of a trump lead.

 

No adjustment.

This was essentially my view, which I gave to the TD and (doubtless after further consultation) became the final ruling. EW were not happy, but didn't appeal. I would have liked to have heard their reasons for preferring a trump lead with the correct explanation, but I never got to hear them.

[mycroft]

I think the question is really "if the auction was Natural" means "if "1♦ promised (3)4" or "if 1♥ promised hearts", or both.

 

I've been reading it all as if it was the worry that hearts may not be a real suit (therefore it's likely majors) (which is likely because, have you ever seen this agreement before? Me neither), rather than a worry that diamonds could be natural (which I would assume everyone has a decent idea about - there's lots of short clubs and diamonds around).

 

Also, North only has to correct the misexplanation if it truly was a misexplanation. If the agreement really is as the OP said it should be, then a late, tentative, unsure "majors" is pretty close to the correct explanation - certainly more so than "it's diamonds" would have been. But again, that depends on what part of "if it were natural" we're talking about.

[gordontd]

EW were not happy, but didn't appeal.

If EW are who I think they are, that's about as close as you're likely to get to an admission that the ruling was correct.

[VixTD]

If EW are who I think they are, that's about as close as you're likely to get to an admission that the ruling was correct.

It was who you think.

[blackshoe]

I think the question is really "if the auction was Natural" means "if "1♦ promised (3)4" or "if 1♥ promised hearts", or both.

 

I've been reading it all as if it was the worry that hearts may not be a real suit (therefore it's likely majors) (which is likely because, have you ever seen this agreement before? Me neither), rather than a worry that diamonds could be natural (which I would assume everyone has a decent idea about - there's lots of short clubs and diamonds around).

 

Also, North only has to correct the misexplanation if it truly was a misexplanation. If the agreement really is as the OP said it should be, then a late, tentative, unsure "majors" is pretty close to the correct explanation - certainly more so than "it's diamonds" would have been. But again, that depends on what part of "if it were natural" we're talking about.

If the explanation was correct, then why doesn't North have both majors?

[barmar]

If the explanation was correct, then why doesn't North have both majors?

Because North misbid.

 

But it sounds like they don't actually have an explicit agreement. They each assumed a different default way to treat a Precision 1♦ -- South assumed it should be treated as natural (so the cue bid is Michaels), North assumed artificial (so his bid is natural). NS were both essentially guessing what 2♦ means, but they didn't disclose this properly.

[blackshoe]

Precisely!

[c_corgi]

... NS were both essentially guessing what 2♦ means, but they didn't disclose this properly.

 

South's explanation seemed to me to disclose this reasonably well, just not in secretary-bird proof terms.

[iviehoff]

Leaving aside the specifics of this case, in general:

...

(2) When there has been misinformation by the declaring side followed by a failure to correct the misinformation at the proper time, there are two separate infractions:

- The original misinformation.

- The failure to correct the misinformation.

Without this second infraction, the defenders would have known, at the end of the auction, that NS had had a misunderstanding. To restore equity, therefore, our adjustment should assume that the NOS knew of the misunderstanding from the end of the auction onwards.

 

This has been confirmed by the EBU L&EC:...

Indeed and I have never been in any doubt of it. But there was an additional condition in my original query you haven't addressed.

 

In the present case there wasn't actually a misunderstanding. It seems to me to be taking things a step further to allow the NOS the (chance) benefit of a lead they would have made if they had falsely deduced that there had been a misunderstanding, a false deduction they might have fallen to from thinking that a corrected explanation implied a misunderstanding, whereas in fact it arose from incompetence.

[mycroft]

If the explanation was correct, then why doesn't North have both majors?

Okay, I'm bad at reading body language and tone, and I'm a computer programmer and so am more literal than most people who have spent their life working with people, and even I get 'a late, tentative, unsure "majors"' as being closer to "I have no clue, we've never seen this crazy agreement before" than to either "it's majors" or "it's diamonds".

 

And I would expect this E/W would be used to situations where their system knocks their opponents into "no-agreement" land, and from implications I'm getting above, likely are quite comfortable the advantages they get from that. I have a particular thing for players like that (who, I will grant, I somewhat resemble, at least occasionally) who (unlike me, I hope) *also* try to take legal advantage when they succeed in confusing and get a bad result anyway.

 

As a result, I try to train players into being definite about what they are definite about, while also not hiding behind "no agreement". My answer to an enquiry of 2♦, with the system I play would be "we have no agreement about this auction. Were both your calls natural, it would show diamonds; were West to have shown NAT INV, it would be majors." Factual, not making a guess, explaining what I have to use to make a guess, and after that, you're on your own, buddy.

[blackshoe]

As a result, I try to train players into being definite about what they are definite about, while also not hiding behind "no agreement". My answer to an enquiry of 2♦, with the system I play would be "we have no agreement about this auction. Were both your calls natural, it would show diamonds; were West to have shown NAT INV, it would be majors." Factual, not making a guess, explaining what I have to use to make a guess, and after that, you're on your own, buddy.

That is the way to go, sure. At expert level, it may actually happen. At club level, it's a crap shoot.

 

Teaching players to do this kind of thing is worse than herding cats. B-)

[gnasher]

Indeed and I have never been in any doubt of it. But there was an additional condition in my original query you haven't addressed.

 

In the present case there wasn't actually a misunderstanding. It seems to me to be taking things a step further to allow the NOS the (chance) benefit of a lead they would have made if they had falsely deduced that there had been a misunderstanding, a false deduction they might have fallen to from thinking that a corrected explanation implied a misunderstanding, whereas in fact it arose from incompetence.

Sorry, I was so keen to answer the question that I wanted to answer that I missed what you were actually asking.

 

We are supposed to restore equity, that is we recreate the state which would have existed without the infraction. If NS's expectation before the second infraction was to hear a corrected explanation, make a false inference from that correction, and fortuituously profit as a result, then that's what NS are entitled to, and that's what we should give them.

[mycroft]

That is the way to go, sure. At expert level, it may actually happen. At club level, it's a crap shoot.

Absolutely. Thanks for thinking I'm an expert :-)

 

Currently at the club level, they hear either "what do you think it means" and get in the habit of answering that (and asking it, which is amusing when they get to my table) or hear "only describe your agreement. If you don't have one, say 'no agreement'" (and doing that whenever there isn't anything absolutely written down. Or, in some cases, explicitly not having discussions about things so that they still have 'no agreement', despite 1500 MPs worth of experience with each other) - and then having issues with "okay, what does this potential auction mean?" "and this one?" as I desperately try to get *some* idea what their options are, that of course, they all know.

 

My favourite of the latter is all the people who announce "could be short" that have NO CLUE, supposedly, when it could be short. I know some of them simply have no idea what "negative inferences" means, but some...

Teaching players to do this kind of thing is worse than herding cats. B-)

Yep. And it doesn't help that when they get advice that's "easier" than what the TD tells them, they automatically assume that the rules have changed and they'll go with that.