MI?

[Messymyrna]

In an auction today the bidding went

1NT - 2D* - P - 3D

P - 3H - P - P

P

 

Before the opening lead .... the 2D alert was first asked re meaning. The 3D bidder said they played Brozel meaning D + H. Declarer says nothing. Dummy comes down with 5D and 3H. It turns out that the declarer thought they were playing Capp and the 2D was meant for majors. Brozel is listed on their convention cards. Is declarer required to tell ops before play that he meant the 2D as Capp. 3H makes but could have gone done -1 with better defense and declarer claims "ops should know that his hand isn't D and H looking at dummy's 5D. Director scores it as -1 with the reasoning that IF the declarer had said he forgot convention, he would not have had to disclose but since declarer says he was playing Capp he must tell ops before the beginning of play..... therefore the score is 3H -1.

[pran]

In an auction today the bidding went

1NT - 2D* - P - 3D

P - 3H - P - P

P

 

Before the opening lead .... the 2D alert was first asked re meaning. The 3D bidder said they played Brozel meaning D + H. Declarer says nothing. Dummy comes down with 5D and 3H. It turns out that the declarer thought they were playing Capp and the 2D was meant for majors. Brozel is listed on their convention cards. Is declarer required to tell ops before play that he meant the 2D as Capp. 3H makes but could have gone done -1 with better defense and declarer claims "ops should know that his hand isn't D and H looking at dummy's 5D. Director scores it as -1 with the reasoning that IF the declarer had said he forgot convention, he would not have had to disclose but since declarer says he was playing Capp he must tell ops before the beginning of play..... therefore the score is 3H -1.

NO. A player is not required, not even expected to inform opponents that he has deviated from partnership agreements.

 

If I understand the situation correct the 2D bid was alerted in time but not asked about and explained (correctly) until just before the opening lead. Thus declarer had no UI at the time he bid 3H.

 

IMO the table result should stand.

[blackshoe]

The TD's logic is flawed - it's not relevant what declarer thought they were playing, only their agreement is relevant. BTW, if 2♦ is Brozel, is 3♥ forcing? I read this auction as "I have diamonds and hearts; let's play in diamonds; I have better hearts and a really good hand" playing Brozel, but I'm not really all that familiar with the convention. BTW, what was the range of 1NT?

 

If there's no problem with responder's pass of 3♥ then I agree with Sven - result stands, there having been no infraction.

[szgyula]

In an auction today the bidding went

1NT - 2D* - P - 3D

P - 3H - P - P

P

 

Before the opening lead .... the 2D alert was first asked re meaning. The 3D bidder said they played Brozel meaning D + H. Declarer says nothing. Dummy comes down with 5D and 3H. It turns out that the declarer thought they were playing Capp and the 2D was meant for majors. Brozel is listed on their convention cards. Is declarer required to tell ops before play that he meant the 2D as Capp. 3H makes but could have gone done -1 with better defense and declarer claims "ops should know that his hand isn't D and H looking at dummy's 5D. Director scores it as -1 with the reasoning that IF the declarer had said he forgot convention, he would not have had to disclose but since declarer says he was playing Capp he must tell ops before the beginning of play..... therefore the score is 3H -1.

As I see, the only information was the alert (correct) and the partnership agreement, Brozel. This was later supported by the CC, which is most of the time the deciding factor for TD's if the partners disagree on what they play. Thus, the Brozel explanation was correct. What the other player thought is irrelevant. There was no MI so there is no infraction, no adjustment.

 

One can make a slight case for not alerting the 3D, but I do not think it should be alerted. True, there is P as an option but a five card in partner's suit is more than enough to opt for the raise. The 3H probably shows some extra strength and a better H than D (e.g. 65). I still find it normal. The 2D bid was a biddign error, but that's part of the game...

[mycroft]

1. No, declarer does not have to explain that she forgot her agreement. However, if she truly believes even now that the agreement was Cappelletti, and there's no way to prove it one way or the other (of course, in this case, it's on their cards), she should assume she got it right and correct the MI.
   
2. If the *explanation* (not the Alert) was given before the 3♥ call, we have to check to see if there is an LA to 3♥ (frequently "pass" is logical - you bid 2♦ for the majors, partner explains it as the majors, and bids 3♦. Partner is not going to be happy if you pull his weakish 1=2=7=3 to one of your majors). If only the Alert is given (that's expected), then there's no MI, and the person holding the majors can do what they feel like, and take the abuse if it turns out to be wrong.
   
3. The 3♦ bidder has no restrictions on what he can do, provided there was no reason to believe (flinch, or other reaction, to the explanation of 2♦) that he is in possession of UI. If he chooses to guess to pass a "forcing" bid, fine.

[barmar]

1. No, declarer does not have to explain that she forgot her agreement. However, if she truly believes even now that the agreement was Cappelletti, and there's no way to prove it one way or the other (of course, in this case, it's on their cards), she should assume she got it right and correct the MI.
   

It seems likely that the 3♦ bid woke her up. Now that she remembers what their agreement is, she doesn't have to correct the explanation.

If the *explanation* (not the Alert) was given before the 3♥ call, we have to check to see if there is an LA to 3♥ (frequently "pass" is logical - you bid 2♦ for the majors, partner explains it as the majors, and bids 3♦. Partner is not going to be happy if you pull his weakish 1=2=7=3 to one of your majors). If only the Alert is given (that's expected), then there's no MI, and the person holding the majors can do what they feel like, and take the abuse if it turns out to be wrong.
The 3♦ bidder has no restrictions on what he can do, provided there was no reason to believe (flinch, or other reaction, to the explanation of 2♦) that he is in possession of UI. If he chooses to guess to pass a "forcing" bid, fine.

The OP seemed to be clear that the explanation was given during the correction period, not during the auction. So neither of these are relevant.