error of explanation

[green48]

I opened 1C in West and North overcalled 2NT. South did not alert so East, my partner, took it as a strong balanced hand and passed. South passed and even though I had 16 points I had no rebid with 18/19 on my left so I passed as well. North intended his bid as showing both minors but he did not call the Director or offer any explanation. East led my suit and we got a very poor table score. I appealed on the basis that:

 

1. If North had explained, East would certainly have led a major for down 4 or 200.

 

2. If South had alerted and explained, I would have doubled, for us a non-minimum hand and primarily for penalties with strength in at least one of their suits (I had Clubs). North would probably have taken it out into a minor; my partner would have doubled 3K as she had good defence in that suit, and I would have doubled 3T. Both contracts go 2/3 down for 300/500.

 

Neither North nor South had a convention card so in the basence of proof I believe that it is assumed to be an error of explanation rather than a system error on North's part. The Director decided to adjust to 2NT down 4 for NS but to leave the table result for us as we had misdefended the contract and contributed to our poor result, adding that my partner could/should have asked what 2NT meant before leading.

 

Why is East supposed to smell a rat and ask about a bid not alerted or explained as anything other than natural?

 

I cannot see any equity in this at all.

 

Any comments?

 

Nicolas Green

[helene_t]

Hi Nicolas, welcome to the forum!

 

When posting in the law forums you should specify your jurisdiction. We need to know if your local CoC actually require an alert of such a 2NT bid and also how strict they are about the obligation to have convention cards. Also, it is best if you can provide the full hand so we can see if your p's lead was a serious error and if it is plausible that he would have lead a major if given correct explanation.

 

Presumably South took the bid as natural since he passed it. So you can't expect him to alert it, but if they actually have the agreement that it shows minors and South just forgot (or chose to pass it for some other reason) you are entitled to an adjusted score. Assuming that the 2NT bid is alertable and that the club lead isn't a serious error.

 

If they don't have an agreement about it and North just improvised the 2NT bid, there is nothing the TD can do about it.

 

Edit: if it is not clear what their agreement is, you are right that the TD should probably assume that their agreement is that it shows minors since they can't prove otherwise.

Edited February 23, 2015 by helene_t

[green48]

Hi Nicolas, welcome to the forum!

 

When posting in the law forums you should specify your jurisdiction. We need to know if your local CoC actually require an alert of such a 2NT bid and also how strict they are about the obligation to have convention cards. Also, it is best if you can provide the full hand so we can see if your p's lead was a serious error and if it is plausible that he would have lead a major if given correct explanation.

 

Presumably South took the bid as natural since he passed it. So you can't expect him to alert it, but if they actually have the agreement that it shows minors and South just forgot (or chose to pass it for some other reason) you are entitled to an adjusted score. Assuming that the 2NT bid is alertable and that the club lead isn't a serious error.

 

If they don't have an agreement about it and North just improvised the 2NT bid, there is nothing the TD can do about it.

 

 

I play in France. 2NT as a suited overcall is alertable and they are not strict at all about convention cards.

 

North S 10 H A3 D AK652 C QJ532

East S J65 H K62 D QJ108 C 1094

South P Q9872 H J854 D 743 C 8

West S AK43 H Q1097 D 9 C AR76

 

Certainly the Club lead was an error as it turned out and North was known to have defence there if 2NT was natural. But East, with only 7 points was simply trying to find my suit.

 

Nicolas Green

[helene_t]

I am not sure if the club lead is an error. But it is certainly not a serious error with that hand.

 

South must either have forgotten the agreement, or they don't have the agreement. If he had known he would have bid 3♦.

[Trinidad]

So, the hand and auction were:

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9872hj854d743c8&w=sak43hqt97d9cak76&n=stha3dak652cqj532&e=sj65hk62dqjt8ct94&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c2n(No%20alert)ppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I am not sure if the club lead is an error. But it is certainly not a serious error with that hand.

 

South must either have forgotten the agreement, or they don't have the agreement. If he had known he would have bid 3♦.

On the other hand, if South would have thought that 2NT was natural, he would have transferred to spades. (At least I would have.)

 

Not that it matters to the ruling.

 

I cannot see how a club lead would be a serious error.

 

I don't really like the TDs argument that East should have asked before leading. I know this is a common argument, but it only makes any sense to ask if:

South committed an infraction by not alerting (that can happen)

AND

North committed an infraction by not calling the TD before the opening lead

 

North didn't even offer a correction without calling the TD (as is common but not according to the Laws that rquire North to call the TD).

 

When South doesn't alert and North doesn't budge, East is supposed to be able to rely on the opponents' (lack of) explanation. Blaming East for failing to account for two infractions by the opponents is a little too much for me.

 

Rik

[barmar]

With only 7 HCP, there's no reason East should be suspicious. If you opened with about 12 HCP, that leaves 21 HCP outstanding, and 18-19 in North is possible.

 

The TD's rationale for this decision is totally off-base.

[whereagles]

I only adjust when it's clear-cut. And this is one such case.

[jfnrl]

The SEF meaning of this 2NT is "red two-suiter 5-5".

I have never heard a natural 2NT in this auction.

The balanced hands 18-20 HCP are generally shown by the auction : (1C) X (pass) 1banana (pass) 1NT.

So, i think that it is a misbid (the overcaller has in mind "the two cheapest" but forgot to exclude the opener's suit).

 

So the overcaller thought that his bid was standard, and his partner has no idea of the meaning.