Lack of alert of a common artificial bid

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt52h6daqt95c7&w=s97hqj942d843ca63&n=s864ht75dk72ckq84&e=sk3hak83dj6cjt952&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2s2n4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

No alert was given for 2NT.

 

South receibes ♥Q lead which holds. Another heart comes which is ruffed. Now south assumed 2NT showed the minors and though there were very bad splits ahead. East is marked with singleton at most in spades so south begun to draw trumps from hand with ♠A+♠Q

 

This resulted on +620 which was a bottom for NS.

 

EW are a first time partnership. East thinks they had agreed on 2NT 2 places to play, but West thinks it was minors,

[gordontd]

Would 2NT for the minors be alertable in your jurisdiction?

[Fluffy]

Yes, there is a list of standard conventions but it includes stayman, transfer a little more.

[helene_t]

If 2nt=minors would be alertable then it is South's own problem that he assumes an unalerted 2nt bid to show minors.

[Trinidad]

So, South is supposed to assume it is a 20 point balanced hand (presumably the unalerted meaning) when the hand can have at most 17 after trick 1?

 

Rik

[Manastorm]

So, South is supposed to assume it is a 20 point balanced hand (presumably the unalerted meaning) when the hand can have at most 17 after trick 1?

 

Rik

Indeed south should assume that is the agreement, but probably not what east holds.

[gordontd]

So, South is supposed to assume it is a 20 point balanced hand (presumably the unalerted meaning) when the hand can have at most 17 after trick 1?

 

Rik

No, I think South should consider that there has been a failure to alert and should ask.

 

If he assumed it was the minors with no alert, I can't see why we would expect him to do otherwise if there had been an alert.

[lamford]

No, I think South should consider that there has been a failure to alert and should ask.

 

If he assumed it was the minors with no alert, I can't see why we would expect him to do otherwise if there had been an alert.

I agree he should have asked with or without an alert. However, he would, it seems, have been told "minors", and he would have placed East with ♠none ♥AKx ♦Jxxxx ♣JT9xx or the like. He would then have continued with top spades, perforce, and would have then received an adjusted score for misinformation, as the correct explanation appears to be "no agreement". We are also told in 21B1(a): Failure to alert <snip> is deemed misinformation. So, we deem that South was misinformed.

[blackshoe]

Is there more than one possible meaning that does not require an alert?

[Vampyr]

Is there more than one possible meaning that does not require an alert?

 

Does that even matter? Declarer assumed that it was an alertable meaning, but didn't ask for an explanation.

[blackshoe]

I'm trying to figure out why he didn't ask. I suppose he thought he knew. <shrug>

[barmar]

The failure to alert is MI. But it doesn't seem like the MI was the cause of the damage. Had there been an alert, and had he asked, he would have been told "minors", which is what he assumed. And even if he were told "no agreement" (which seems to be the actual fact), he presumably would have assumed minors, since that's what he assumed without asking.

 

It seems like it would be legal to give a PP to West for the failure to alert, but there doesn't seem to be a cause for score adjustment.

 

The only tricky case would have been if he'd asked and been told "minors", then at the end of the hand East corrected it to "2 suits". Then the TD might reasonably decide that being told something specific that isn't actually their agreement was a direct cause of his misplaying. It would be difficult to know what the player would have assumed if he'd been correctly told "no agreement".