[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Q♥ lead. Table Result NS+1440

This was a probably constructed hand from Mike Swanson's column in English Bridge, October 2012, page 11. The TD ruled no adjustment as South had continued to bid as though he had shown a 20-22 2NT. There was UI for both sides from North's alert and South's gasp when North alerted, so the table and the passing waiter all knew what had happened. The actual methods are as explained by the captions.

Do you agree with the ruling of no adjustment? Declarer picked the spades and guessed the clubs in the ending, helped by West's cover of the jack.

[blackshoe]

I guess by "both sides" you mean North and South, since I don't see how their alerts and mannerisms can give UI to EW.

The first four bids seem completely consistent with the bidder's "understanding" of the auction, so the only questionable bid must be 6NT. From South's point of view, North has shown at least 5-4 in the red suits and a mild slam try, even though he knows, from UI, that North thinks South is 5-5 minors and weak and has simply said that he prefers diamonds to clubs and is not interested even in game opposite South's supposed 3=0=5=5 or 2=0=(65). South is maximum for his 20-22 HCP opener, so that suggests accepting the slam try. OTOH, the UI suggests North doesn't have a slam try, and that suggests passing or maybe bidding 4NT. So South has not chosen a call suggested by UI over another. Quite the opposite. Also the lie of the cards and the way South chose to play the hand are "rub of the green". So yes, I agree with the ruling.

This strikes me as fairly straightforward, so I'm probably missing something.

[aguahombre]

There might be something different in the EBU to consider, but this would seem to be a ruling appropriate universally.

South continued to bid as if he had a strong 20-22 2NT, and as if North had shown hearts, diamonds and a slam try. He accepted.

North continued to bid as if South had a 2-suiter in the minors. The fact that he dogged it with QTXX and KXX in the minors after allegedly learning Opener had extra strength and a heart void might be considered a hedge against a possible misunderstanding, but I don't think it is actionable. If responder had tried 3NT after 3H, there would be issues.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-19, 08:30, said:

This strikes me as fairly straightforward, so I'm probably missing something.

Your approach was exactly the one given by Mike Swanson. I think the only questionable bid is the 3H bid by South. He knows from the UI that his partner is unlikely to have five hearts. I think that another LA is 3NT. What that will mean in the partnership methods is anyone's guess. My guess is that it shows extra length, perhaps 6-6 and North will jump to 5♦. Another possible LA is pass - partner could have a weak 2-2-5-4 very easily. 3H keeps the ball rolling and is unlikely to lead to disaster and is demonstrably suggested over the other LAs. It is irrelevant that it would be automatic over a transfer to hearts - those are not the NS methods.

Or are all rulings now based on what people think 16B should say?

[PhilKing]

Over 4♦, I would bid 4♠ since 6♦ rates to be huge even with a 4-3 fit:

♠Qxx
♥AJxxx
♦QJ9x
♣x

and now North jumps to 6♦. I don't remotely agree that South can do anything other than bid 3♥ - South has to continue as if he had opened a natural 2NT, even though that's not what they play.

The real problem is whether to rule that 6♦ makes.

[aguahombre]

I would never have guessed 3NT instead of 3H to be a possibility for any pair above B/I. Passing a transfer is even sillier.

[helene_t]

Yes I think South has a logical alternative to 6NT that would take them to 6♦.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-April-19, 08:47, said:

It is irrelevant that it would be automatic over a transfer to hearts - those are not the NS methods.

It *is* relevant, because south *thought* those were the methods, and is required to continue thinking so.

[blackshoe]

There may be some cases in which rulings are supposed to be based on custom and practice, rather than a literal reading of the law. So?

If you think 3NT is an LA, give the auction (but not South's hand) to several of NS's peers, up to but not beyond 3NT (instead of 3H) and ask them what, as North, they would think it means. I think it makes no sense. I think it is not an LA. Not if South is bidding on the basis that he has shown a weak minor two suiter, as you seem to suggest he should.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-19, 09:05, said:

There may be some cases in which rulings are supposed to be based on custom and practice, rather than a literal reading of the law. So?

If you think 3NT is an LA, give the auction (but not South's hand) to several of NS's peers, up to but not beyond 3NT (instead of 3H) and ask them what, as North, they would think it means. I think it makes no sense. I think it is not an LA. Not if South is bidding on the basis that he has shown a weak minor two suiter, as you seem to suggest he should.

I gave the hand to five people. I told them "with screens, you open 2NT on this hand showing 5-5 in the minors, 6-10 and partner bids 3D, NF; what do you do next?" After saying, "Oops" or "oh dear", they thought 3NT was the best bid opposite a hand that gave a simple preference. Second choice was Pass. None of them bid 3H. I did not ask them what 3NT would mean to a partner but a friend who plays the 2NT gadget said "6-6".

And if the WBFLC do not want TDs to rule according to the literal reading of the Law they should issue a correction. As they did with mechanical errors which you learn of because of an alert. You can now change these, even though it is a clear breach of Law 73.

[nige1]

Lamford writes "Matchpoints. Q♥ lead. Table Result NS+1440. This was a probably constructed hand from Mike Swanson's column in English Bridge, October 2012, page 11. The TD ruled no adjustment as South had continued to bid as though he had shown a 20-22 2NT. There was UI for both sides from North's alert and South's gasp when North alerted, so the table and the passing waiter all knew what had happened. The actual methods are as explained by the captions. Do you agree with the ruling of no adjustment? Declarer picked the spades and guessed the clubs in the ending, helped by West's cover of the jack."

IMO, this case illustrates how hard it is for players, in receipt of UI, to perform the mental gymnastics required by the law (even when they understand it). I think NS tried their best and the ruling is reasonable, in the circumstances.

---

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-19, 08:57, said:

South has to continue as if he had opened a natural 2NT, even though that's not what they play.

Under which law?

[billw55]

lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:09, said:

I gave the hand to five people. I told them "with screens, you open 2NT on this hand showing 5-5 in the minors, 6-10 and partner bids 3D, NF; what do you do next?"

Fixed to show the proper poll question.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:09, said:

I gave the hand to five people. I told them "with screens, you open 2NT on this hand showing 5-5 in the minors, 6-10 and partner bids 3D, NF; what do you do next?" After saying, "Oops" or "oh dear", they thought 3NT was the best bid opposite a hand that gave a simple preference. Second choice was Pass. None of them bid 3H. I did not ask them what 3NT would mean to a partner but a friend who plays the 2NT gadget said "6-6".

And if the WBFLC do not want TDs to rule according to the literal reading of the Law they should issue a correction. As they did with mechanical errors which you learn of because of an alert. You can now change these, even though it is a clear breach of Law 73.

Come on!

Remembering what you play behind a screen is authorised. Remebering after partner has alerted is not. This seems like a routine common situation.

LAW 16b?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:09, said:

I gave the hand to five people. I told them "with screens, you open 2NT on this hand showing 5-5 in the minors, 6-10 and partner bids 3D, NF; what do you do next?" After saying, "Oops" or "oh dear", they thought 3NT was the best bid opposite a hand that gave a simple preference. Second choice was Pass. None of them bid 3H. I did not ask them what 3NT would mean to a partner but a friend who plays the 2NT gadget said "6-6".

And if the WBFLC do not want TDs to rule according to the literal reading of the Law they should issue a correction. As they did with mechanical errors which you learn of because of an alert. You can now change these, even though it is a clear breach of Law 73.

Apparently I do not understand what you're getting at, because your polling procedure seems inconsistent with what you said (or implied) previously. It seemed to me you want South to bid as if he has the weak two suiter, even though he doesn't. This is inconsistent with my understanding of how players should act at the table, ie they should attempt to discern what calls are LAs, and which among them are suggested by UI, and then not choose any of those calls.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:15, said:

Under which law?

Law 73C?

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-19, 09:17, said:

Come on!

Remembering what you play behind a screen is authorised. Remebering after partner has alerted is not.

The LAs are decided in the same way. Using the methods of the partnership. It is agreed that the information is unauthorised, but that does not change the LAs.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-April-19, 09:09, said:

I gave the hand to five people. I told them "with screens, you open 2NT on this hand showing 5-5 in the minors, 6-10 and partner bids 3D, NF; what do you do next?" After saying, "Oops" or "oh dear", they thought 3NT was the best bid opposite a hand that gave a simple preference. Second choice was Pass. None of them bid 3H. I did not ask them what 3NT would mean to a partner but a friend who plays the 2NT gadget said "6-6".
And if the WBFLC do not want TDs to rule according to the literal reading of the Law they should issue a correction. As they did with mechanical errors which you learn of because of an alert. You can now change these, even though it is a clear breach of Law 73.

TFLB L16B1 said:

After a player (a) makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected² alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information
(b) A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

TFLB L73C said:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected²³ alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information.

Ah! Brilliant! Lamford raised this interesting anomaly in a previous post. The laws are so complex and sophisticated that we should expect such mistakes. But it is surprising that this one went unnoticed for so long.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2013-April-19, 09:18, said:

Law 73C?

That makes you carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI. It does not say that you can breach Law 16B. Are you saying that one should breach 16B in order to comply with 73C?

[lamford]

nige1, on 2013-April-19, 09:20, said:

Ah! Brilliant! Lamford raised this interesting anomaly in a previous post. The laws are so complex and sophisticated that we should expect such mistakes. But it is surprising that this one has gone unnoticed for so long.

I think it has not been unnoticed, as I have raised it ad nauseam at every opportunity!