[jallerton]

---

Matchpoint pairs, England.

North's 2NT overcall was alerted, prompting East to ask the meaning. South replied "Both minors".
When North bid 3NT, East asked about 3NT. South shrugged and advised East to check the N/S convention card. In the "defence to weak twos" section of the N/S convention card, it clearly stated "2NT = both minors".

East led ♠A and continued the suit. Declarer won the K, cashed ♦K and played another diamond to the ace. He then cashed his winners in the red suits (with the aid of the marked heart finesse) and so the table result was 3NT+1, N/S +430.

West calls the TD, claiming that North's bidding may have been affected by unauthorised information. If 2NT is natural, then presumably 3♦ should be interpreted as a transfer, he suggests.

The TD asks North why he bid 2NT. He says that he knew that 2NT showed both minors, but because he had thought for a while over 2♠, he decided he ought to bid something and that a slow pass would put his partner in an awkward position.

How should the TD rule?

[JLOGIC]

Seems complicated, north should have to bid 3H after hearing the explanation, then south would bid 5D I guess, I don't know what that means by a passed hand but maybe it shows a void and north has to bid 5H (?) and south 6D which I think north can now pass since the auction is impossible, which east would double.

[blackshoe]

North's 2NT bid was "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length". IOW, it was a psych. As this was in the EBU, I think we have to look at the EBU psych regulation. I'll leave that to others, at least for the moment.

[JLOGIC]

Why would one believe north?

[PhilKing]

It all seems a bit dubious - South's 3♦ bid suggests they had been there before.

[mr1303]

Yes, I'm not convinced by the explanation, and consider South only bidding 3D as a red fielded misbid, so I rule 60:30

[blackshoe]

JLOGIC, on 2013-March-06, 16:39, said:

Why would one believe north?

Why would one not believe him?

[JLOGIC]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-06, 22:27, said:

Why would one not believe him?

Because his comment is self serving, and the evidence from his hand suggests that he meant 2N as natural rather than the minors? If you were a police officer would you believe a guy who had a knife in his hand with a glove on over a stab victim that he always carries a knife and he was checking on this guy and it was just a coincedence? If not, why not?

[Trinidad]

JLOGIC, on 2013-March-06, 15:05, said:

Seems complicated, north should have to bid 3H after hearing the explanation, then south would bid 5D I guess, I don't know what that means by a passed hand but maybe it shows a void and north has to bid 5H (?) and south 6D which I think north can now pass since the auction is impossible, which east would double.

I fully agree. Obviously other results are possible too, but they all lead to NS getting seriously over board. Fortunately it's MPs, so deviations in the analysis have little or no influence on the score.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-06, 22:27, said:

Why would one not believe him?

I can certainly believe that a player makes a slightly aggressive bid when he has been thinking to prevent that partner gets barred. I do not believe that a player who thinks that he should bid something deliberately makes a complete misbid in that situation (showing 10 cards in the minors when he has more cards in the majors than in the minors). I might well believe it if North had doubled or jumped to 3NT.

If you would follow North's reasoning, what would you rather bid: 3♦ or 2NT? They both promise diamonds (and you don't really have them), but 2NT also promises clubs (but you really don't have those).

No, North is telling fairy tales. He bid 2NT because he had a balanced 15-17 hand and he thought that 2NT was the correct bid. The 'oops' came when his partner alerted. North has blatantly used the UI from the alert.

Rik

[paulg]

There are a couple of pairs at my local club who perpetrate this sort of auction and other similar ones (a two clubs overcall of a short club opener being natural or Michaels). The defining factor for responder is normally the time taken to make the call and their length in the shown suits. It does lead to the occasional disaster but normally they get it right.

So I suppose describing 2NT as the minors is really MI, since their implicit agreement is "both minors unless partner has a strong balanced hand". This might apply in this case too, particularly if they are a weak pair.

[wank]

obviously north is having a laugh and anyone who believes him should take a look at the bridge in london i'm selling.

[CamHenry]

paulg, on 2013-March-07, 02:31, said:

There are a couple of pairs at my local club who perpetrate this sort of auction and other similar ones (a two clubs overcall of a short club opener being natural or Michaels). The defining factor for responder is normally the time taken to make the call and their length in the shown suits. It does lead to the occasional disaster but normally they get it right.

So I suppose describing 2NT as the minors is really MI, since their implicit agreement is "both minors unless partner has a strong balanced hand". This might apply in this case too, particularly if they are a weak pair.

A bit of a tangent here, but last weekend I encountered a pair who played a defence to a short club I haven't seen before. They had agreed that 2♣ was "clubs or Michaels". It's a legal agreement, and at least they knew they weren't going to forget it!

[campboy]

CamHenry, on 2013-March-07, 04:05, said:

A bit of a tangent here, but last weekend I encountered a pair who played a defence to a short club I haven't seen before. They had agreed that 2♣ was "clubs or Michaels". It's a legal agreement, and at least they knew they weren't going to forget it!

I've played this in the past (in fact I think it was on our card last weekend) and think it's quite a good idea even if forgetting isn't an issue.

[iviehoff]

jallerton, on 2013-March-06, 13:22, said:

The TD asks North why he bid 2NT. He says that he knew that 2NT showed both minors, but because he had thought for a while over 2♠, he decided he ought to bid something and that a slow pass would put his partner in an awkward position.

Since this player is aware that his hesitations put partner in a difficult situation, he is clearly a player of some experience and thoughtfulness. It is beyond belief that a player of this level of thoughtfulness can think that it is advantageous to psyche merely because he has hesitated and the correct call would be pass.

The agreement that 2N=minors, without any provision for what to do on 15+ balanced hands, is an agreement with a large disadvantage to it. If N simply thought that 2N showed 15-18 flat, or similar, he wouldn't have hesitated, he'd have bid 2N straightaway. So I think it is quite plausible that N was fully aware that 2N=minors when he chose the bid. But, having no bid for this kind of hand, bid 2N simply hoping that he would be understood after he made an "impossible" rebid. If they have been playing this agreement for any length of time, the same situation must have occurred before.

Thus I lean towards a MI/CPU ruling rather than a UI ruling.

[c_corgi]

iviehoff, on 2013-March-07, 05:42, said:

... If N simply thought that 2N showed 15-18 flat, or similar, he wouldn't have hesitated, he'd have bid 2N straightaway...

North's statement assumes the hesitation as fact but the OP does not say that it actually happened.

[Zelandakh]

iviehoff, on 2013-March-07, 05:42, said:

Thus I lean towards a MI/CPU ruling rather than a UI ruling.

This. I would like to know how many times this has happened before. South's actions suggest to me strongly that (s)he was well aware of the possibility that 2NT might be bid with this type of hand. It also strikes me that this kind of defence is very open to Weasel abuse.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-March-07, 05:42, said:

Thus I lean towards a MI/CPU ruling rather than a UI ruling.

So do I.

c_corgi, on 2013-March-07, 06:15, said:

North's statement assumes the hesitation as fact but the OP does not say that it actually happened.

It doesn't say that it didn't happen, either. As always, we have to rely on the facts we're given. At the table, of course, we would investigate. Thoroughly.

[lalldonn]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-06, 22:27, said:

Why would one not believe him?

Because his story is stupid. Have you ever made a bid that is completely not your agreement because you had already hesitated?

[barmar]

PhilKing, on 2013-March-06, 16:52, said:

It all seems a bit dubious - South's 3♦ bid suggests they had been there before.

Why? Doesn't he have a clear preference for diamonds? Maybe you mean his pass of 3NT suggests this. Or do you think he should have bid 4♦ or 5♦?

What about the fact that North didn't treat 3♦ as a transfer? It could be because he knew that South wouldn't expect 2NT to be natural, or it could be that the alert reminded him of this. Since the UI makes this more likely, I think we have to rule that he took advantage of it when not accepting the transfer.