[vinbtech]

Event: MP PAIRS
Board #6
Dealer: East
Vul: EW

The Scene: 1-session weekly MP pairs @ a local club in Ahmedabad,India WITHOUT SCREENS.

EW were KNOWN to play a Strong Club System. East Opened 1C which was not alerted. south bid 2C in tempo & North when asked the meaning of 2C asked what system OPPs were playing & when informed Strong Club, said 2C was NATURAL & the bidding proceeded thusly:

E S W N
==================
1C 2C P 2D
2N P 3N P

This was the deal:

E : S - KJX, H - AX, D - AKX, C- QJXX
S : S - AQXXX, H - KXXXX, D - XX, C - X
W : S - X, H - 10XX, D - QXXX, C- KXXXX
N : S - 10XXX, H - QJX,, D - JXXX, C - AX

---

3N was not exactly a thing of beauty & after South led a heart to North's J, ducked by Declarer & a Spade switch by North, 3N ended -6.
the Score: +600 to NS & 100% MP Score.

EW called the Director as they felt they were damaged. The Director after hearing what had transpired at the table ruled that the table result should stand.

I seek your opinion & advice re. the above incident in the light of the following:
(A) EW clearly ERRED in not following the ALERT procedure. But, the Director did not establish what the NS methods were over OPPs' Strong Club & Natural 1C.
In case they were playing the same methods, clearly this is a case of MIS-INFORMATION.
In case they were playing that over 1C-NAT, 2C is Michaels & over 1C-Strong 2C is NAT then there is no MIS-INFORMATION.
Both EW & NS are a fairly regular outfit by Club Standards. Do EW have a case after their PROCEDURAL FAILURE to ALERT. Are they DAMAGED or DAMNED !

(B) What do you think of North's 2D bid when he had alternatives of Pass & 3C available.
North, by the way, by his own admission was aware (a) that OPPs were playing Strong Club;
(b) of the ALERT procedure failure & 2C bid in tempo by his partner who had not inquired of the 1C bid.

© whether ACTIVE ETHICS has a role here & demands of South to lead a D based on pard's 2D Call? or lead a Club, perhaps?
(by this time South was aware of North's explanation as NO SCREENS were in use & all verbal exchanges were AUDIBLE to all concerned at the table).


Regards & Many Thanks
vinbtech

[campboy]

Of course we would need to check, but it seems likely that 2♣ is natural over a strong club, and majors over a natural club. In that case South's bid was the result of misinformation (the failure to alert). When he found out that 1♣ should have been alerted, he was in time to call the TD and get the chance to change his call, though he may not have known this. In any case the fact that he has misbid is authorised information to him, because it comes from the fact that opponents are playing a strong club. So he is entitled to lead what he likes.

There is I suppose the question of whether North's question is legitimate, as it could be construed (if he was certain they played a strong club) as asking for partner's benefit. However, I think it is merely a polite way of drawing attention to the failure to alert, and he is certainly entitled to do that.

[chrism]

The director will have to make a number of determinations initially, as far as possible,

• What is the actual NS agreement over a strong 1♣?
  
• What is the agreement over a natural 1♣?
  
• Was South aware that 1♣ was strong when he called 2♣?
  
• Did North believe that South knew the opponents' methods?
  
• When did the opponents ask the meaning of 2♣, thereby establishing the failure to alert 1♣?
  
• What would 2♦ have meant over a Michaels 2♣ bid?

For the sake of discussion, I am going to assume some answers; changing the answers may affect aspects of the ruling. So, I will hypothesise that

• NS play natural over a strong 1♣
  
• NS play Michaels (5-5 majors, maybe with strength requirements) over a natural 1♣
  
• South believed, at the moment he called 2♣, that 1♣ was natural
  
• North was unsure whether South knew what the opponents were playing
  
• West asked the meaning of 2♣ at his first turn to call
  
• 2♦ would have been natural over Michaels

In particular, I am not considering the cases where South intentionally psyched his call over 1♣, or where he forgot his methods.

We have the following irregularities, in chronological order:

• West: failure to alert, assuming that this is required by local regulations
  
• North (maybe): asking a question to which he already knows the answer, for partner's benefit
  
• Everyone: failing to call the director when attention is drawn to partner's failure to alert
  
• South (maybe): use of UI in the selecting a non-diamond opening lead

South has the UI that partner thinks his call was natural. North has the UI that partner didn't ask the meaning of 1♣, unless it is clear that he had reason to think that South knew, in which case he would expect South not to ask. EW have MI about the meaning of 2♣.

The root cause of the final outcome is the failure to alert. EW get little sympathy from that point on.

North is exonerated on item 2; in order to give full disclosure he needs to be sure of the meaning of 1♣, and would be expected to clarify it as part of his answer to the opponents' question.

If the director had been called for the failure to alert before North called 2♦, South could have been given the opportunity to withdraw his call and substitute another, with both calls AI to North, and the withdrawn call UI to EW. This might have given NS the opportunity to bid and make 4♠, though that is not particularly likely after the strong club opening. NS forewent that opportunity by not calling the director, and the probability is low enough not to rub salt in EW's wounds by assigning them -620

North is free to make any call he chooses over a natural 2♣ by South. He clearly did not treat the call as Michaels, since he failed to support spades, and whatever we may think of 2♦ as a bridge decision, it is legally untainted, as is the rest of the auction (South has no bid over 2N with or without UI).

If 2♦ would have been natural whatever the meaning of 2♣, then South's UI does not suggest a non-diamond lead over a diamond lead. If 2♦ over Michaels meant "bid your better major" then the authorized information clearly suggests a major-suit lead, and South acted ethically in not leading a diamond. So South, too, is exonerated.

Table result stands.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that India is a "weighted scores" (12C1c) jurisdiction, in which case EW probably won't get assigned -620. But if the infraction caused no damage, then there should be no adjustment. OTGH, had South started with a double (for example, showing both majors) the auction might have gone (1♣)-X-(XX) (5-7 HCP)-3♠ and now East has to choose between pass (unlikely), X, and 3NT. If he bids 3NT, we're back at the actual contract unless NS bid to 4S (will they?) If he doubles, well, 3♠X might just make. So there may well have been damage. This has to be explored by the TD at the table.

In this case I don't think, but I'm prepared to be wrong, that including 3NT in the weighting would be a "Reveley" ruling, because it's a possible outcome without the infraction.

[nige1]

chrism, on 2013-September-21, 05:38, said:

If 2♦ would have been natural whatever the meaning of 2♣, then South's UI does not suggest a non-diamond lead over a diamond lead. If 2♦ over Michaels meant "bid your better major" then the authorized information clearly suggests a major-suit lead, and South acted ethically in not leading a diamond. So South, too, is exonerated. Table result stands.

Thank you -- vinbtec for a fascinating problem -- and chrism for your comprehensive, interesting, and informative answer. Your last comment, however, reminds me of a series of disclosure posts by lamford. IMO, this case introduces even more complexity. Accepting your assumptions that

• When South bid 2♣ he intended it as Michaels -- and that is the NS agreement over a natural 1♣ opener.
• South has the UI that partner has taken his 2♣ bid as Natural -- and that is their agreement over a strong 1♣ opener.

2 questions:

• When North explained South's bid as Natural, he probably worried that it might be intended as Michaels. Should he disclose this, so that EW have the full picture? Otherwise how can EW guess the equally likely alternative meaning?
• If 2♦ would be natural over a natural 2♣ but artificial over South's intended Michaels, should South alert it? According the law as written, the answer seems to be No. But many directors say Yes. If the latter, how should South explain it? Does the uncertainty caused by the failure to alert affect the answer?

[blackshoe]

Whether an artificial 2♦ over Michaels should be alerted is a matter of regulation, not law.

South believes (apparently) that 1♣ was natural, his 2♣ is Michaels. If 2♣ is Michaels, 2♦ is artificial, asking South for his better major. If asked, that is how South should explain it. The fact that he knows that North explained his 2♣ as natural is irrelevant. If South now knows that 1♣ was strong and artificial, that doesn't change how he should explain 2♦ either. He has misbid, but that is information the other side will have to work out for themselves.

[Sjoerds]

Referring to A you could rule that due to the non alert of 1♣ NS are lost in bidding. But there is no damage so no adjustment.

But the 2♦ of North is indeed very strange to me. I looks to me that there might have been some UI between NS.
I would check some things:
- I would ask North: "why did you bid 2♦?"
- Was 2♦ alerted? and if not
- I would ask South why didn't you alert 2♦?
- What are NS agreements on 2♦ after 1♣-2♣*-pas-2♦ when 2♣ gives both majors?

1♣-2♣-pas-pas
pas

looks like an alternative to me for an AS.

[pran]

Sjoerds, on 2013-September-21, 10:59, said:

Referring to A you could rule that due to the non alert of 1♣ NS are lost in bidding. But there is no damage so no adjustment.

But the 2♦ of North is indeed very strange to me. I looks to me that there might have been some UI between NS.
I would check some things:
- I would ask North: "why did you bid 2♦?"
- Was 2♦ alerted? and if not
- I would ask South why didn't you alert 2♦?
- What are NS agreements on 2♦ after 1♣-2♣*-pas-2♦ when 2♣ gives both majors?

1♣-2♣-pas-pas
pas

looks like an alternative to me for an AS.

I believe it is important to realize that until West answered the question from North in order for North to give a correct description of the 2♣ bid by South, the (legally) authorized information for North and South was that the 1♣ opening bid was natural and that the 2♣ bid by South was (possibly) based on this.

West's answer changed this, and the legally authorized information for both North and South now in addition includes the fact that the opening 1♣ bid was indeed strong club.

(The fact that East and West were known strong club players did not exclude the possibility that they now used (or tried) a different system, and there was no legal cause for South to make sure whether they indeed had changed their system or West just failed to alert the 1♣ opening bid.)

(An interesting question is whether the fact that South's bid probably was a consequence of misinformation from West is authorized for East and West now, or if the only authorized information for them is that the 2♣ bid was natural?)

I consider the question by North about the 1♣ bid to be a favour to West in order to give a correct explanation on the agreement for the 2♣ bid. A better response by North would IMO have been to just give the two relevant agreements: "Natural over strong and takeout over natural 1♣ opening bid", leaving it to East and West to assume (at their own responsibilities) which agreement North would consider here.

I see no reason to question the 2♦ bid by North (showing support for both majors over a takeout 2♣ bid).

East and (in particular) West have dug their own grave.

[szgyula]

nige1, on 2013-September-21, 07:39, said:

2 questions:

• When North explained South's bid as Natural, he probably worried that it might be intended as Michaels. Should he disclose this, so that EW have the full picture? Otherwise how can EW guess the equally likely alternative meaning?
• If 2♦ would be natural over a natural 2♣ but artificial over South's intended Michaels, should South alert it? According the law as written, the answer seems to be No. But many directors say Yes. If the latter, how should South explain it? Does the uncertainty caused by the failure to alert affect the answer?

• 1 North is only required to give information about the agreements they have for a bid. He is not required to speculate what the partner thinks. In fact, he should probably not draw attention to the fact that (s)he is not sure if partner knows about the strong club. If OS is interested, they can ask. North is not obliged to guess.
  
• 2 If 2♦ is natural, no alert. If not, alert. South must act within the agreed system, which has 2♣ natural so 2♦ natural.
  
  I thibnk the bottom line is "do not indicate that you misbid".

[campboy]

pran, on 2013-September-21, 11:45, said:

(An interesting question is whether the fact that South's bid probably was a consequence of misinformation from West is authorized for East and West now, or if the only authorized information for them is that the 2♣ bid was natural?)

Well it's unauthorised for East, surely, since West's failure to alert is unauthorised to him. I can't see a legal justification for it being UI to West, unfortunately.

[Sjoerds]

pran, on 2013-September-21, 11:45, said:

I see no reason to question the 2♦ bid by North (showing support for both majors over a takeout 2♣ bid).

North explained 2♣ to be NATURAL why then bid support for both majors. How did he get that information?

[barmar]

Sjoerds, on 2013-September-23, 08:13, said:

North explained 2♣ to be NATURAL why then bid support for both majors. How did he get that information?

He explained that after he was told that 1♣ was artificial. He correctly guessed that South bid on the assumption that it was natural. He's not required to explain his guesses, he's only required to explain their agreements. But he's not required to make his bidding decisions on that, he's allowed to use his guesses (unless they're influenced by UI, which is not the case here).

[mycroft]

Just because every time I've played against Nick and Judy Gartaganis (currently sleeping in Bali), they've played Precision. That doesn't mean that if Nick opens 1♣ next time I see him, and Judy doesn't Alert, that she forgot - they might have decided 24 years is enough, and it's time to try Standard. Not likely, but not impossible.

I play K/S with one partner, and have pretty much all the time I've ever played with her. We've learned a "bored-or-frustrated" system, and we occasionally play it, on whim. If you've never run across us doing that, how are you going to know? (except for the fact that it's technically Pre-Alertable, until the C&C committee and the BoD Have a Little Chat about precedence)

I like "It's majors if you've shown at least N clubs, and natural if you haven't." But I bet that I'd ask the same question North did anyway, because it's so unlike them *not* to Alert their Strong Club that it's possible it's no longer Alertable.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-September-23, 11:08, said:

He correctly guessed that South bid on the assumption that it was natural. He's not required to explain his guesses, he's only required to explain their agreements.

I have always assumed that partner knows the opponents' methods, and I am pretty sure that this is what you are obligated to do. After all, partner having asked or studied their convention card or whatever is UI to you. My regular partner and I have, on rare occasions, come to grief when one of us has made a competitive call without knowing what the opponents were playing, and it has never occurred to us to to be permitted to know that partner has made this call after MI or ignorance.

[ggwhiz]

Result stands. Alert your alertable bids and avoid the embarrassment of trying to get something for nothing.