[VixTD]

Swiss Teams:

---

2NT was alerted and explained as "15-19"
4NT was RKCB, 5♥ showed two key cards and denied the ♠Q (but neither was alerted as they are above 3NT)

♣3 was led to West's 8
West led a small trump from hand on which North played ♠10

Result: 6♠(W)=, NS -1430

North called the director at the end of play and questioned the 2NT rebid with a void. There was no mention of a possible void in the explanation. He had played a spade honour on the first round in order to guarantee himself two tricks - a trump and the ♥A.

When asked further EW said their agreement was that 2NT showed 15-19 hcp (game forcing) and any distribution. When asked why they didn't mention this, they said they didn't realise they had to, and came up with some story about being told by a TD in another event that they didn't have to.

Some further information that may be relevant: 2NT strictly speaking requires an alert just by virtue of being forcing (although not many people do alert it), so the alert did not necessarily warn of anything unusual.

North is after an adjusted score. Are you giving him anything?

[PeterAlan]

Emphatically No - N's trying it on. Quite apart from the fact that the 2NT rebid may well be made with shortage in partner's suit, and it's by no means unknown for it to be a void, especially if partner's 2♥ over 1♠ guarantees certain minimum values in the suit, it's quite wrong to play ♠10 on the first round - play low instead. If declarer has ♠KQ he isn't going to take a first-round finesse of the 9, and if he goes up with the A your J10x remains good for a trick. And if he'd done that, N/S will make 2 trump tricks, however W plays.

[Cyberyeti]

Is N entitled to an alert, yes, I also play 2N as GF not necessarily balanced and we alert it and explain it as such if asked.

Is N entitled to any redress, no, serious error, W told him by his 4♠ bid/blackwood response that partner has stiff Q♠.

[dkham]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-24, 07:39, said:

...W told him by his 4♠ bid/blackwood response that partner has stiff Q♠.

Good point.

[RMB1]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-24, 07:39, said:

Is N entitled to any redress, no, serious error, W told him by his 4♠ bid/blackwood response that partner has stiff Q♠.

It is not clear that an explanation was ever asked of 4NT/5♥.

Even if ♠10 is a serious error, Law 12C still requires we consider an adjustment for offending side. Is the serious error unrelated to the infraction?

[iviehoff]

I think the important thing here is whether the 2NT bid is inviting partner to raise NT or not.

If it is inviting game in NT, then it is a fair enough punt that anyone would do to bid it with a void in partner's suit. One might even gamble to do it with stops missing. This is all normal. In this context, "any distribution" means "any distribution I think might be suitable for playing in 3NT opposite partner's hand", it doesn't mean "any distribution at all".

But if it is intended as an entirely artificial point count bid with no suggestion of playing in NT, then the opps have been misled. But i think this is not very likely.

[Trinidad]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-24, 07:39, said:

Is N entitled to an alert, yes, I also play 2N as GF not necessarily balanced and we alert it and explain it as such if asked.

Is N entitled to any redress, no, serious error, W told him by his 4♠ bid/blackwood response that partner has stiff Q♠.

Ho, STOP!!!

The 2NT, which was actually asked and explained, told North that West had hearts. The Blackwood responses were not asked.

You ask North to take an inference from one piece of information from the opponents (that he didn't even have), just in case other information that he had from the opponents might be incorrect. Why are you forcing him to rely on the Blackwood sequence and denying him the right to rely on the explanation of the 2NT bid?

With the explanation that he got, North was 100% correct: Playing the 10 is the 100% sure way to beat the contract, as long as West has a balanced hand, a semibalanced hand or (with the exception of some pretty extreme cases that would certainly also be deemed MI) any hand with at least a singleton heart.

Would I have played the 10? No, I don't think so. I would have relied on the Blackwood response, expecting to get the contract 2 down. And I would have looked incredibly stupid if declarer would have had the queen and inserted the 9 anyway since he got inspired. (What do I know? Maybe declarer happened to see partner's hand when I was busy sorting my cards.) This North would not have looked stupid.

Given the fact that this was an IMP match it cannot be a serious error to make 100% sure that you beat a vulnerable slam. If this would have been a pairs game, I could say that North was giving up on the extra undertrick way too easily. But at IMPs, I cannot blame North for making extra sure that a vulnerable slam is beaten, assuming only that the explanation of the auction is correct.

Rik

[PeterAlan]

 RMB1, on 2012-May-24, 08:20, said:

It is not clear that an explanation was ever asked of 4NT/5♥.

Even if ♠10 is a serious error, Law 12C still requires we consider an adjustment for offending side. Is the serious error unrelated to the infraction?

Have you decided there was an infraction? If so, just what was it?

[RMB1]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 08:51, said:

Have you decided there was an infraction?

Yes (weeks ago when I was consulted on this ruling)

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 08:51, said:

If so, just what was it?

Is this rhetorical? I thought there was only one possible infraction.

North is arguing that he was misinformed by the explanation:
the infraction (if there is one) is misinformation.

[PeterAlan]

 RMB1, on 2012-May-24, 09:10, said:

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 08:51, said:

Have you decided there was an infraction?

Yes (weeks ago when I was consulted on this ruling)

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 08:51, said:

If so, just what was it?

Is this rhetorical? I thought there was only one possible infraction.

North is arguing that he was misinformed by the explanation:
the infraction (if there is one) is misinformation.

No, it wasn't totally rhetorical. You say the infraction would be misinformation, but the information given was entirely accurate - as far as it went. It said nothing about the distribution of the hand, but you're presumably ruling misinformation because you felt something should have been said about that. But then we start getting into grey areas about where the boundaries are - exactly what would you regard as correct? Does one, for example, have to say "15-19 balanced" if that's what it always is? If not, why not? Becase you implicitly expect that? What about a singleton in partner's suit? Do I have to alert partner's 1NT rebid every time in the sequence 1X-1Y-1NT just in case she might be 4-4-4-1 and singleton in my suit? Are you going to rule against me if I don't, that's what she has, and someone calls you? And if a singleton's OK but a void is not (a) who says so, and (b) why?

This is a rebid we've got here, not an opening. I don't think you can impose, for ruling purposes, arbitrary boundaries about distribution without being prepared to spell out what they are, just as is done with 1NT opening announcements. And if you're not prepared to do that, then the rulings become dependent on "well everyone knows that's where the boundaries are", and that's not good enough.

[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-24, 08:46, said:

Ho, STOP!!!

The 2NT, which was actually asked and explained, told North that West had hearts. The Blackwood responses were not asked.

No it wasn't, was explained as 15-19, NOT 15-19 balanced, he could have asked.

Quote

You ask North to take an inference from one piece of information from the opponents (that he didn't even have), just in case other information that he had from the opponents might be incorrect. Why are you forcing him to rely on the Blackwood sequence and denying him the right to rely on the explanation of the 2NT bid?

With the explanation that he got, North was 100% correct: Playing the 10 is the 100% sure way to beat the contract, as long as West has a balanced hand, a semibalanced hand or (with the exception of some pretty extreme cases that would certainly also be deemed MI) any hand with at least a singleton heart.

Would I have played the 10? No, I don't think so. I would have relied on the Blackwood response, expecting to get the contract 2 down. And I would have looked incredibly stupid if declarer would have had the queen and inserted the 9 anyway since he got inspired. (What do I know? Maybe declarer happened to see partner's hand when I was busy sorting my cards.) This North would not have looked stupid.

Given the fact that this was an IMP match it cannot be a serious error to make 100% sure that you beat a vulnerable slam. If this would have been a pairs game, I could say that North was giving up on the extra undertrick way too easily. But at IMPs, I cannot blame North for making extra sure that a vulnerable slam is beaten, assuming only that the explanation of the auction is correct.

Rik

Also I don't know the class of player involved, but with anybody competent and under 60 I'd assume RKCB and 99% of the time I'd be right, but I would definitely have asked before leading as I pretty much invariably do when declarer is the hand that's answered the ace ask.

[RMB1]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 09:32, said:

I don't think you can impose, for ruling purposes, arbitrary boundaries about distribution without being prepared to spell out what they are, ...

I don't want to.

Explanations are given in natural language (a dialect "bridge english"). Natural language contains assumptions, and speakers and listeners make assumptions. Players are not always speaking the same language, and make different assumptions, and misunderstandings occur. Players can avoid some misunderstandings by being aware of different meanings and assumptions used by other players.

Misunderstanding between explainer and opponents happen. If the misunderstanding is the fault of the opponent then the opponent has no redress but if the misunderstanding is the fault of the explainer then there is misinformation.

In this case, a 2NT rebid explained as "15-19" is taken to mean "like a traditional 2NT rebid but the range is wider: 15-19". The explainer should have been aware of this and should given a different explanation: 15-19, not necessarily traditional 2NT rebid shape".

[PeterAlan]

 RMB1, on 2012-May-24, 09:56, said:

In this case, a 2NT rebid explained as "15-19" is taken to mean "like a traditional 2NT rebid but the range is wider: 15-19". The explainer should have been aware of this and should given a different explanation: 15-19, not necessarily traditional 2NT rebid shape".

OK, let's posit a hypothetical equivalent situation where W has just a singleton ♥, and N claims that for an explanation of just "15-19" he was expecting at least 2. Do you rule misinformation in this case? If not, why not?

[PeterAlan]

An interesting sideline on the play is that, if W has a ♥ loser, then either (and most likely) he can't get it away on a ♦ or ♣ in dummy, or, if he can, N won't get in before he does. In the first scenario, N's ♠10 guarantees the trump trick, but loses the second trump trick that applies in either scenario if partner has the ♠Q as seems likely from the auction, whether the 5♥ bid is actually explained or not. Of course, if W has just a singleton ♥ and does get it away N can still complain about being misinformed ... And W surely can't get 2 ♥s away.

[RMB1]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 10:03, said:

If not, why not?

If I did not so rule, it would be because a singleton ♥ is not unexpected (for a 1♠ = 2♥ = 2NT rebid).

To rule, I would have to determine whether this is or isn't [un]expected.

[PeterAlan]

 RMB1, on 2012-May-24, 10:37, said:

If I did not so rule, it would be because a singleton ♥ is not unexpected (for a 1♠ = 2♥ = 2NT rebid).

To rule, I would have to determine whether this is or isn't [un]expected.

So for you the boundary might, or might not, lie somewhere between a singleton and a doubleton, depending on your parameters (which we haven't begun to explore) for deciding what's "unexpected", but a void's definitely out. We're not getting very clear answers, are we? E/W think another TD's told them otherwise. See what I mean about arbitrary boundaries?

And if you're DIC I'd better alert every 1NT rebid my partner makes after a 1-over-1 sequence just in case she's 4-4-4-1, singleton in my suit. And people who play a 1 or 2 NT rebid as always balanced had better make that clear, in case someone might think they might have a singleton and allow for the possibility.

This leads to a mass of extra alerts, questions and explanations, not to protect the N in this case (you're probably ruling against him anyway), but so you can still score E/W -1.

I think a more robust view about misinformation is warranted - provided 2NT shows a willingness to play in NT, I don't think you should be ruling misinformation just because it's not one of the 3 balanced shapes.

[RMB1]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 10:54, said:

I'd better alert every 1NT rebid my partner makes after a 1-over-1 sequence just in case she's 4-4-4-1, singleton in my suit. And people who play a 1 or 2 NT rebid as always balanced had better make that clear, in case someone might think they might have a singleton and allow for the possibility.

I don't really understand your point. The word "unexpected" has been in the EBU alerting regulations for decades. Alerting unexpected meanings is not a recent change or interpretation. A practical test for "unexpected" is to ask some players.

[Cyberyeti]

 RMB1, on 2012-May-24, 11:07, said:

I don't really understand your point. The word "unexpected" has been in the EBU alerting regulations for decades. Alerting unexpected meanings is not a recent change or interpretation. A practical test for "unexpected" is to ask some players.

This should not be unexpected, I would have said "balanced or short in partner's suit" is what you should expect, he just happens to have none rather than one. If he had a side suit void I'd have a lot more sympathy.

[c_corgi]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 10:03, said:

OK, let's posit a hypothetical equivalent situation where W has just a singleton ♥, and N claims that for an explanation of just "15-19" he was expecting at least 2. Do you rule misinformation in this case? If not, why not?

If the agreement was "15-19, basically balanced or NT suitable, but sometimes might have a singleton in partners suit if there is no sensible alternative" then the disclosure would not have been too bad (IMO). Where the tipping point should be between "can reluctantly contain a singleton" and "will usually bid 2NT if he has a singleton heart" is not clear to me, but it feels as though the latter should be explicitly disclosed*. Since it was 15-19 any shape it is clear MI.

Note that to discard a singleton heart on one of dummy's clubs requires West to have 10 cards in the pointed suits, which, if systemic should also be disclosed.


*This is analagous to announcing 1NT "may contain a singleton", which (I understand) applies to when a significant proportion of e.g.4441 shapes will open 1NT, not when 1NT will contain a singleton 1 time in 1,000.

[VixTD]

I have to confess I took EW at their word when they said "any distribution" and assumed that meant "any distribution given that it contains at least five spades and no longer suit than spades". The referee (I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn the ruling, whatever it was, was appealed) delved a little deeper and learned that the distribution could be more extreme than the actual hand and could routinely contain another five-card suit along with a heart void, for instance.