[FrancesHinden]

I think that a NT opening bid, rebid, or overcall is expected to show balanced (or semi-balanced hand). If it systemically may have a void somewhere that should be both alerted and explained. I agree with Robin that there has been a clear infraction here.
I would think it an interesting case if they systemically rebid NT with a 5134/5143 and didn't clarify that opener might have a singleton in partner's suit. Note that I'd probably agree that in itself doesn't require an alert, but not explaining that opener may be unbalanced is a clear sin of omission.

EW are definitely 6S-1 (possibly 6S-2). I have a lot of sympathy for what North did, and would also give NS 6S-1.

[FrancesHinden]

 PeterAlan, on 2012-May-24, 07:30, said:

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.

If you think it is 'normal' to rebid 2NT with a void in partner's suit you need some eduction on what is normal. That, if systemic, definitely needs an alert and clear explanation.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

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.

Yes

Quote

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?

Ideally, yes. If not, because unless explained otherwise a NT bid is expected to show a balanced hand.

Quote

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?

There's argument for that, yes, but I think in practice no, because a 4441 with a singleton in partner's suit is not unexpected. If you regularly rebid 1NT on, say, a 1354 after 1D - 1S - 1NT I would expect that to be alerted because it is unexpected. And you certainly should explain it if asked. In the equivalent sequence in my system (1C-1H (transfer) - 1S) we explain it as 'something resembling a weak NT, may have a singleton spade' while our strong NT rebid would never have a singleton.

Quote

And if a singleton's OK but a void is not (a) who says so, and (b) why?

(a) RMB1 and Me and whoever the referee was that VixTD used (this is an internet forum, you won't get any better official answer here). But personally (I can't speak for Robin), I am not saying any singleton is OK, I am saying that a singleton and no other comfortable rebid is OK. That means, say, 1453 after 1D - 1S, but not, say, 5152 after 1S - 2H.


(b) Because the EBU have gone to the trouble of defining a 'balanced' or 'semi-balanced' hand and I think it is expected that a NT rebid shows one of those.

Quote

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.

Of course there are boundaries, on this as on all auctions. The point of alerts and explanations is to bring anything to your opponents' attention that they would be surprised by. If you have given an incomplete explanation, and the opponents were misled (as they clearly were in this case) than you are at fault, and you deserve to get ruled against. Unfortunately (fortunately?) it isn't practical to list all possible auctions and specify what would be 'expected' or 'unexpected' in each.

Suppose your opponents bid 1S - 2C - 2D - 3NT and opener turned out to have a singleton diamond. Would you feel damaged? Why? Opener says 'it's entirely normal to play that 2D is any minimum, what's your problem?' How are you going to challenge that if not by saying that this is 'unexpected' and should have been alerted.

[Cyberyeti]

So does it not matter that N has failed to protect himself by either studying the convention card or asking on the lead what 5♥ meant, I thought if you failed to protect yourself you were liable to not getting the ruling, and N could have been certain his partner had stiff Q♠, so 10♠ is misere.

[AlexJonson]

 iviehoff, on 2012-May-24, 08:28, said:

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.

Not sure why this sensible post has not been responded to. Do we believe that literally any distribution was implied?

[bluejak]

I am not sure that a 15-19 2NT rebid showing a balanced hand is unexpected enough to warrant an alert. When people started playing it, yes, it was, but nowadays I have my doubts.

I am surprised that anyone thinks there was no MI here. However, I am not so convinced about this balanced hand business. My experience of bridge in England over the last 25 years is that many many players consider a NT rebid to be natural, not necessarily balanced, but reasonably so. A singleton in partner's suit is often accepted, though not a void. Similarly, players who would not open 1NT with a 5422 or 6322 often rebid in NT with them.

When you describe an agreement to your opponents you are meant to describe it in full. In practice, players often do not when they are confident their opponents will understand a lesser explanation. So, if you play a 2NT rebid as the same shape that anyone else would bid it on, which these days includes 5=1=3=4 or 5=1=4=3 for many people, a description that merely gives the point range is generally considered acceptable.

But if you play it to show hands that opponents will not expect, and you are asked, and do not mention these shapes in your answer, you have misinformed the opponents. Here, there was clear MI.



Our opponents failed to find the spade fit so played in the cold 6NT by accident. They were still arguing with each other as they wrapped up 12 tricks.

[PeterAlan]

I'm sorry if I was being unduly provocative, and if it was inappropriate in a thread about a particular hand I apologise. But at least it's produced a healthy discussion about what is regarded as "unexpected", and I found the responses very interesting.

My personal view is that it's important to take a straightforward and practical approach to what players can expect a ruling to be based on, and I'm not sure that the subtle gradations of differences between, for example, what Frances would expect to be alerted and what she would expect to be offered in explanation but not initially alerted, aren't just a bit too nuanced: look at all the discussion about possible singletons above. What I'm hinting at is that, in the interests of greater simplicty and clarity, we could cut through these nuances of what might or might not be regarded as "unexpected", and the differences that different TDs might adopt in approaching that question.

For a NT rebid - and I would distinguish between a rebid and an overcall on the one hand and an opening bid on the other, though in places Frances lumps them all together - I suggest that the primary test should be "Is it suggesting a place to play?". If it is, fine, and opponents should be prepared to play against any distribution reasonably consonant with that. If not, then it is "unexpected". It seems that this is essentially the same position as iviehoff's.

[barmar]

 VixTD, on 2012-May-24, 11:45, said:

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.

The explanation of "any distribution" wasn't given until after the hand was over and the TD was called. During the auction, the only explanation given was "15-19".

[aguahombre]

I think we can assume Vix knew that, since he is the OP. Perhaps the point he was making is different from what you read.

What I got from his comments was that their agreements about 2NT go far beyond the given hand (which might be accepted as willingness to play in NT) and include quite wild distributional hands; thus the additional disclosure of that fact is required.

[PeterAlan]

Frances, thank you for the trouble you've taken with your long and considered replies above. Forgive me for continuing the debate just a little bit further.

I suppose it depends on your perspective. Mine (for the purposes of this thread) would be that I have little sympathy for N: he made unwarranted assumptions about what W's hand contained because the collective mindset of bridge encouraged him to do so. Life doesn't offer guarantees, and the game shouldn't either. I'm all for full disclosure, appropriately interpreted. I'm worried when it leads to an ill-defined collective orthodoxy, the boundaries of which are unclear, and departures from which are punished. I'm relatively new to the tournament game - maybe my view would be different with much more experience. But that might just be a sign of coming to love Big Brother.

There will always be a place for judgment rulings in the game, but I worry that we've got to a point where the basis on which they're made in the tournament game has become too based on extensive experience of that arena. We're in danger of that becoming more-and-more like the Glass Bead Game of Hermann Hesse's novel, for experienced and specialised afficionados only. Perhaps it's time to apply Occam's Razor to these rulings, to avoid multiplying unnecessarily the criteria considered, and to change our approach to one where we strive to adopt as simple a basis of decision-making as possible.

Here, we are concerned essentially with what is "unexpected". As you say,

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-24, 13:05, said:

The point of alerts and explanations is to bring anything to your opponents' attention that they would be surprised by.

The problem with this general test is that it feeds on itself: as the criteria considered in a judgment case become more-and-more detailed, the more there is for players to be surprised by. Also, the narrower their viewpoint and the more closed-minded they are, the more there is to be surprised by. I realise I'm quoting you selectively, but when we have judgment rulings based on things like:

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-24, 13:05, said:

There's argument for that, yes, but I think in practice no, because a 4441 with a singleton in partner's suit is not unexpected. If you regularly rebid 1NT on, say, a 1354 after 1D - 1S - 1NT I would expect that to be alerted because it is unexpected.

coupled with

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-24, 13:05, said:

But personally (I can't speak for Robin), I am not saying any singleton is OK, I am saying that a singleton and no other comfortable rebid is OK. That means, say, 1453 after 1D - 1S, but not, say, 5152 after 1S - 2H.

perhaps we're not seeing the wood for the trees.

The trap, which I suggest we're falling into, is that what's "expected" becomes a collective Groupthink (which slowly evolves over time), the current boundaries of which are determined in rulings from time to time by the High Priests and Priestesses consulting the entrails (as above), while the newly-initiated can only look on in wonderment, and hope that in the fullness of time they'll properly appreciate what's going on.

It doesn't matter much what the criteria are, so long as they're simple. In this case I've suggested, as has iviehoff, that a NT rebid that suggests playing there should not be regarded as "unexpected"; if this requires opponents to adjust their thinking about what distributions this might embrace, then so be it. Who knows, it might even open their eyes to some possibilities in the game that at present pass them by, and lead to better, or at least more varied, play as a result. However, if instead you'd stuck with

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-24, 13:05, said:

(b) Because the EBU have gone to the trouble of defining a 'balanced' or 'semi-balanced' hand and I think it is expected that a NT rebid shows one of those.

I'd probably be right with you.

I think, however, that the first meta-test (until a denomination has been agreed, if a bid doesn't suggests a possible place to play then it has an "unexpected" meaning) has such wide applicability that it should be more fully embraced. And that would be my answer to your

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-24, 13:05, said:

Suppose your opponents bid 1S - 2C - 2D - 3NT and opener turned out to have a singleton diamond. Would you feel damaged? Why? Opener says 'it's entirely normal to play that 2D is any minimum, what's your problem?' How are you going to challenge that if not by saying that this is 'unexpected' and should have been alerted.

[iviehoff]

 AlexJonson, on 2012-May-24, 15:19, said:

Not sure why this sensible post has not been responded to. Do we believe that literally any distribution was implied?

It has now been clarified that they are using this bid, by agreement, with very distributional hands not really aimed at NT, so it is clear to me that there was MI, as Bluejak says.

[Trinidad]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-24, 11:17, said:

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.

The discussion of "What is still a reasonably natural NT?" is a red herring. This was nowhere near natural, it was a convention. It should have been alerted and explained as such.

In this case, 2NT shows a HCP range and any distribution. It didn't show: "15-19, (semi-)balanced", regardless what you think "(semi-)balanced" would mean. It showed "any distribution" (only limited by the distributional requirements for the 1♠ opening). This includes a 6=2=5=0, 7=1=1=4, and 6=6=0=1 distribution. It doesn't matter where you put the boundary for "natural NT". Whereever you put the line, this 2NT convention will end up on the opposite side of "natural", beyond Jacoby 2NT, before unusual 2NT and close to Good-Bad 2NT (which this actually is a variation of).

Rik

[bluejak]

PeterAlan suggests that North was naive and perhaps did not deserve a ruling in his favour. Ok, consider East.

He is playing an artificial convention that is very rare in England - the vast majority play 2NT as either natural or balanced - and he did not explain it. Please could someone explain to me why he deserves a good board for not explaining it.

[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-25, 04:58, said:

The discussion of "What is still a reasonably natural NT?" is a red herring. This was nowhere near natural, it was a convention. It should have been alerted and explained as such.

In this case, 2NT shows a HCP range and any distribution. It didn't show: "15-19, (semi-)balanced", regardless what you think "(semi-)balanced" would mean. It showed "any distribution" (only limited by the distributional requirements for the 1♠ opening). This includes a 6=2=5=0, 7=1=1=4, and 6=6=0=1 distribution. It doesn't matter where you put the boundary for "natural NT". Whereever you put the line, this 2NT convention will end up on the opposite side of "natural", beyond Jacoby 2NT, before unusual 2NT and close to Good-Bad 2NT (which this actually is a variation of).

Rik

I'm aware of this, BUT in this case it makes little difference as if N wasn't totally negligent, he'd know W only had 5 spades, so there was no 661 or similar. I really have no sympathy for N, it may be that EW deserve an adjusted score (W could make this all moot by making 6♠ by playing K and a spade to 9), but N has done something so earth shatteringly stupid that he should not benefit from this. I have NEVER recently not been asked what declarer's keycard response meant by somebody on lead that didn't already know either by it having come up, or by them glancing at the card.

[bluejak]

My opponent makes a bid showing at least one heart followed by a later bid denying the trump queen.

Perhaps you could explain how it is "negligent" to assume that he will definitely not have the trump queen but may not have a heart. My experience is that players get RKCB responses wrong more often than they have voids unexpectedly.

[Zelandakh]

This thread reminds me somewhat of this one. In both a defender switches off after seeing an easy way of beating the contract without seeing an additional inference that might invalidate the choice. As with the consensus on that thread I would see this mistake as careless rather than a serious error. It is surely related to the infraction as with the correct explanation North would (presumably) not have stopped thinking at the point of seeing the easy set.

[VixTD]

A couple of good players I consulted (who also happened to be directors) didn't think North deserved any redress for the decision to play ♠10, but another thought they weren't looking at it from the perspective of a lesser player, and I think she was right. North didn't need to ask about the Blackwood response, as he already had the information he needed to defeat the contract, so I don't think he can be criticised for not asking, or not considering the implications.

I wasn't happy awarding 100% of 6♠-1, as I thought that North might well have played the same way given a correct explanation. I awarded both sides 70% 6♠(W)= and 30% 6♠(W)-1. Perhaps I was too hard on North. The referee thought that 50%-50% would have been more equitable when EW appealed, but he upheld the director's decision. He added that an expert North would not have received a favourable adjustment.

[Cyberyeti]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-25, 06:27, said:

My opponent makes a bid showing at least one heart followed by a later bid denying the trump queen.

Perhaps you could explain how it is "negligent" to assume that he will definitely not have the trump queen but may not have a heart. My experience is that players get RKCB responses wrong more often than they have voids unexpectedly.

In that case playing low is a guaranteed 2 off rather than 1, it's still silly to play the 10.

I must say, whenever anybody has given the 15-19 or 15+ explanation, and I have heard it several times, my next question is always "balanced ?" but I may be more sensitive to this than most as we play it possibly unbalanced and we explain as "GF not necessarily balanced".

From VixTD

Quote

A couple of good players I consulted (who also happened to be directors) didn't think North deserved any redress for the decision to play ♠10, but another thought they weren't looking at it from the perspective of a lesser player, and I think she was right. North didn't need to ask about the Blackwood response, as he already had the information he needed to defeat the contract, so I don't think he can be criticised for not asking, or not considering the implications.

Yes, but who doesn't ask before the opening lead, most people do (or look at the card) if they don't already know, and I consider it mildly negligent not to have done so unless you're too bad/inexperienced to realise that there are other forms of Blackwood.

[jallerton]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-25, 07:50, said:

Yes, but who doesn't ask before the opening lead, most people do (or look at the card) if they don't already know, and I consider it mildly negligent not to have done so unless you're too bad/inexperienced to realise that there are other forms of Blackwood.

Forgive me for being too bad and inexperienced, but with spades agreed as trumps, the only meaning I have come across for a 5♥ response to 4NT Roman Key Card Blackwood is 2 (or 5) key cards without the queen of trumps/significant undisclosed extra trump length.

Therefore I might well not bother asking about the meaning of 5♥.

[bluejak]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-25, 07:50, said:

In that case playing low is a guaranteed 2 off rather than 1, it's still silly to play the 10.

At teams defending a slam? You try for two off?

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-25, 07:50, said:

I must say, whenever anybody has given the 15-19 or 15+ explanation, and I have heard it several times, my next question is always "balanced ?" but I may be more sensitive to this than most as we play it possibly unbalanced and we explain as "GF not necessarily balanced".

There you go: someone who plays that. I have only met one person, and that was a misunderstanding: my partner rebid 2NT with an unbalanced hand once and I told her that is not what we played: she said she had misunderstood me, and thought I had suggested that way.

Actually, to be fair, about four years ago, a pair of opponents had a similar argument. So I know two half-pairs plus yourselves!