[szgyula]

There are no screens. Hands and bids are:

---

1NT was alerted (forcing, no further questions). 2NT was alerted. The partner was asked "what does this bid promise". The response was "A two suited hand, in first approximation minors". There was no additional alert in the auction, no further questions were asked. When the dummy was faced, the TD was called. It was established that the 2NT bid shows a two suited hand with all suit combination that do not include ♠, i.e. ♣-♦, ♣-♥ and ♦-♥ are all shown with 2NT. The 4♦ showed the ♦-♥ holding. During the explanation, the player asked if I was familiar with the "unusual 2NT convention". Now the questions:

1. Was the explanation according to the laws? I was arguing that the agreed meaning of the 2NT is "two suited with the three combinations equally likely". The explanation given is more along the lines of "two suited, very likely ♣-♦". To me the two are not the same. Mentioning the minors has no reason whatsoever but it creates confusion, i.e. it is misleading. Even though it was never claimed it was an unusual 2NT, mentioning it added to the confusion.

2. If you assume for a second that the 2NT was an unusual 2NT (i.e. minors), how do you interpret the 4♦ bid? My argument to the TD was that the 4♦ simply showed a good (6+) diamond with a bad (5) club. The response was "this is complete nonsense". How would you interpret the 4♦ if 2NT is an unusual 2NT?

The legality of the explanation itself is an important question. The TD call took a long time and a board had to be cancelled. The TD ruled that the TD call was frivolous and awarded AVG-/AVG+ for that board, favoring the pair that bid 2NT.

As for the damage: North did consider 4♠ over the 4♦ but rejected it, not wanting to push them into 5♣ or 5♦ -- after all one can see only 6 tricks in spades or even less as a Jxxx by East is quite likely. Being aware of the potential ♥ fit that was not confirmed yet, he could have bid 4♠ (expecting to go down 1-2) to prevent the opponents to find the fit. In that case the 4♥ bid is not available, only 5♥. That is much harder than 4♥, thus, there is a slim chance that the contract is 4♠ doubled, going down 2. There is also a chance of them playing 5♦, not 5♥ (both makes).

[helene_t]

I agree the explanation was not worded in the optimal way but I can't really see how it could mislead. Maybe "in first approximation" suggests some meaning in Hungarian? In English it is just gibberish.

I have never heard about AVG+/AVG- as a consequence of a frivolous TD call, is that normal?

[wanoff]

helene_t, on 2014-January-03, 03:36, said:

I agree the explanation was not worded in the optimal way but I can't really see how it could mislead. Maybe "in first approximation" suggests some meaning in Hungarian? In English it is just gibberish.

I have never heard about AVG+/AVG- as a consequence of a frivolous TD call, is that normal?

It does sound like gibberish, but maybe he meant that since 2NT could be the minors, at first he would respond accordingly.
Did the field really make 8 tricks in spades? Most of my partners would make 7

[pran]

wanoff, on 2014-January-03, 04:24, said:

It does sound like gibberish, but maybe he meant that since 2NT could be the minors, at first he would respond accordingly.
Did the field really make 8 tricks in spades? Most of my partners would make 7

Mine too,
but I assume opponents may have started with either three rounds of Diamonds or three rounds of Hearts?

[barmar]

"in first approximation" may not be the clearest phrase, but it sure seems like it means "probably, but not necessarily". And if NS felt this was unclear, why didn't they ask for clarification? They could have asked if EW play Michaels in this auction. If not, then 2NT is presumably the only way to show 2-suiters, and there would be no reason to expect this to be specifically for minors.

[kenrexford]

Whatever the nuances of the East-West explanations, North-South is ridiculous to me. The explanation IMO gave full information that a heart-minor two-suiter was possible. 4♦ sounds like reds to me also.

While I might not as director (if I were a director) do that Ave+/Ave- thing, I would certainly consider a procedural penalty and might even suggest a conduct committee on North-South for this nonsense.

I would definitely not post this question unless I was East-West and being a sly Devil's Advocate.

[mycroft]

"in first approximation" is a mathematical term, and this scientist would have at least got it after 4♦. "I'm to assume it's the minors until I find out otherwise - I won't be surprised to find out otherwise" seems like the right human translation for that phrase.

I know that there are several players here who play "Michaels" and "unu. 2NT" who would expect everyone to clue in to

---

as being "their way to show Top/Bottom" - the Ghestem hand (but they don't play that). Of course, they'll explain it as "the lowest two suits" instead of "clubs and a major" (which I used to play, myself).

With the explanation given by the OP, I would rule misinformation because it's the explaining side's responsibility to explain in such a way that the asking side (who don't play like that, maybe) can understand, and they didn't. I'll appreciate that they tried, and I would have got it, but this pair didn't. A similar example is my 2♦ "11-15, 4415 minus a card" explanation - Precision pairs will get it immediately, but there are many standard players who would be *more* confused after that explanation than before they asked.

I bet that 4♦ makes clear to this pair that 2NT bidder has the reds, and if you had asked about 4♦, that's what you'd have been told - "first approximation" has been shown to be wrong. It's quite likely, in fact, that without the strength to feel comfortable disambiguating, they don't bid 2NT here with hearts. But that's all speculation, and I'd ask.

I'd like to weight the score here; I think that there's a good chance that the hand that bid 1♠ and 3♠ opposite what could easily be a defensive South hand - say 1336 instead of 3226 - is not going to push the deal at 4♦ even with the correct explanation. I think that East may bid 5 with a known double fit, even though the club cards are worthless.

I will say, as the TD, that if you rule in N/S favour, you are going to get E/W and all their buddies after the game asking you how long do you have to play bridge before you figure out that 4♦ is "obviously" reds - I mean, all these experts got it without any explanation. "Heh, so would I; it's just that if 'everybody you play with' will get it, it's an implied partnership understanding, and you failed to divulge it in time. And *that pair* didn't understand." If you rule in favour of E/W, you get this. Can't win :-).

[mycroft]

Note: as I read the OP, this board wasn't A+/A-, it was the board they couldn't get to that the TD ruled was entirely N/S fault for the delay. Depending on what arguments were made, and how many times the TD said "this one's done, play on, we can discuss it later" and got ignored, they might have *been* entirely at fault.

I'm not saying that the OP did that - but I certainly have several calls in my history that got to "I said, 'we'll discuss it later'. If the next word from you isn't a bid on board 8, you will get a penalty" - so it's possible. I expect that's what the TD thought he was doing when he ruled that.

[barmar]

The way it's usually phrased is "to a first apprximation". Here's the definition from http://encyclopedia2...t+approximation

Quote

• When one is doing certain numerical computations, an approximate solution may be computed by any of several heuristic methods, then refined to a final value. By using the starting point of a first approximation of the answer, one can write an algorithm that converges more quickly to the correct result.
  
• In jargon, a preface to any comment that indicates that the comment is only approximately true. The remark "To a first approximation, I feel good" might indicate that deeper questioning would reveal that not all is perfect (e.g. a nagging cough still remains after an illness).

While the way it was used doesn't perfectly fit the definitions, the intent should have been clear. I think NS are being ridiculous.

[mfa1010]

barmar, on 2014-January-03, 11:56, said:

I think NS are being ridiculous.

I agree. I think so both regarding the claim of misinformation, and the claim that N had a 4♠ bid. Bidding 1♠ then 3♠ then 4♠ with that hand deserves to hit 1-4-4-4 opposite.

[szgyula]

As there were many questions raised, here are some clarifications:

1. E-W has one of the top 25 players in the country. N-S are barely in the first 1000 with a total of 2000 players listed over the 40 years records are available. N-S was fully aware of this. Something like 25 000 master points against 250.

2. N-S never got beyond Michaels, Unusual2NT, Ghestem and Cappelletti. To them a 2 suiter overcall without an anchor suit was never heard of, other than "bad things plazed bz wacos" (brown sticker convention)...

3. I would refer to the Wiki definition: First-order approximation (also 1st order) is the term scientists use for a further educated guess at an answer. Cambridge has this to say about educated guess: a guess that is made using judgment and a particular level of knowledge and is therefore more likely to be correct. N-S are both natural scientists, both ex associate research professors at a University. In hungarian, where this explanation was given, "in first approximation it is A" means that if you ignore the not so important effects, the answer is A. E.g. "Earth is, in first approximation, a sphere with a radius of 6378km". Or "Shine the light is, in first approximation, a concert movie". Thus, in hungarian, the scientific meaning crept into the "normal" language and it is not gibberish. In first approximation is something like 90% sure, but I will ask a language expert and provide a definitive answer.

4. No matter how you slice it, the "first approximation minors" assigns some preference to the minors, while there is none.

5. Their interpretation of N-S was that this is an Unusual 2NT but in certain special cases this may not be the case. Something along the lines of "a takeout double shows, in first approximation, shortness in the suit overcalled".

6. Cards arrived late so there was a time pressure on both sides.

7. As for the tricks in ♠: E-W can certainly take 4 tricks in the reds. If they lead one more red, it is trumped in dummy and a ♣ is discarded from hand. 1 ♣ looseris left, making 8 tricks. If the declarer has to start the ♣, lacking entries, the ♣J has to be lead and if not covered, low is played. If Q or K is played, it is taken with the A and the 10 is played by W. At that point only one club looser is left. Again, 8 tricks.

8. The TD call took around 5 minutes.The TD never told us to continue. When he realized that there was less than one minute left for the next board, he cancelled the next board, ordered the play for this board to commence and left. He never returned so a lot fo the questions were left unanswered.

Just out of curriosity: How would you rule after a 1NT-2C sequence, with an explanation of "has a long suit, XXX it is ♦" with different XXX expressions: in first approximation/likely/quite often/possibly/presumably/...? The actual bid is a Cappelletti 2C.

[blackshoe]

If someone suggested to me that a Cappelletti 2♣ bid was something other than an equal probability of any given suit in a one suited hand, I'd say he was nuts. As a director, I would rule such a claim to be mis-information.