[bluejak]

Scoring: MP

1NT 2♣! 2NT!  P
3♦    P    3♠!   P
3NT  P     P     P

---

2♣ was asked: it showed the majors or a one-suiter

2NT was asked: it was described as a transfer to diamonds

Before South's last pass he asked the meaning of 3♠ and was told shortage in spades

East attempted to correct the meaning of 2NT before the lead but the ♦A was led and faced before he was able to do so. He said he believed this was a Lebensohl position, ie 2NT was Lebensohl, forcing 3♣ and showing a variety of hands, and 3♠ was natural. I am not quite sure whether he said 3♠ was forcing.

3NT duly made: I am not quite sure, but after ♦A, ♦, ♣ ducked, ♣ to A, ♦, declarer has to take the right finesse to make nine. He certainly did not go off otherwise there would have been no ruling! So let us assume the result was 3NT/W =, NS -600.

South argued that if he had known the correct meaning of East's bidding he might have bid 4♥ over 3NT which is a good save.

The TD asked the players what they would have done if South had bid 3NT. Their answers were Pass [West], Pass [North], No idea[East].

Some general remarks.
I am hoping to get a copy of the Appeals form soon so I can correct any minor mistakes.

The TD did not rule the way I advised! I understand he did take various other advice.

This went to appeal.

The players involved were very good: this was near or at the top of the field.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Jan 3 2010, 07:17 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

1NT 2♣! 2NT!  P
3♦    P    3♠!   P
3NT  P     P     P
2♣ was asked: it showed the majors or a one-suiter
2NT was asked: it was described as a transfer to diamonds
Before South's last pass he asked the meaning of 3♠ and was told shortage in spades
East attempted to correct the meaning of 2NT before the lead but the ♦A was led and faced before he was able to do so.  He said he believed this was a Lebensohl position, ie 2NT was Lebensohl, forcing 3♣ and showing a variety of hands, and 3♠ was natural.  I am not quite sure whether he said 3♠ was forcing.
3NT duly made: I am not quite sure, but after ♦A, ♦, ♣ ducked, ♣ to A, ♦, declarer has to take the right finesse to make nine.  He certainly did not go off otherwise there would have been no ruling!  So let us assume the result was 3NT/W =, NS -600.
South argued that if he had known the correct meaning of East's bidding he might have bid 4♥ over 3NT which is a good save.
The TD asked the players what they would have done if South had bid 3NT.  Their answers were Pass [West], Pass [North], No idea[East].
Some general remarks.
I am hoping to get a copy of the Appeals form soon so I can correct any minor mistakes.
The TD did not rule the way I advised!    I understand he did take various other advice.
This went to appeal.
The players involved were very good: this was near or at the top of the field.

---

IMO, although the director is likely to judge that South's statement is self-serving, he should still give it some credence, so he might rule 4♥X-2.

If, however, with less misinformation, NS are more active in the bidding, then West is quite likely to bid 5♦ leading to possible doubled EW contracts at the five, six or seven level; and the director should also consider such possibilities.

An interesting question is whether the director should take into account that NS may suspect that a wheel has come off and hence be inhibited from making calls that they would normally make, in case the director judges them to be "wild and gambling".

[peachy]

What was their actual agreement - Lebensohl, or transfer to diamonds - doesn't that determine what the ruling will be?

[pran]

I have to make some assumptions here:
1: The contract was (as assumed in OP) 3NT made
2: The ruling by the Director was that table result stands
3: The appeal was that South wanted an adjustment to the result in 4HX

My immediate reaction is that according to OP North made his opening lead too fast for East in time to call attention to (alleged) misinformation. If this is correct then it is the quick lead from North and not the misinformation as such that has prevented South from sacrificing successfully in 4H. With East correcting the information in time South would be given the opportunity to retract his closing pass and replace it with a bid of 4H.

So under my assumtions I would rule result stands, otherwise I would adjust to 4HX -2

An interesting fact is IMO that regardless of what is the correct explanation of the 2NT bid by East South would have received the same information, effectively what East intended to show with his call. So I do not give much importance to what was the true agreement here.

[nige1]

pran, on Jan 4 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

My immediate reaction is that according to OP North made his opening lead too fast for East in time to call attention to (alleged) misinformation. If this is correct then it is the quick lead from North and not the misinformation as such that has prevented South from sacrificing successfully in 4H. With East correcting the information in time South would be given the opportunity to retract his closing pass and replace it with a bid of 4H.

Sven makes a good point that I completely missed Suppose, however, that South (or the Director) realises that, with correct information, South might bid 3 or 4♥ directly over 2N, before East could clarify his Lebensohl bid?

[Ant590]

I note the likeness to the ruling #5 (http://forums.bridge...showtopic=36315), where south was offered the chance to change his bid with the correct information, and after doing so and it not working out, then accused the opponents of tempting him back into the auction unfairly. Is it the case where south can always attempt a save in this type of situation, and has a chance of getting a ruling in his favour whatever the result?

I fail to see how knowing that East has bid Leb helps South at his first turn. From South's perspective East could still have diamonds at this stage and West's 3♦ bid some sort of Paradox support for clubs? -- either way his is going to assume his partner for a single-suiter in the other minor probably.

The issue for me is if the 3♠ bid is permitted, or is it a panic bid and pass a LA?

[hotShot]

Assuming that Lebensohl was actually the pairs agreement,
there are several issues to think of:

1. East has UI from the "wrong" explanation that his partner, did not take it as Lebensohl, fortunately partners 3♦ answer transmits the a lot of that information too as Lebensohl forces a 3♣ response. Since he has the legal information that his partner did not understand his 2NT bid, the 3♠ bid seems ok.

2. North knows that the explanation of the 2NT bid is wrong.
North has 7 ♦ cards, opener needs 2 cards to open NT that leaves 4 cards for East and a void for South. It's unlikely that East would transfer to a 4 card minor.
North did not claim damage, but he was damaged as he could not show his suit or strength.

3. South was missinformed about the 2NT bid, but I'm not sure if it's discouraging or encouraging to show your 8 card heart suit over the 2NT bid, if East has a transfer to ♦.
But of cause South can argue that he could expect that he could delay his decision to act until Wests 3♦ response is passed to him. East's transfer followed by a new suit will usually be GF, this should encourage South to think about bidding 4♥.

I would let the score stand.

[helene_t]

Agree with Sven, except:

I don't think that it matters to South whether East has a weak hand with diamonds or a weak hand with clubs. So his decision not to act over 2NT probably wasn't influenced by the MI. (Maybe Lebensohl makes it more attractive for South to act as East's hand is less well-defined so the obstructive effect of 3♥ is larger, but that is somewhat far-fetched I think).

Result stands.

[bluejak]

Two points.

First, I would normally be extremely sceptical of the idea that a player does not have time to correct an explanation before the opening lead. But I do know from my own experience that this particular North has a habit of leading extremely fast on occasion.

Second, while I do not know what the real E/W agreement was, I would not be totally surprised to find it was no agreement. It is much rarer in England than [say] the ACBL to play defences to 1NT without an anchor suit, and it is also much rarer to play responses after overcalls that notice the difference between a 2♣ overcall and other overcalls. While these were good players I do not believe they were a regular partnership. Of course, I am guessing as to whether they really have an agreement. Note that South will know both of them extremely well and may suspect their problems.

I was hoping the form would have arrived by now!!!!!!

[bluejak]

The form has arrived. The TD has written buckets and buckets!!

The explanation of the double of 1NT was slightly more detailed than I had heard: on the form it says "Either both majors [5/5 in this position] or a single suited hand [minor]".



Director first called:
After ♦A had been faced as the lead but before dummy went down.

Director's statement of facts:
I was called by South after North had faced the ♦A but before dummy was spread. I was told that before ♦A had been led, South had asked about the 3♠ bid and told it was a shortage in spades. [South had not asked immediately the bid had been made.] North inadvertently assumed that was the end of any questions/explanations about the bidding and faced the ♦A as the opening lead at which point East stated that he did not believe the systemic partnership agreement of his 2NT bid had been correctly explained. East felt/thought they were playing a Lebensohl sequence and thus his hand could have a variety of shapes not necessarily diamonds. After subsequent questions I ascertained that E/W have no specific agreement for the 2NT bid in this sequence and thus there was MI to N/S. However, because ♦A has been faced, it was too late to cancel the final pass by South and allow the auction to re-open. I directed play to continue and for me to be recalled if necessary. At end of play I was recalled [3NT= by West]. South stated that had been given the correct [no agreement] explanation, he would have bid 4♥ [also if I allowed the auction to re-open]. I asked West what he would do over 4♥? Reply: "Pass". North stated he would "Pass". I asked East what he would do. Initially unsure but after thought, said "I would bid 4♠ again".

I then consulted with others on the basis of the MI. As a result it was felt that 4♥ by South was a LA to pass, the question was how would West interpret the 4♠ bid by East which again was accepted as there was no alternative.

I ruled that if East bid 4♠ [again], this could only be natural and not a shortage. Further, as East had not made any move over 3NT, it could not be a 'slam try' agreeing diamonds. As such West would pass 4♠ by East.

Because, in MPs, 4♠= by East scores better than 3NT= by West, no damage had occurred and thus the original score stands.

I ruled that West had an alternative bid other than Pass [of 4♥] and that was to double 4♥. However, there was no real LA to the 4♠ bid [whether West doubled 4♥ or not].

Details of ruling:
MI had been given to N/S so there is no agreement of 2NT by E/W but too late to cancel South's final pass [when lead is faced].

Because there is no apparent damage [see above], original score stands. Law 21B3.



Phew! Anyway, a few points I might make. First, while he consulted with me, I do not agree with the ruling. He told me he had ruled as I said: it was only later I discovered he had not. I ruled that South would not have bid 4♥ over a "no agreement" explanation.

Second, ..... No, I will not spoil their fun. I expect Peter E and Robin to make a specific point which I would have made at the time if I had known exactly what had happened.

Third, for the pedants. No, he is not going to bid 4♠ "again". He is only allowed to bid 4♠ once!

Fourth, do you think North led face down? It does not really sound like it to me!

Anyway, what do you think of the ruling? What do you think of my suggested ruling? What do you think the AC did?

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 03:11 PM, said:

Second, .....  No, I will not spoil their fun.  I expect Peter E and Robin to make a specific point which I would have made at the time if I had known exactly what had happened.

That's put me on the spot.

I hope I am supposed to point out that while it is too late to change the auction (because the opening lead has been faced), it is not too late to change the opening lead as a result of misinformation (because dummy has not been faced).

Robin

[bluejak]

Yes, that's right. When I was told about the hand I did not realise that the opening lead had been faced but dummy not put down. I wonder if the offer to retract the lead was made.

I am not entirely sure, but it is possible that in an earlier Law book - not 1997, but earlier - the auction could have been reopened. Not now, certainly.

[duschek]

I think the misinformation does not influence South's decision whether to bid 4♥. No damage from MI.

If East believes 2NT is Lebensohl, would he not bid 3♠ even if he had heard the correct explanation from West? No logical alternative to 3♠. Actually, no logical alternative to passing 3NT either.

Score stands.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on Jan 5 2010, 03:11 PM, said:

I ruled that South would not have bid 4♥ over a "no agreement" explanation.

I agree with this.

South knows for certain that either his opponents have had a misunderstanding, or he has forgotten their system, or someone has psyched; it's not possible for partner to have a minor single-suiter and RHO to have a spade shortage.

Given the alternative explanations ("we don't know what's going on" etc) I don't see why South is more likely to bid then, than on the actual auction.

By the way, the full story of the EW agreements is that they had only played in one (3-day) event before, a couple of months earlier. West thought that they had previously agreed "system on" after a non-specific 2C overcall but lebensohl after an overcall with an anchor suit; either West was wrong about that or East had forgotten that discussion.

I can well believe that North led before East had a chance to say anything more.

[bluejak]

According to the Appeals form:

The Director's Ruling was Upheld.
The Deposit was Returned.

Comments:

South speculated that the opponents were in the wrong contract (which they were). There was no agreement between East and West therefore we agree with the TD.



While that seems simple enough, as I read the explanation, I think they agree with me that he would not have bid 4♥ rather than the TD's view that if they bid 4♥ they do not gain.