[mr1303]

Scoring: MP

---

Your opponents have the strange auction 1NT (12-14) P 2S (not alerted) passed round to you. You ask what 2S means, and are told natural not forcing, so you pass.

Partner leads the 3 of hearts (2nd and 4th). You are mildly surprised when dummy hits, but you play on anyway. Declarer calls for the 6 of hearts from the dummy. What card do you play?

For more advanced players and TDs, any thoughts from a potential ruling point of view at this point?

[TylerE]

mr1303, on Jan 7 2009, 03:28 AM, said:

For more advanced players and TDs, any thoughts from a potential ruling point of view at this point?

What ruling? You were told 2♠ was non-forcing with ♠, opener passed, and responder showed up with...spades.

[Hanoi5]

I think dummy is the one who opened 1NT. And If I'm right I'd call the Director upon seeing dummy. There is something funny going on. And I don't mean funny ha ha.

[helene_t]

mr1303, on Jan 7 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

For more advanced players and TDs, any thoughts from a potential ruling point of view at this point?

[edited] oops sorry didn't realize we had four spades ourself so responder cant have five.

Most likely they had a misunderstanding, responder thought 2♠ was a transfer or something. He will need to be told that he should correct the explanation before the opening lead is made. But wait until the board is finished, otherwise you reveal that you have four spades yourself.

btw, I don't understand why this is a strange auction. Seems perfectly normal to me, and an un-alerted 2♠ bid does indeed show spades.

[P_Marlowe]

About the Ruling:

It depends how many spades responder has.

I have bid 2S with 4 spades myself, in case I
was broke, not sure a clever strategy, but than
it seemed harder for the opponents to double
me in a major contract on the 2 level compared
finding a double against 1NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mr1303]

Just to clarify, North (dummy) opened 1NT. South (declarer) bid 2S explained as natural not forcing.

[FrancesHinden]

On the ruling/TD side of it, I don't think you should say anything yet, because it's possible there has been no MI at all, and their agreement genuinely was 'natural and non-forcing' but responder either forgot or deliberately psyched (it's quite a cute psyche). By saying now "I think there's a problem" you are telling the table that you have some spade length, and giving partner UI.

As the defence, the time to ask questions is at the end of the hand. When that's finished, you can query the auction, get the TD over etc etc. At that point, the TD will establish if the explanation was correct or not, and, if not, will investigate further.

[kenberg]

Obviously you cannot say anything at the moment about the auction. Calling the director to point out that S cannot have long spades is out. So things will become clear when they become clear. I am guessing that Helene is correct that they had a misunderstanding, and then you get into this somewhat crazy situation where if they are actually playing 2S as a transfer and N forgot then S is not obligated to inform you.

If this is f2f, looking at their cc is tempting but there could be some issues about transmission of UI I guess. Online I think I take a moment to bring up their cc.



Now what do I play?

I see this as very tough. I am going to assume that even if there has been a misunderstanding that S has two spades and that other tables arrive in 2S. Eg 1S-1N(forcing)-2D-2S. If that happens, I will be leading a small heart. If declarer holds AT tight, we will get our heart trick. If declarer holds A72, we will get two heart tricks. With the lead coming from partner's side I must play the K in the first case or we get no hearts, and I must play the 9 in the second case or I condense two tricks to one.


Partner has three cards above the 3, declarer has the ace and one other above the 3. Either can have the deuce. If partner is leading from 4, the play of the 9 might not cost even when declarer holds ATx. If partner is leading from five, then declarer holds AT, A7, or A4 giving a 2-1 shot at the 9 being right.

All in all it's tough but I go with the 9.

Incidentally, 3/5 leads might have helped some here. From QT43 the lead would be the 4 and, missing the 3 and 2 you could pretty much read it as being from a likely four carder while from QT432 the lead would be the 2 and you could read it as being from five. You would still have a guess, but with more information to base it on.


At the end, if S shows with four spades I think I just live with it. With fewer, I summon the director and let him sort it out.

[jdonn]

Hanoi5, on Jan 7 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

I think dummy is the one who opened 1NT. And If I'm right I'd call the Director upon seeing dummy. There is something funny going on. And I don't mean funny ha ha.

That is totally inappropriate at this time IMO. Maybe he psyched, and as Frances said you are just announcing to the table you have spade length if you do that.

[Lobowolf]

Yup, first play the hand, then worry about the director call.

With respect to the director call, the first question is whether you were misinformed, or whether you got the right explanation (i.e. assuming someone screwed up, was it north, in telling you what 2♠ meant, or was it south, in bidding 2♠ with the wrong hand). In general, if you got the right explanation but south screwed up, you're out of luck (unless it worked out in your favor, in which case you're in luck). If you got the wrong explanation, you may be entitled to redress. You're entitled to a correct explanation of the opponents' system. You're not entitled to have the opponents always remember it; if they screw up the bidding (as opposed to the explaining), it's a jump ball.

[mr1303]

Regarding the ruling question, at the end of the play, North (dummy) says (before you say anything)

"I shouldn't have opened 1NT because I had 5 spades. I thought you had clubs, or 11 points, but thought that 2S might play as well as 3C (North only had 2 clubs) or 2NT"

North/South are clearly beginners by the way.

What say you now?

[Lobowolf]

It sounds like north may have given you misinformation, but it's actually still not clear; I'd want to check their convention cards, or interview them individually, out of the presence of each other. "I thought you had clubs" could mean that judging by is own hand, north took a position and assumed that his partner forgot their agreement.

[kenberg]

I guess the director has to decide.

As the wolf essentially says: Opener is allowed to pass a transfer. He is not allowed to not alert the transfer, and certainly not allowed to tell you that 2S is natural, if indeed they are playing transfers. You say you were told that it was natural. By whom? By the 2S bidder in an online game or by the 1N opener in a f2f game?

Assuming this is f2f, and assuming that NS are not a regular partnership, and assuming that it is N who described 2S as natural, I would take him at his word (even if he did not explain it well) that he looked at his hand, figured he was being asked to bid 3C,decided to pass 2S anyway, and hoped for the best. In this case he should not have said that 2S was natural. He is not obligated to say that by looking at his hand he thinks it is likely it is a transfer, but he could just honestly say that there has been no discussion on this.

Really if N thinks S has clubs he is taking quite a position since the hands might be cold for 3N and S might well be making a slam try in clubs for all he knows. They seem to be winging it. Probably "we're winging it" is not exactly an accepted explanation in bridge but in some circumstances it probably should be.

[Echognome]

mr1303, on Jan 7 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

Your opponents have the strange auction 1NT (12-14) P 2S (not alerted) passed round to you. You ask what 2S means, and are told natural not forcing, so you pass.

I mean not that it really matters to how I would rule, but why would we ask before passing? Is there any meaning as to what 2♠ is that would lead us to do anything else but pass? I can certainly understand passing and then asking after partner has selected his lead.

That aside, others (Frances, Kenberg, Jdonn) have explained why we shouldn't call the TD after seeing dummy.

After the hand, when North explains that "I thought you had clubs, or 11 points..." that is a no no. Of course the remedy is to explain everything to the TD as a player. As a TD, I would point out to North their obligation to explain their agreements, even if the answer is "we do not have an agreement" or "we have not discussed this sequence" or "I can't remember which of these two options we play". But it is wrong to give deliberate misinformation. As they were rank beginners, I would just give a warning and not issue a PP. I am happy to rule MI, but cannot see what damage there was, given your partner was uninterested in the alert and you do not have a call over 2♠ regardless of the meaning.

[Lobowolf]

Here's a similar situation (to my hypothetical where north may not have been unethical) I had in a National - Partner opened 4♦, which by our agreement was Namyats. From my hand, I thought it was probably 98% likely that partner had forgotten the convention and really had a long diamond suit.

What are my options? I certainly can't tell the opponents that don't play Namyats, when we do; they're entitled to know our agreements. I can't tell them that we play Namyats, but my hand suggests that she forgot - that gives UI to my partner. I could just bid as if I didn't suspect partner had forgotten, but why? I don't have any UI; I made a bridge determination based on nothing but my partner's bid and my cards - all authorized.

So, I alerted, explained that our agreement was Namyats, and when RHO passed, so did I.

It's important to note that it was my PARTNER then had an ethical burden, after my LHO took action -- my alert of her bid was unauthorized, and she has to avoid taking any improper action (such as rebidding her diamonds to make sure I know she has diamonds, not spades).

[kenberg]

Several years back I was playing against two good players who were not regular partners. The opening on my left was 2D, intended as weak and alerted as Flannery. They had in fact agreed to Flannery but lho had forgotten. The subsequent auction was weird, with lho resolutely bidding her hand as if she were completely unaware of the alert. They of course ended in a ridiculous contract but it was a fine demonstration of a top player taking the ethics of the game seriously. The vast majority of good players do.

Satisfy my curiosity if you will. Which play at trick one is successful?


This discussion of questions and UI reminds of a story that I cannot certify as true: As I heard it, Fred Karpin (this was from a while back!) made a third hand psychic opening of 1S. His lho, with a big hand and long spades, turned to him and asked "How do you play that?"

[ArtK78]

I have a fairly basic question about the original post.

Suppose North did not properly describe the partnership agreement, which was that 2♠ is a transfer to clubs, or whatever. North passes 2♠ and you play it there.

What kind of remedy for this infraction are you proposing? Where is the damage? Certainly you were not going to take any action over 2♠ in passout seat even if you were "properly informed" that it was a conventional call. So whatever damage exists must be in the play. It is also clear that you knew that LHO did not have a natural 2♠ bid as soon as the dummy hit. So you are not damaged. The only thing that I see is if your partner was misled by the explanation and he made a defensive play that was inappropriate under the circumstances (I can't imagine that he would have taken any action on his cards over 2♠ if he had been properly informed, and I haven't seen his hand yet).

So, if it turns out that the opponents' agreement was not that 2♠ was natural and to play, where is the damage?

[kenberg]

For discussion, assume f2f bridge with filled out ccs. Here is what I believe I would do at the table.

During the auction I say nothing.
Partner leads. Before dummy is faced (or after if they just lay it down), I look at the cc. If, as I expect, it is marked with transfers, I ask rho if they have an agreement about the difference between transferring to 2S and bidding 2S. This means that I assume an unalerted 2S is natural, I ask a relevant question that passes no UI, and it gives both opponents an (additional) opportunity to explain if in fact they have had a mix-up that we are entitled to know about.

Then we play the hand.

I think it is possible that my play could be influenced by a knowledge of what their agreements actually are, so there could be damage. Probably the main damage is that the play will go slowly. Mostly I would assume that if S is strong so that everyone else will be in game then it is likely that the hand has already been won or lost on the auction. So I have to concern myself with possible weak S hands. Perhaps 2S is a transfer to clubs, showing clubs. Perhaps 2S is a relay to clubs which (by agreement) will be passed if S holds clubs and corrected to Ds if S holds Ds. Perhaps 2S shows a weak 5-5 and N was expected to choose the longer. Perhaps many things. If S holds one of these hands and the agreement shows that he does, then I and partner are entitled to know of it and yes, it may affect our play.

But I agree that any successful claim of damage is likely to depend on the effect the unexplained agreement (if it exists) had on the play, not the auction.