[vigfus]

Scoring: IMP

---

West  North  East  South
..................2♣(1)..3♣(2)
Double..Pass.Pass.3♠(3)
Double All Pass
1. Multi.
  - Weak 2 in ♦ or...
  - Weak with both majors or...
  - Weak with both minors or...
  - Strong balanced
2. No alert. N/S had not discussed any defence over this kind of multi.
3. No alert.
10 tricks. 930 N/S
I came to the table when playing was over. North said to me that they had not discussed defence against this kind of multi, and that is why he did not give Alert.
I ruled, score stands, because multi bids are most of the time trying to make it difficult for the opponments to reach their best spot. I did not see any irregularity from North, not alerting South's 3♣ bid.
E/W appealed because North did not Alert Souths bid, and South did not give any indication of some misunderstanding in bidding before opening lead.

Appeal committies ruling.
N/S are not playing the same system. E/W did not get a chance to bid based on knowledge of souths majors. North does not bid his hand, according to if South has clubs. South does not give any indication of misunderstanding after bidding ended.
The committie gives weithted score.
  50% 3NT E/W -690 ( ♣lead 9
  50% 3♠ doulbed. N/S 930

[lamford]

vigfus, on Mar 24 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

Appeal committies ruling.
N/S are not playing the same system.

Yes they were; there was no agreed defence to this multi.

[lamford]

vigfus, on Mar 24 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

North does not bid his hand, according to if South has clubs.

Yes he did; presumably the double was penalties (East passed it) and North is content to play in 3C doubled with a one count and six-card club support.

[lamford]

vigfus, on Mar 24 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

South does not give any indication of misunderstanding after bidding ended.

South's duties are restricted to an explanation of the methods, which are stated to be non-existent; I would personally volunteer some explanation, but it would make no difference as 3S doubled is about as cold (but beautiful) as Iceland was when I visited it.

[aguahombre]

More to it than that, isn't there?:

At least, in this jurisdiction (I know they are not in this jurisdiction), I think 3C/2C might only be alertable if it is natural. Might be wrong about this, if it is unknown whether opener has clubs. But what it does mean is South might not know there is confusion and has nothing to announce.

The 2C opening is not something one encounters every day. Did E/W provide a written defense? If not, it is expected that N/S would have problems, and I would lean toward letting N/S have their good result and giving E/W some instruction about pre-alerts and written defenses.

Lastly, whatever N/S thought they were doing, I only count 8 tricks in NT for E/W with a spade lead, and there must be some gross reason West did not lead the ace and a spade.

that would be only 8 tricks in 3 sp doubled.

[TimG]

vigfus, on Mar 24 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

South does not give any indication of misunderstanding after bidding ended.

South is only obligated to correct an incorrect explanation of partnership agreement. He is not obligated to tell the opponents there has been a misunderstanding.

[dburn]

lamford, on Mar 24 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

vigfus, on Mar 24 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

South does not give any indication of misunderstanding after bidding ended.

South's duties are restricted to an explanation of the methods, which are stated to be non-existent; I would personally volunteer some explanation, but it would make no difference as 3S doubled is about as cold (but beautiful) as Iceland was when I visited it.

This is not completely clear to me. I would like to know on what basis South decided to bid 3♣ with his actual hand; it seems an odd thing to do if you are sure that your partnership has no agreed defence to this kind of Multi.

The director's ruling seems to me at least reasonable - either the table result stands or it does not. I would say, though, that one should not rule simply according to one's personal sympathies; either East-West were misinformed (in which case there may be damage to assess) or they were not. The committee's ruling seems to me to have no basis in law or in logic.

[bluejak]

It appears the AC has no understanding of the Law in this area. Perhaps it is a good time to remind ACs that their job is to look at bridge judgement: for any problems over the legalities they should consult the TD.

Written defences is a matter for the RA or TO. Iceland has no requirements for written defences so it is unreasonable for anyone to expect E/W to provide written defences.

When I played in Iceland recently several pairs played a Multi 2♣ with weak in diamonds, or weak in both majors, or strong, so I do not think the suggestion that this 2♣ opening is unusual is fair in Iceland, even if this one is slightly more complex. We worked out a defence to these 2♣ openings in about twenty seconds, and we would have known what 3♣ was. A great defence? No, of course not, but an adequate one.

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 25 2010, 03:41 AM, said:

It appears the AC has no understanding of the Law in this area. Perhaps it is a good time to remind ACs that their job is to look at bridge judgement: for any problems over the legalities they should consult the TD.

Written defences is a matter for the RA or TO. Iceland has no requirements for written defences so it is unreasonable for anyone to expect E/W to provide written defences.

When I played in Iceland recently several pairs played a Multi 2♣ with weak in diamonds, or weak in both majors, or strong, so I do not think the suggestion that this 2♣ opening is unusual is fair in Iceland, even if this one is slightly more complex. We worked out a defence to these 2♣ openings in about twenty seconds, and we would have known what 3♣ was. A great defence? No, of course not, but an adequate one.

Neither of us know, but isn't it likely that North/South had not discussed defence against 2♣ multi because they were not informed about this bid until it actually occurred?

A bit late to find a defence then?

From what was told I agree with TD.

[duschek]

You certainly could make a case for playing 3♣ as a natural bid, as well as you could make a case for playing it as Michaels.

Somehow this problem appears to be similar to my recent "To be alerted?" thread. Are East/West entitled to know that NS may decide to interpret the bid as a natural bid, or should they be kept in the belief that it is surely a natural bid?

Having said that, I would let the score stand on the basis that doubling and letting it in has to do solely with EW's methods and judgement.

[TimG]

dburn, on Mar 24 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

I would like to know on what basis South decided to bid 3♣ with his actual hand; it seems an odd thing to do if you are sure that your partnership has no agreed defence to this kind of Multi.

It seems possible to me that South was attempting to use some sort of general or default agreement against artificial methods and that North either didn't think it applied to this particular opening or didn't believe they had such a general or default agreement.

Yes, South must have thought there was, at least hoped there was, an agreement when he bid 3C. It is an interesting question whether this thought or hope is enough of an agreement that it must be disclosed. Suppose that there had been screens in use, would south have alerted his screenmate to the meaning of 3C, or when asked would he have said "we have no agreement"? Which would he have been required to do?

[greenender]

I agree that the AC's ruling makes no sense.

However, S's choice of 3♣ strongly suggests that S had some reason to think that this would be taken as a cue-bid, notwithstanding that there was no explicitly-agreed defence to this particular opening. Whilst this is strange, it does seem that S thought it would be understood, and he would therefore have expected N to alert it.

In England we are advised to alert partner's call if we are unsure of its meaning but are going to assume an alertable meaning. I would have thought that it followed that if a player makes a call about which he has no secure agreement, but which he intends to bear an alertable meaning, then for the purposes of correcting MI at the end of the auction, he should assume that he did have that alertable agreement. Whilst I am unaware of the situation in Iceland, I would have thought that the same should really go anywhere that doesn't have a specific regulation to the contrary.

Given that if W knew that S believed there was some sort of agreement that 3♣ showed a two-suiter with ♠s the best suit, rather than the natural ♣ bid with secondary ♠s implied by the auction, there is a significant possibility that W would have taken some different action leading to a better score for his side than -930, I think that there is a case for adjustment.

Please note: I am not saying that S must explicitly disclose that N/S have had a misunderstanding, but I think he should say, as least, that "at the time I bid 3♣, I had some reason to think that it was not natural and that there has therefore been a failure to alert it". Of course that tips E/W off to the misunderstanding, particularly if N contradicts, but at least the TD is called while the auction is still live.

[greenender]

duschek, on Mar 25 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

... you could make a case for playing it as Michaels.

Not much of one, IMO

[greenender]

TimG, on Mar 25 2010, 08:37 AM, said:

Suppose that there had been screens in use, would south have alerted his screenmate to the meaning of 3C, or when asked would he have said "we have no agreement"? Which would he have been required to do?

I cannot conceive why anyone would bid 3♣ yet be happy for his screenmate to assume it was natural.

[mich-b]

TimG, on Mar 25 2010, 08:37 AM, said:

Suppose that there had been screens in use, would south have alerted his screenmate to the meaning of 3C, or when asked would he have said "we have no agreement"?  Which would he have been required to do?

IMHO when using self alerts (playing with screens or online) it is unacceptable for the bidder , if asked about a bid he made himself (not his partner), to reply "no agreement". When making the bid , even if there was no specific agreement , the bidder surely assumed that his partner would understand the bid as something. He made that assumption based on an implicit agreement , previous experience, analogies, whatever... I think he should disclose his intented meaning , because it doesnt make sense otherwise.

[duschek]

greenender, on Mar 25 2010, 08:46 AM, said:

duschek, on Mar 25 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

... you could make a case for playing it as Michaels.

Not much of one, IMO

Sorry. You can hardly make a case for Michaels here. I was temporarily playing against 2♣=any weak hand.

In that case, the Michaels interpretation only occurs in South's head (just like the 2♣=any weak only occurred in mine), so no misinformation. Score stands (even more clearly).

[helene_t]

Strongly disagree with mich-b. If there is clearly no agreement, then "no agreement" is the only correct explanation.

Of course a regular partnership will usually have some kind of understanding that may be relevant even if it's not completely clear. Here he might have said something like "against multi 2♦ we play x and against a 2♣ opening that is weak with diamonds we play y but we have not discussed this situation".

[Codo]

mich-b, on Mar 25 2010, 10:48 PM, said:

IMHO when using self alerts (playing with screens or online) it is unacceptable for the bidder , if asked about a bid he made himself (not his partner), to reply "no agreement". When making the bid , even if there was no specific agreement , the bidder surely assumed that his partner would understand the bid as something. He made that assumption based on an implicit agreement , previous experience, analogies, whatever... I think he should disclose his intented meaning , because it doesnt make sense otherwise.

This is nowhere written in the laws, so you are not correct.
You must state your agreements, not your hopes.

And just because you hope that partner will understand is no implicit agreement.

[keylime]

This is a bad ruling. No agreement is that, no agreement. 930 should stand, and the TD needing further education.

[aguahombre]

keylime, on Mar 25 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

This is a bad ruling. No agreement is that, no agreement. 930 should stand, and the TD needing further education.

? TD let the result stand. Is there something else he needs to be educated about?