[shyams]

In an uncontested auction, E/W are a regular pair that play a specialised 2♦ opening. This one time, West misbids 2♦ to represent a weak-2 bid in diamonds. The bidding continues:
West : East
2♦* - 2♠**
3♦ - pass!

* As per system, East correctly alerts 2♦ and, when asked by North, states that 2♦ is "18 to bad 21, balanced or semi-bal, no singletons"
** West does not alert 2♠, South does not ask and passes. West bids (reasonably in tempo) 3♦

The issue: As per E/W documented system, 2♠ acts as a relay and West is compelled to bid 2NT.
a. When West bids 3♦, East knows (despite the UI arising from no alert) that the wheels have come off. It is easy for East to logically infer that West holds a weak-2 in ♦. Now (say holding a non-descript 8-10 HCP bal hand), East decides he can legally pass.
b. Let's look at the situation from West's perspective. If he meant it as a weak-2 in ♦ (something West plays with other partners), then 2♠ is natural and forcing for one round. The weakest response from West is to revert to his own suit to convey no ♠ tolerance & a min hand. So, despite hearing the UI from partner, the 3♦ is "a normal action" for a person making a weak-2 opening.

Question for people knowledgeable in Bridge laws.
1. Is East's 2nd round pass legal?
2. Is West's action to bid 3♦ legal?
3. Should East call the TD before the 3♦ is passed. I assume East should definitely call the TD if the auction ends with 3♦ all pass.

Anything else wrong or worthy of comment? Please feel free to add.

[pilun]

Start by asking West why s/he did not alert 2♠.
The failure to alert gave East UI that something was strange in the auction, maybe that West had forgotten the meaning of 2♦.

So West is expected to bid 2NT over 2♠ 100% of the time. It does not then follow that 3♦ shows something other than 18-20 balanced. Without agreements, it probably suggests some 18-20 point hand that West didn't want to rebid 2NT with, maybe with concerns about right-siding.

[shyams]

pilun, on 2023-May-04, 01:15, said:

Start by asking West why s/he did not alert 2♠.
The failure to alert gave East UI that something was strange in the auction, maybe that West had forgotten the meaning of 2♦.

Situation A. Let's say screens were in use. West does not alert his own 2♦ (natural, weak 2) and does not alert partner's 2♠ (natural, forcing). I assume there is MI but no UI and (assuming the TD is called upon the conclusion of the auction) the TD will offer South to withdraw his last pass and reopen the auction. How is this any different?
Situation B. Let's say West alerts but nobody asks, and the bidding goes as before. When the TD asks why West alerted and what would be his explanation, West says "I would have explained that we play Raise-only-non-force and that 2♠ is natural & forcing". Does that absolve E/W?

pilun, on 2023-May-04, 01:15, said:

So West is expected to bid 2NT over 2♠ 100% of the time. It does not then follow that 3♦ shows something other than 18-20 balanced. Without agreements, it probably suggests some 18-20 point hand that West didn't want to rebid 2NT with, maybe with concerns about right-siding.

Can the TD or any outsider invent a meaning for an impossible bid, even when the offending pair can demonstrate with written notes that 3♦ is impossible?


For sake of clarity, something like this happened to me many years ago (I recall it was partner who misbid). I recall we went totally offscript, landed in an absurd doubled contract and got 0 MPs on the board. Opps were happy to take their 100% and no TD call was made. To that extent, the situation I described is fictional but it would have been possible.

[paulg]

shyams, on 2023-May-03, 23:48, said:

3. Should East call the TD before the 3♦ is passed. I assume East should definitely call the TD if the auction ends with 3♦ all pass.

At the end of the auction East should tell the opponents that West should have alerted 2♠. I would call the tournament director for them but would not say anything else as the auction may be re-opened by the TD.

shyams, on 2023-May-03, 23:48, said:

2. Is West's action to bid 3♦ legal?

West must take care not to take advantage of the unauthorised information (being told they have misbid). This means continuing to bid as if they'd opened a weak 2♦. I suspect most pairs play 2♠ as natural and either forcing or constructive. So it depends what West would do opposite such a hand. If West has spade support but has rebid 3♦ denying such support, this is very likely to be changed and may incur a PP. However if West's normal call is 3♦ then it will be fine.

shyams, on 2023-May-03, 23:48, said:

1. Is East's 2nd round pass legal?

Probably not but the TD should investigate. The problem with regular partnerships is that they often read partner's behaviour correctly in these situations: the fact that 3♦ is anti-systemic gives them 'proof' of the misbid. However this never happens when 2♠ is correctly alerted but 3♦ is bid: now they argue that partner has an unexpected version of the 2♦.

So I always sceptical about such arguments when it benefits the offending pair.

[Cyberyeti]

3♦ surely is a bent (but in system as can be semi bal) 2♦ with something like 18 and 6 diamonds in a 6322 that wants to play 3♦ rather than 2N opposite a bust if he alerts 2♠. It's the failure to alert 2♠ that persuades E to pass.

What I suspect might be going on is that W realises when E alerts what he's done, and particularly if inexperienced, thinks he has to act as if he hasn't been woken up by the alert, and alerts his partner's bid as per the system he's using, not as should be done, the agreed one of the partnership and bids accordingly and is actually trying to be helpful.

[weejonnie]

I think we have to start off with question two first

2. Is West's action to bid 3♦ legal?

West has opened a weak two in diamonds and has heard partner bid 2♠. West would have to provide some pretty good evidence why they think they should rebid 3 diamonds if the 2 spade bid isn't forcing (this is not impossible - West might hold seven diamonds and a spade void, but with any kind of spade tolerance it would seem clear to pass). Obviously they have no partnership agreement that the 2 spade bid is forcing but maybe West plays with another player who does have a forcing 2 spade response to 2 diamonds, or maybe they have recently changed systems. (Look! I am doing as much as I can to exonerate West's bid but it seems at first glance to be a clear case of "unauthorised panic")

1. Is East's 2nd round pass legal?

East has unauthorised information (his partner did not alert), but he also has authorised information (West MUST respond 2NT and hasn't): So we come to deciding whether there is a logical alternative: -

(b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select.

I would poll (very difficult of course) but I think I would allow the pass (of course this is irrelevant since if the UI stands the contract will be rolled back to 2 spades if it turns out to be better for NS than 3 diamonds when played.) It may get a bit more interesting if West has done this before - as we head towards the MI aspect.

3. Should East call the TD before the 3♦ is passed. I assume East should definitely call the TD if the auction ends with 3♦ all pass.

Quite obviously no: Law 20F (in part)

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

So: East calls and gives the correct explanation for his 2 spade response. The TD offers South his last pass back (assuming the contract is 3 diamonds): South cannot use the information that the opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding. If South does change his call then that is the end of the matter regarding the misexplanation, but not the UI, since without the UI South would never be in this position. NS will get the better result of the score at the table and the possible results of EW playing in 2 Spades: EW will get the worse and a procedural penalty under law 73C2.

[mycroft]

I can see partner "waking up" at 3♦. Just like all the players back in the day (spoken bidding, yes, that old), where 1NT-2♦ showed hearts, unless they then bid 3♦, then it was "I have diamonds" (okay, they'd say "I forgot again", but partner was 100% on the same page) and got to play it.

Which is what the lawmakers mean by "an agreement between partners, whether explicit or implicit..." (40B1a). So, is this the first time this has ever happened? (I bet not). Does 75D2 or 3 apply?

Is that agreement (2♦ opener is 18-19 balanced or weak 2 in diamonds) legal? (note, it's not in the ACBL, because it's Artificial (the NT hand) and a Preempt (the weak 2 could be less than 10 HCP)). If so, then there's just a bunch of misinformation here. If not, there's a problem.

I mean, in more than one system I've seen, there's a bid that explicitly is defined as "I forgot again" - the classic being 2NT-3NT (transfer to clubs); 4♣-4NT "Sorry partner, I wanted to play 3NT". If it's legal, it's legal.

Yes, the UI from the failure to Alert, especially given East's Alert of 2♦, is a "help" to the eventual "I meant to bid 3♦, partner". And, *unless West is arguing that no, partner is wrong, our agreement is a weak 2"* (and one hopes he has some evidence, given 21B1b), that failure to Alert reaches "trying to wake partner up" levels of bad. But nobody understands what they have to do when they forget system and get woken up by partner's Alert, so I would tread carefully here (but still report it to the club, in case there's a pattern of such "not knowing the rules", all of which seem to be in the player's favour).

I agree with PaulG about what West needs to do (including "if his weak 2 is 1=3=6=3, 3♦ is fine. If it's 3=1=6=3, 3♠ is the right call, and not making it is taking advantage of UI." I'm not going to deal with "what if 2♠ was NF", because in my world, "if it was, it's Alertable". So, no passing, but raising? Sure. Yes, other RAs have different ideas, and if it's not unusual enough to be Alertable, then it's a different question.

I massively disagree with Mr. Wolff and his "systemic germs"/"convention disruption", for many many reasons. But the problem he's trying to solve absolutely exists - there are conventions that are inherently more disruptive to the opponents when forgotten, and relatively recoverable to the bidding side when forgotten (I am still reminded that I owe my LM rating to "opps forgot Flannery, and by the time he convinced her that he had diamonds, not hearts and spades, they were in 1100 territory". It doesn't *always* hurt the NOS). And by and large, those conventions are "this hand, or this preempt if we forgot again". And we need a solution to it - and my opinion is that that solution should involve the TDs being allowed to say "I believe your actual agreement developed through experience is <this>. It's not legal, and we're protecting the opponents as follows/It's a legal agreement, but you misinformed your opponents, and they were damaged by..." I don't think we're there yet. I do think it's something that the Lawmakers imply in L75D, but to be effective and safe (for the TD to apply) it has to be more than implied.

[blackshoe]

shyams, on 2023-May-04, 01:34, said:

Can the TD or any outsider invent a meaning for an impossible bid, even when the offending pair can demonstrate with written notes that 3♦ is impossible?

No. He has to figure out what it would mean in the system the bidder thinks he's playing. The best way to do this IMO is to ask the bidder what it means and why he bid it.

[blackshoe]

paulg, on 2023-May-04, 01:42, said:

At the end of the auction East should tell the opponents that West should have alerted 2♠. I would call the tournament director for them but would not say anything else as the auction may be re-opened by the TD.

At the end of the auction, East should call the Director, and in the Director's presence explain the failure to alert (Law 20F5b). He won't so you calling him without saying anything else is good.

A question: did 3!D end the auction? We don't have all three passes if it did.

[shyams]

blackshoe, on 2023-May-04, 18:40, said:

At the end of the auction, East should call the Director, and in the Director's presence explain the failure to alert (Law 20F5b). He won't so you calling him without saying anything else is good.

A question: did 3!D end the auction? We don't have all three passes if it did.

As I wrote in an earlier post, this is a fictional situation based on a real incident where we (partner & I) bid somewhat like this but in our real-world situation the bidding continued till we ended in a high-level absurd contract (and scored 0 MPs)

[mycroft]

• I can absolutely see some auctions where it's reasonable not to try to find a hand that might violate system this exact way. For instance my ("oldfashioned", for amusing values of "old") Keri, after 1NT-2♣; 2♦ is 100% forced. In response to a question "what does it mean if he doesn't bid 2♦?" the answer was, after a pause, "he's walking home?" If for some reason partner bids 2♠ instead, I think it's totally reasonable to explain it as "that bid does not exist" and I think I am allowed to guess that partner, who has been playing with others for the last 6 weeks while I've been out of the country, forgot we weren't playing Stayman - said information (but not conclusion) to, of course, be made available to the opponents. Especially if 2♣ wasn't Alerted!
  
• Whether this messup of Mexican 2♦ (which I continue to find amusing, as nobody in México plays it now that Rosenkranz/Reygedas no longer play) is as "DNE, therefore" is a question - and whether the opponents can come to the same conclusion from the information is also a question.
  
• Unlike my Keri auction, however, the damage might already have been irrecoverably done. Which is the CD people's issue. But according to Law, if it was just a "oops, forgot our system", that is rub of the green. However, if it's a "18-19 Balanced, but he's bid it with a weak 2♦ twice in the last year" situation, well, they did not "make available" the complete partnership understanding ("[both] explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players") last round. Hence my concern in the last post.
  
• This is definitely on the list of "convention forgets partner *will* remember for a very long time", so yeah, even once a year ago will lead to an "obvious" conclusion this time. High "awareness" value, in other words.

[sanst]

I’m wondering whether this might be a brown sticker, a psychic bid that’s protected by the system. Does this pair have a bid available for a weak hand with diamonds?
The classic example of a such a protected bid is 2♣, explained as ‘strong’, which compels the partner to answer 2♦. The ‘strong’ opener passes with his weak hand with diamonds. Red flags should go up and the TD, this one at least, should smell a rat.

[Gilithin]

mycroft, on 2023-May-05, 11:18, said:

[list=1][*]I can absolutely see some auctions where it's reasonable not to try to find a hand that might violate system this exact way. For instance my ("oldfashioned", for amusing values of "old") Keri, after 1NT-2♣; 2♦ is 100% forced. In response to a question "what does it mean if he doesn't bid 2♦?" the answer was, after a pause, "he's walking home?" If for some reason partner bids 2♠ instead, I think it's totally reasonable to explain it as "that bid does not exist" and I think I am allowed to guess that partner, who has been playing with others for the last 6 weeks while I've been out of the country, forgot we weren't playing Stayman - said information (but not conclusion) to, of course, be made available to the opponents. Especially if 2♣ wasn't Alerted!

And if 2♣ had been alerted and correctly explained, would it be just as reasonable for you to guess that a notably creative partner has psyched their opening? This is the issue here, when there are multiple possible interpretations and the UI suggests one over another, it is not allowed for you to guess the one being suggested but the vast majority of players do and think it is perfectly ok.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2023-May-06, 02:21, said:

I’m wondering whether this might be a brown sticker, a psychic bid that’s protected by the system. Does this pair have a bid available for a weak hand with diamonds?

I play Mexican 2♦, and the bid for that is obvious: 3♦. Since you end up in the same place, there's little logic to using a psychic sequence to get there. And opening a level lower allows room for the opponents to compete more cheaply.

One thing we need to investigate regarding whether opener's 3♦ is acceptable is whether they have spade support. Assuming in a weak-2 context 2♠ would be natural and forcing, West would be expected to raise spades rather than rebid diamonds. If they don't, then they're obviously taking advantage of the alert to realize that 2♠ is not natural.

[mycroft]

Gilithin, on 2023-May-06, 04:54, said:

And if 2♣ had been alerted and correctly explained, would it be just as reasonable for you to guess that a notably creative partner has psyched their opening? This is the issue here, when there are multiple possible interpretations and the UI suggests one over another, it is not allowed for you to guess the one being suggested but the vast majority of players do and think it is perfectly ok.

Multiple possible? That's not what the Law says. I mean, it's possible she meant to bid 2♦ and 2♠ came out. Not very likely, but about as likely as "first time partner has ever psyched opposite an unpassed hand". It's also possible (especially against jillybean :-) that partner just forgot to Alert 2♣ (after all, about half our opponents forget - at least until I go hunting their card to confirm - to Alert their conventional defence to a weak NT). And then lost her mind?

The Law says: "A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative." Is catering to partner psyching 1NT "an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select"?

Well, I guess we can poll it. I mean, this one will be hard, given the "methods of the partnership" bit (most Aussies are asleep at 0400 after all), but directors have dealt with that before.

But you do give me an interesting choice. What if I do treat it as what is much more likely than a psychic - that partner opened 1♠ and 1NT came out? (*) That's the category you're suggesting in "possible interpretations". Now the UI says "partner has 6 spades and an opener." If I pass this, was that use of UI? If it is, then "if you bid because you guess partner has 4 spades, that's use of UI because it could be a psych/mispull, but if you pass, that's use of UI because partner might not have Alerted because 1♠-2♣ isn't Alertable".

This gets us back to "if it hesitates, shoot it" territory. And is why "demonstrably suggested" is in the law.

I'm not saying you're wrong. If it happened at the table, I'd explain as required: "that bid doesn't exist in the system", I'd make my guess, and when they call the TD, I'd make my case and take the ruling. I am saying that the boundary isn't "if I can come up with any scenario that is even remotely possible, then you don't get to guess right with UI".

[*]at least online; my partner knows 25A and the ACBL's case history. Let's assume for this argument that 1NT openers aren't Announceable, you have to check their card; or it's most players and they don't realize that they are allowed to 25A even if what makes them notice is partner's Announcement.

[BudH]

shyams, on 2023-May-03, 23:48, said:

In an uncontested auction, E/W are a regular pair that play a specialised 2♦ opening. This one time, West misbids 2♦ to represent a weak-2 bid in diamonds. The bidding continues:
West : East
2♦* - 2♠**
3♦ - pass!

* As per system, East correctly alerts 2♦ and, when asked by North, states that 2♦ is "18 to bad 21, balanced or semi-bal, no singletons"
** West does not alert 2♠, South does not ask and passes. West bids (reasonably in tempo) 3♦

The issue: As per E/W documented system, 2♠ acts as a relay and West is compelled to bid 2NT.
a. When West bids 3♦, East knows (despite the UI arising from no alert) that the wheels have come off. It is easy for East to logically infer that West holds a weak-2 in ♦. Now (say holding a non-descript 8-10 HCP bal hand), East decides he can legally pass.
b. Let's look at the situation from West's perspective. If he meant it as a weak-2 in ♦ (something West plays with other partners), then 2♠ is natural and forcing for one round. The weakest response from West is to revert to his own suit to convey no ♠ tolerance & a min hand. So, despite hearing the UI from partner, the 3♦ is "a normal action" for a person making a weak-2 opening.

Question for people knowledgeable in Bridge laws.
1. Is East's 2nd round pass legal?
2. Is West's action to bid 3♦ legal?
3. Should East call the TD before the 3♦ is passed. I assume East should definitely call the TD if the auction ends with 3♦ all pass.

Anything else wrong or worthy of comment? Please feel free to add.

Does opener's hand have 3-card spade support or a high doubleton honor, especially with a non-minimum hand? If so, he can be expected to "raise" to 3♠, not bid 3♦.