[szgyula]

To cut a long story short: Opponents play a red system, no CC is available at the table. I open 1NT, they overcall it with 2C. Alert, asking for explanation: "it shows exactly 4 hearts or 5+ hearts with 4+ spades, 0 to 15 points". As it turned out later, the player had a 6 card minor with exactly 4 hearts (1462 distribution). Director was called and they admitted that the system allows a much longer minor and they admitted that this was not disclosed. The director foound no infraction. The inspection of the CC (as submitted for the required classification) reveals that the pair has no bid available to show a long minor (and per regulations they can only use the system submitted). The fact that they can not show a long minor in the system is not revealed when asked for explanation.

The information not available to me did affect the line of defense I chose (they played 4H in the end), which could have made the declarer play more complicated. Declarer took 11 tricks and looking at the actual board, 11 trick is always possible with perfect declarer play.

Would you rule misleading explanation? Would you make any adjustment?

The actual hands: N J.K542.AQT643.K6, E KQ63.87.9752.754, S 98752.AQJT.8.T83 W AT4.963.KJ.AQJ92. EWvul, dealer W. Auction: 1N - 2C (alert, see above) - P - 2N! - P - 3D! (director called) - 3H - P - 4H. The 2N was alerted and we asked for explanation. "invitational strength". When pressed, the explanation was "around 11 points, no further specifics". The answer structure after the 2C in not on the CC. The 3D bid was alerted and the explanation was "this is his side suit". Director was called and the opponents admitted that the 2C can contain a long side suit (minor) and this was not revealed to the opponents. I claimed that (when calling the director and right after the 3D bid) that I would have bid 3C instead of P. This does not prevent them from reaching 4H but the partner may support it. Further: being aware that 2N is not 11 points, I could have played differently. In the actual game I played CA, Cx (hoping for a ruff from a zero point partner). Before the opening lead I entertained the SA lead, which I would have followed with a small spade (to kill an entry and to cut declarer from the dummy). If partner bids 4C over the 3C, I definitly do not lead the CA. In the actual case it may not matter as there is a line of play that results in 11 tricks (as happened at the table after the CA lead).

My argument for not bidding 3C: Being 33 in majors, I did not expect a 54 in the majors. That means exactly 4 hearts and maximum 4 spades. This smelled like a NT hand. With a pass from partner and E having 11 points, I expected a potential 3NT end contract with around 24 points and I did not want to announce the nice clubs in my hand. Were I aware of the potential distributional hand (potential hidden 6 card suit), I would have been afraid and would have bid 3C (this is certain as it was announced to the director right after the 3D bid and the explanation being given).

[barmar]

Canape bidders routinely include "could have a longer side suit" when explaining their initial bids. I think this pair should do similarly.

BTW, if you're going to show hands, it would be better to use the Hand Diagram editor instead of inserting them in the text.

[mrdct]

---

I've put the hand into the correct format, but it might be useful to know the jurisdiction to answer this properly.

My preliminary thoughts, however, are that even if you were told that north could or does have longer ♦ and that south's values might be shaded slightly, the ♠A looks a pretty unlikely lead; so I'm not going to adjust the table result. I'm probably going to put the torch to north-south though for failing to have a properly completed convention card at the table (if the local regs require same) and no matter what the jurisdiction the description of 3♦ is inadequate and should've had the qualifier "could be canape" or similar. I'm not too fussed about the explanation of 2NT as players are allowed to employ "hand evaluation" and south does have a pretty useful hand opposite 4+♥. North-south could argue that if north's 3♦ bid had been described as canape that actually increases the likelihood of south having a long ♣ suit and makes the ♣A look even more attractive.

[the hog]

You would really bid 3C with that hand?
Apart from this aberration of yours, I agree with mrdct.

[mrdct]

the hog, on 2011-August-04, 22:18, said:

You would really bid 3C with that hand?
Apart from this aberration of yours, I agree with mrdct.

Bidding 3♣ would not have crossed my mind with or without more comprehensive explanations.

[sfi]

Quick thoughts:

- Exactly 4 hearts plus a side diamond suit? If this doesn't show a longer minor what distribution are you playing for? They're not overcalling a two-suited hand on 3442.
- The South hand evaluates to around 11 points in support of hearts, so that's not a misleading explanation at all.
- 3♣ over 2NT is not something that would have occurred to me.
- North/South didn't "admit" things when the director was called - this is not a trial.

I agree that they should have described North's bids better, but it doesn't look like there is any damage. I would discuss their obligations to explain more fully and that would be it.

[the hog]

mrdct, on 2011-August-04, 23:00, said:

Bidding 3♣ would not have crossed my mind with or without more comprehensive explanations.

That was not a suggestion you would bid 3C Dave. I KNOW you wouldnt.

[szgyula]

OK, the legall background: This is in Hungary, which is mostly based on the 2007 WBF laws and the 1999 (?) rules of contest. Artifical systems must be submitted for classification. This did happen, the system was classified as red. This ruling (classification) also mandated that all subsequent bid sequences after a 0-16 pts. overcall must be revealed. The text of the ruling is not clear as to WHOM this must be revealed. Either the rules and ethics board (in which case the system is incompletely submitted for classification and can not be played) or to the opponents.

The ruling also states that in contested situation, lacking this explanation, the director must rule misinformation. I just found this ruling and this makes it quite slam dunk to me.

To answer the 3C question: Stupid as it sounds, I would have done so and I did state this to the director after calling the director right after the 3D bid, i.e. it was not invented after the 4H+1. Being stupid is my right

This is not a canape overcall. It shows 4H *or* 5+ H with 4+ spades. The side suit was D.

Going back to the case: IF you rule misinformation (which you may be forced, based on the new info), what would you rule as a result? Declarer can always take 11 tricks, but how likely is he to find this play? In the actual board, with some H being played by N, the leads were CA (1 table for 4H=) and C5 (1 table, 4H=). Mostly H was played by the other side and 9-11 tricks were taken (all H contracts were made at least, often with overtricks in 2-3H). I am not arguing, but I may become in a few decades a director and I do not know how to rule in a situation like this.

Just to make an analogy: We use a 1S bid when non vul over a 1C precision opening. I could give the explanation of "a hand that we would pass with if vulnerable", the explanation of "below opening strength, semi balanced" or "a hand that does not fit any of the following hands: (long list of bids)". Which one would be most correct (we do the last)? Which one would be misinformation?

Just to be on record: I would have liked a ruling that "incomplete explanation, in the actual hand fortunately no damage, but please do it right the next time".

[the hog]

szgyula
If the opening can have only 4H, it HAS to be canape. Do you think they would do it with a 4333 or 4432 shape?
3C is an appalling bid by the way and you are lucky it wouldn't go for 800.

[szgyula]

the hog, on 2011-August-05, 23:16, said:

szgyula
If the opening can have only 4H, it HAS to be canape. Do you think they would do it with a 4333 or 4432 shape?

In my mind canape bid the 4 card suit first, followed by the longer suit. In this system they show majors (if at least 4 card) first, no matter what they have in minors. The rest of the system is not known.

As for the invitational strength: The explanation was different. First explanation was "invitational". When asked for more info, it was classified as "nearly strong enough to open". I asked if this means around 11 pts, the answer was yes. While I agree that with a 4H suit in partner's hand it is invitational but it is nowhere close to what I would call opening strength on its own.

They 3C may be a very bad idea, but if 0 point overcalls are used by opponents, you have to take risks as you have no proper defense. You can not penalize, for example. Neither 1N - 2C - X is for penalty (Stayman), nor is 1N - 2C - P - P - X is for penalty (it shows a additional strength and is forcing). So is 1N - 2C - P - 2N - X. On the other hand, you do not want to let them play 2N non vul without a double, if the overcall is indeed 0 pts and the answer is 10-11. The 3C is a way to keep the auction alive. Yes, somebody is going to make a lot of points, but if you let them bid in a 20-20 HCP situation, you are not going to win. This was MP scoring.

[the hog]

"In my mind canape bid the 4 card suit first, followed by the longer suit"
No, you do not HAVE to bid your second suit. Pd may pass your initial bid, or raise it. Why do you have to give away information to the opponents?

[Zelandakh]

2C looks like some version of Asptro. Here it is routinely described as "hearts plus another suit" without mentioning that the other suit can be longer. This is normal. Given the explanation it is (to me) blindingly obvious that a longer side suit must be possible - if I thought it was relevant I would ask. Yous suggestion of bidding 3C and partner raising is completely self-serving. In fact it appears to me that the entire post is written in a prejudiced way so it would be difficult to make any sensible ruling without hearing the other side.

PS: is it really true that they had no way to show a minor 1-suiter? Most Asptro variants allow a bid of 3m for this hand type.

[bluejak]

I cannot see anything wrong with sfi's arguments: if the bid shows exactly 4♥s [except in one case with spades] then when 3♦ is bid surely that must be longer diamonds? Now, I am not saying the description is adequate - it probably isn't - but once that is explained it must be four hearts and longer diamonds, yes?

[mfa1010]

The explanations could be improved a little, but there is not really MI, damage or sufficient reason to adjust.