[lamford]

---

3D was interpreted by North as natural, intended as a try for no-trumps by South. East asked before leading whether "everything was natural" and was told by North that it was. South did not volunteer any correction.

The table result was 3NT+1 by North on a heart lead. The TD ruled that West would still pass an alerted 3♦ some of the time. East would lead a diamond and 3NT would go three down. If West doubles 3♦, North will bid hearts and reach game which may make and may go off.
The TD assigned a weighted score of 50% 3NT-3 by N, 25% of 4H-1 by N and 25% of 4H= by North.

The AC considered the ruling to be slightly generous to EW and changed the ruling to
20% 3NT-1, 20% 3NT-3, 20% 4H=, 20% 4H-1, 20% 4C-1. In particular the AC considered that the TD should have considered a significant percentage of a non-diamond lead against 3NT, in the actual auction where 3D was not doubled.

It was agreed that 3D was alertable, and that South should have volunteered a correction before the opening lead that she intended 3D as artificial, seeking help for no-trumps. South was asked why she did not do so, and she stated that she did not think that she needed to with a bid of the opponent's suit.

NS were content with 100% of 3NT-3 (!). EW appealed as they regarded the weighted score from the TD to be inadequate as East stated that if South had said that 3D was not natural she would have led a diamond. The AC considered how much more likely East was to lead a diamond after the correct explanation, and decided that 50% of a diamond lead was generous to the non-offenders. A separate poll since suggests that a diamond lead would be the normal choice by a big margin, but the key issue is how much more likely one would be to lead a diamond with correct information.

Both NS and EW were county level players (perhaps US life master strength). Your views?

[barmar]

What is the actual agreement about 3♦? Do they even have a firm agreement about this auction? It doesn't seem like a common situation, so I wouldn't be surprised if mid-level players don't.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-December-27, 09:44, said:

What is the actual agreement about 3♦? Do they even have a firm agreement about this auction? It doesn't seem like a common situation, so I wouldn't be surprised if mid-level players don't.

It would seem that there was "no agreement" over 3♦.

[billw55]

lamford, on 2012-December-27, 10:26, said:

It would seem that there was "no agreement" over 3♦.

In that case I am not sure there has been any infraction at all. Unless perhaps we consider this meaning of 3♦ to be a CPU?

Also, "no agreement" seems inconsistent with the previous statement "it was agreed that 3D was alertable". How can you alert something that you have no agreement about?

[lamford]

billw55, on 2012-December-27, 11:24, said:

In that case I am not sure there has been any infraction at all. Unless perhaps we consider this meaning of 3♦ to be a CPU?

Also, "no agreement" seems inconsistent with the previous statement "it was agreed that 3D was alertable". How can you alert something that you have no agreement about?

I think we were advised (I was on the AC) that the meaning intended by South - seeking help for NT - was alertable. If North thought it was natural, and intended to treat it as such, then she would indeed not alert. "The TD is to assume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary" appears somewhere in the Laws, from memory. This suggests that one will assume failure to alert, and that appears to have been the conclusion reached by the TD. The AC agreed that South should have volunteered a correction before the opening lead, even if she was sure that there was "no agreement". She should have said "I think that 3D is undiscussed, but my partner's explanation of 'natural' is not my understanding."

[c_corgi]

Does East really think that when South holds a pointed 2-suiter worth two bids in this auction that she will try to declare in one of them rather than defend? Maybe the onus is not on East to clarify whether North thinks "natural" means "no interesting understanding here" or whatever else may have gone wrong, but a question along the lines of "So South is showing spades and diamonds?" would have cleared it up. Here it looks as though East has been content to receive MI and pursue a double shot, which IMO should be discouraged.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2012-December-27, 12:13, said:

Does East really think that when South holds a pointed 2-suiter worth two bids in this auction that she will try to declare in one of them rather than defend? Maybe the onus is not on East to clarify whether North thinks "natural" means "no interesting understanding here" or whatever else may have gone wrong, but a question along the lines of "So South is showing spades and diamonds?" would have cleared it up. Here it looks as though East has been content to receive MI and pursue a double shot, which IMO should be discouraged.

Broadly, those were my thoughts too, and I thought that we were being generous to the non-offenders in giving them 50% of a diamond lead. I would have accepted criticism that the correct decision should be no adjustment, but, no, the L&E, in their wisdom, wrote, in the draft minutes on the website:

"If South had volunteered a correction, then East would have been very likely to lead a diamond, leading to 3NT-1". Apart from the fact that 3NT would then be 3 off, the required adjustment should be for the additional chance that East would lead a diamond if a correction had been volunteered.

The L&E further wrote:
"It was the opinion of the L&E that the AC should have considered the failure to correct to be an infraction (the failure came from a player who has represented her country in the Lady Milne) and it is our opinion tha tthis should have played a greater part in the committee decision."

The AC did consider the failure to correct to be an infraction, but the L&E have decided that "no further correspondence will be entered into", and I will respect that.

[bluejak]

I find the explanation of the failure to correct as being somewhat beyond belief. South was apparently a fair player, who has bid a suit with Q8 in it in a jurisdiction where a bid of an opponent's suit is natural with no alert. South has only two choices: either she is sure that the partnership agreement is natural [unlikely in view of her bid] or she is required to speak up.

Now I am sure a lot of players do not realise they have to speak up when there is MI. If South's excuse was that she did not realise she had to correct MI at the end of the auction I could readily believe that. But the reason given?

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2012-December-27, 09:44, said:

What is the actual agreement about 3♦? Do they even have a firm agreement about this auction? It doesn't seem like a common situation, so I wouldn't be surprised if mid-level players don't.

lamford, on 2012-December-27, 10:26, said:

It would seem that there was "no agreement" over 3♦.

EBU Orange Book, 5B5 said:

If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category.

"No agreement" is not alertable. Paul tells us that there was no agreement about 3♦ ,so the failure to alert 3♦ was not an infraction. Therefore, I don't think that any assigned/weighted score should be derived from auctions where West doubles 3♦.

There was an infraction: North/South should have explained that there was no agreement about 3♦ in response to East's question (I suspect that East realised that 3♦ might well not be natural, hence her question). It all comes down to which opening lead East would/might have made had she known that there was "no agreement", but in my view the only assigned scores included in the weighting should be 3NT making various numbers of tricks.

Although it seems fairly obvious to lead a diamond on that East hand (however 3♦ is described), I'd like to hear East's reasoning for finding a heart lead at the table, to estalish whether a similar line of reasoning might have been found had she received the "no agreement" explanation.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2012-December-27, 17:25, said:

"No agreement" is not alertable.

I think the TD established that while there was no agreement about 3D, there was probably an agreement that it was not natural. I think it was alertable from the comment by South as to why she did not correct her partner's opinion that it was natural that "she thought 3D was obviously not natural so it did not occur to her to correct the reply by her partner". We agreed with jallerton and bluejak that the failure to correct was an infraction, but by how much did those cause the unsuccesful lead?

[nige1]

IMO, the director's ruling was fair. We are told that NS had no agreement about 3♦. Their opponents are entitled to that information. North guessed 3♦ was natural but South thought it was "obviously" artificial and didn't correct North's explanation. Without the misexplanation, most polled Easts would lead a ♦. Had the director not weighted 3N-3 as 100%, he might have considered a penalty for NS.

[blackshoe]

If there was an agreement that 3♦ was not natural, then "no agreement" is incorrect. If the TD established there was no agreement, then there was not an agreement that 3♦ was not natural. You can't have both "no agreement" and an agreement that 3♦ was not natural.

[f0rdy]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-29, 08:13, said:

If there was an agreement that 3♦ was not natural, then "no agreement" is incorrect. If the TD established there was no agreement, then there was not an agreement that 3♦ was not natural. You can't have both "no agreement" and an agreement that 3♦ was not natural.

Really? If this came up in one of my regular partnerships, then:

a) We would not have explicitly agreed a meaning for the 3D call.
b) Experience of playing with my partners would tell me that they were unlikely to introduce both of the opponent's suits as suggestions of places to play.

The false apparent dichotomy you introduce seems to be a consequence of overloading the term "agreement" in bridge terminology. However, IANAD and perhaps I've misunderstood one or both of "partnership agreement" and "implicit agreement".

[blackshoe]

Partnership agreements may be implicit or explicit. If you have an implicit agreement, then the fact that you have no explicit agreement is irrelevant. You have an agreement; you must disclose it.

[Trinidad]

It's quite obvious that NS didn't have an agreement about 3♦. And that is what North should have said. He confused "no agreement" with natural. You do not need an agreement to know that 3♦ cannot possibly be natural on this auction.

East bids 2♦, showing spades and diamonds. Now South bids 2♠, natural. What would South have done if he held both spades and diamonds? ...

Spoiler

He would have doubled.

If I would have been East, I would have had a diamond in my hand as soon as I heard that North thought 3♦ was natural.

Rik

[barmar]

I think what they're saying is that they don't have an agreement about what 3♦ means. However, they have meta-agreements that provide implicit agreements about what it doesn't mean.

So if South were to offer a correction, the best he could say is "Partner's explanation was wrong, it's not natural. But since we don't have an agreement about what it shows, I don't need to provide any more information."

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-December-29, 22:33, said:

So if South were to offer a correction, the best he could say is "Partner's explanation was wrong, it's not natural. But since we don't have an agreement about what it shows, I don't need to provide any more information."

Sure, that's fully within the spirit of full disclosure.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 00:14, said:

barmar, on 2012-December-29, 22:33, said:

So if South were to offer a correction, the best he could say is "Partner's explanation was wrong, it's not natural. But since we don't have an agreement about what it shows, I don't need to provide any more information."

Sure, that's fully within the spirit of full disclosure.

You can remove the emoticon, because that is exactly what South is supposed to do, according to the letter and spirit of full disclosure.

South is not supposed to say what he intended with his 3♦ bid or how he hoped North would understand it.

Rik

[blackshoe]

No, but if he based his expectation on meta-agreements about what 3♦ doesn't mean, that should be disclosed.

A suggestion for players: don't tell the TD what the laws and regulations require — he's supposed to tell you what they require.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 09:42, said:

No, but if he based his expectation on meta-agreements about what 3♦ doesn't mean, that should be disclosed.

I think that someone is misunderstanding something. From where I stand the meta-agreement is that you cannot have a hand that you previously denied. Some people refer to that as 'The box principle'. As a consequence, 3♦ cannot be natural (since with a hand with diamonds and spades, we would have doubled 2♦). This is exactly what Barmar wanted to disclose. Where do you see that NS had more detailed meta-agreements? What law (or regulation) says that NS should have more detailed meta-agreements?

blackshoe, on 2012-December-30, 09:42, said:

A suggestion for players: don't tell the TD what the laws and regulations require — he's supposed to tell you what they require.

I don't understand this. Where is it coming from and where do you intend to go with this?

Rik