[Hanoi5]

---

When the lead is faced up and the screen raised dummy asks declarer whether he was alerted 1♠. Declarer went down of course, E-W didn't have good agreements (East didn't know what 2♠ was) but West supposed his 2♠ would be natural if East knew that 1♠ was the best suit from the worst combination. How would you rule?

[Endymion77]

I don't follow. North bid 1S and East is declarer, right? Why would East alert his opponent's bids?

Also, did South alert his double of 1C? What was the explanation? And who exactly is claiming damage?

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2013-August-22, 21:46, said:

When the lead is faced up and the screen raised dummy asks declarer whether he was alerted 1♠. Declarer went down of course, E-W didn't have good agreements (East didn't know what 2♠ was) but West supposed his 2♠ would be natural if East knew that 1♠ was the best suit from the worst combination. How would you rule?

---

IMO, assuming the NS agrrement is 1♠ = "best suit from worst combination" but East wasn't alerted, then there is a good case for damage because, with that information, East would be better placed to interpret West's 2♠ bid.

[gwnn]

I don't understand "best suit from worst combination" as an explanation. It should just be "signoff opposite blacks, willing to play (at least) on the two level opposite reds." Maybe the worst combination for N is the blacks but he still wants to bid 3 or even 4♠, for example (5-6 in the majors, say).

[aguahombre]

I will not come to a conlusion on a ruling here (yet). But, I can clarify some of the issues in the OP.

First thing that stood out was Dummy opening up his mouth during the play period ---something for collateral consideration.

Now, back to the auction: Having years of CRASH experience, I offer the following.

I believe "best of the worst" is alertable for the first advance. Simply stated, it means we look at our total number of (here) red & black cards; then we bid to the appropriate level in our longer suit of the two where we have the fewer cards expecting partner to pass or correct. Here, North has six black cards and seven red ones; the inference that advancer has more red cards should be made available to the opponents.

Our North is apparently one of those in the camp from another thread, who can't be bothered to review the partnership methods from the standpoint of disclosure. If he were, the first advance would have been alerted on both sides of the screen. Then, when asked on the next round by East whether partner has shown the black suits, he would have been prepared to say, "No subsequent action by South has clarified whether he holds the red suits or the black suits."

[barmar]

Endymion77, on 2013-August-23, 03:27, said:

I don't follow. North bid 1S and East is declarer, right? Why would East alert his opponent's bids?

I believe "whether he was alerted 1♠" means "whether he was alerted about 1♠", not "whether he alerted 1♠". I.e. dummy was asking declarer if North alerted his own 1♠ bid.

Quote

Also, did South alert his double of 1C? What was the explanation? And who exactly is claiming damage?

You can click on the yellow bids in the diagram to see the explanations. I assume East is claiming that the MI caused him to misunderstand West's bids.