[timjand]

EBU county match. W is dealer. All red.

P-1C*-1D-X
2C-P-P-X
3D-4H-end.
*alerted as could be 2 clubs or more

---

4H went down 4 for -400 (though 8 tricks can be made on optimum play).

At the end of play W says her 2C, which was not alerted, is UCB showing a good raise in diamonds.

N/S complain to the director. South says that had he known of the misunderstanding he would have passed 2C, which is likely to be -5.

E/W is not a regular partnership. UCB is on their card, but the answer to the question "is a cue bid over a short club UCB" is "never discussed."

E, who holds Kx in clubs, says he was sure at the time that 2C was natural.

N, who holds a 7-card club suit, no doubt guessed that something was amiss.

Has there been an infraction?

Is there damage to N/S?

If there is, what is appropriate rectification?

At other tables, incidentally, 50% of the N/S pairs end up in a heart contract, most going down. E/W can make 4S or 4D. N/S can make 4C.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2017-April-08, 09:33
Reason for edit: Add bidding diagram

[blackshoe]

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 08:56, said:

Has there been an infraction?

You're asking if there was MI via a failure to alert 2♣. If there's a requirement to alert an unassuming cue bid in the blue book, I missed it. If there is such a requirement, and their agreement was that this 2♣ is a cue bid, then the answer to the question is yes, otherwise no. There may have been another infraction, albeit one often ignored: was there a director present at this match? If so, West should have called him before explaining his opinion that there should have been an alert — if indeed that was his opinion. IAC, given that the this particular auction was undiscussed, the correct explanation would have been "if 1♣ were natural, 2♣ would show a limit raise, but this auction is undiscussed".

2♣ showing a limit raise (or better) is, I think, fairly common and expected, so I don't think there was MI here. Law 21A may have relevance here.

Quote

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

If there was no requirement that East alert 2♣ when the bid was made, then it's on North (or South, or both) to clarify the meaning of the auction. I find it hard to believe North really thought 2♣ was natural, given how common "cue bid is a raise" is, and especially given the fact that North has seven clubs.

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 08:56, said:

Is there damage to N/S?

Not if there was no infraction. Law 12B1 says, in part

Quote

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b) below.

The emphasis is mine. C1{b} deals with SEWoG actions by the innocent side.

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 08:56, said:

At other tables, incidentally, 50% of the N/S pairs end up in a heart contract, most going down. E/W can make 4S or 4D. N/S can make 4C.

What happened at other tables is of little relevance. For one thing, how do you know the other pairs were playing the same methods as at this table, or that the auction went the same way?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-April-08, 10:10, said:

You're asking if there was MI via a failure to alert 2♣. If there's a requirement to alert an unassuming cue bid in the blue book, I missed it.

Unassuming cue-bids are alertable under the general rule:

Quote

4 B 1 Passes and bids
Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:
(a) is not natural;

It sounds as though the correct information is that there is no agreement about this sort of situation, so we would need to consider what might have happened if NS had that information. For that we need the hands. It's also worth mentioning that West is constrained by UI from the lack of alert from East.

[timjand]

gordontd, on 2017-April-08, 12:30, said:

It sounds as though the correct information is that there is no agreement about this sort of situation, so we would need to consider what might have happened if NS had that information. For that we need the hands. It's also worth mentioning that West is constrained by UI from the lack of alert from East.

I get an error trying to insert an image but this is the hand:

https://fygckw-ch330...kSFdiF3uF0AhiDQ

Tim

[gordontd]

I'd be interested in the results of a poll of what players would do with the South hand with the correct information - "no agreement". It doesn't seem to add up to me, since North has neither bid 2H nor doubled 2C I doubt South is ever going to make much sense of what is going on but the second double does seem to be an overbid. West's 3D also has the feel of an "unauthorised panic" bid with 2D a logical alternative.

[nige1]

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 08:56, said:

EBU county match. W is dealer. All red.
4H went down 4 for -400 (though 8 tricks can be made on optimum play).
At the end of play W says her 2C, which was not alerted, is UCB showing a good raise in diamonds.
N/S complain to the director. South says that had he known of the misunderstanding he would have passed 2C, which is likely to be -5.
E/W is not a regular partnership. UCB is on their card, but the answer to the question "is a cue bid over a short club UCB" is "never discussed."
E, who holds Kx in clubs, says he was sure at the time that 2C was natural.
N, who holds a 7-card club suit, no doubt guessed that something was amiss.
Has there been an infraction?
Is there damage to N/S?
If there is, what is appropriate rectification?
At other tables, incidentally, 50% of the N/S pairs end up in a heart contract, most going down. E/W can make 4S or 4D. N/S can make 4C.

---

IMO
East should have alerted 2♣. (If asked he should explain "no agreement", assuming that is the truth).
West used the UI from East's failure to alert, to choose 3♦ over logical alternatives.
South might have protected himself by asking. (I can't see why here).
North's 4♥ is not a SEWOG.
NS were damaged by the failure to alert and by West's use of UI.
The director should adjust, perhaps to 2♣X-5
and impose a disciplinary penalty on West.
Unfortunately, however, directors rarely rule that way

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2017-April-08, 13:20, said:

IMO
East should have alerted 2♣. (If asked he should explain "no agreement").
West used the UI from East's failure to alert, to choose 3♦ over logical alternatives.
South might have protected himself by asking. (I can't see why here).
North's 4♥ is not a SEWOG.
NS were damaged by the failure to alert and by West's use of UI.
The director should adjust, perhaps to 2♣X-5
and impose a disciplinary penalty on West.
Unfortunately, however, directors rarely rule that way

By what route might they have played in 2Cx?

[timjand]

Note I am posting this for my own education and interest.

Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise?

Tim

[nige1]

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 14:15, said:

Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise.

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 08:56, said:

E/W is not a regular partnership. UCB is on their card, but the answer to the question "is a cue bid over a short club UCB" is "never discussed." E, who holds Kx in clubs, says he was sure at the time that 2C was natural.

Arguably, East should not be influenced in his alert decision by his own ♣ holding (although many would argue that it makes a cue-bid more likely)

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2017-April-08, 13:32, said:

By what route might they have played in 2Cx?

West described his hand with his 2♣ bid and East showed he wants to play in 2♣.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2017-April-08, 15:18, said:

West described his hand with his 2♣ bid and East showed he wants to play in 2♣.

Even if East has longer clubs than diamonds, West is always going to prefer diamonds.

[gordontd]

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 14:15, said:

Note I am posting this for my own education and interest.

Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise?

Tim

East should alert it unless he believes they have an agreement that it is natural. Even if he believes that to be true, NS might have grounds for redress if that turns out not to be the case.

[timjand]

nige1, on 2017-April-08, 15:13, said:

Arguably, East should not be influenced in his alert decision by his own ♣ holding,

I've got no reason to suppose that he was influenced by his club holding. I probably should not have mentioned it, sorry.

Tim

[timjand]

gordontd, on 2017-April-08, 15:34, said:

East should alert it unless he believes they have an agreement that it is natural. Even if he believes that to be true, NS might have grounds for redress if that turns out not to be the case.

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such.

Tim

[gordontd]

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 15:44, said:

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such.

Tim

So how would you make an unassuming cue-bid?

[blackshoe]

It doesn't matter, btw, whether West "used UI" to choose his 3♦ bid. It only matters that he chose the bid, and UI was present that could demonstrably have suggest that bid over another. If in fact it is true that his partner's failure to alert obviously could suggest that he bid 3♦.

[m1cha]

blackshoe, on 2017-April-08, 19:12, said:

It doesn't matter, btw, whether West "used UI" to choose his 3♦ bid. It only matters that he chose the bid, and UI was present that could demonstrably have suggest that bid over another. If in fact it is true that his partner's failure to alert obviously could suggest that he bid 3♦.

I doubt that there is UI at this point. Obviously when East [EDIT: West] bid 3♦ he knew that his partner had mistaken the 2♣ bid. But since he could derive this clearly from the fact that partner passed the bid, it was AI. That he could have come to the same conclusion from the fact that partner had failed to alert the bid, doesn't make it UI.

[nige1]

m1cha, on 2017-April-08, 19:49, said:

I doubt that there is UI at this point. Obviously when East bid 3♦ he knew that his partner had mistaken the 2♣ bid. But since he could derive this clearly from the fact that partner passed the bid, it was AI. That he could have come to the same conclusion from the fact that partner had failed to alert the bid, doesn't make it UI.

Alternatively, you might argue that the AI from partner's pass of 2♣ is that his 1♦ overcall was suspect and he has a poor hand with good ♣s.
(For example, assume that he alerted your 2♣ but passed it after correctly explaining your intended meaning).

m1cha's argument is pretty convincing, however.

[Vampyr]

timjand, on 2017-April-08, 15:44, said:

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such.

Tim

Well, North did open the suit.

[timjand]

gordontd, on 2017-April-08, 16:12, said:

So how would you make an unassuming cue-bid?

Not available in this sequence. Similar to after weak NT open from N, say.

Tim