Failure to alert 2C in 1NT - 2C (Landy / natural??)
Board 14 Sims 6/9/18
North
J853
105
Q5
QJ1083
East
A10
Q872
KJ3
A942
South
KQ964
KJ643
74
6
West
72
A9
A109862
K75
East deals Love all
1NT - 2C** -2D - 2S
3D - 3S - 4D - p
p - 4S - AP
4S -2 = -100
- **South's 2C bid was not alerted by North
- When dummy went down South said 2C was Landy
- Director called - advised to play hand out and review later
- At end of evening - N/S cards do not mention Landy
- South said Landy was being play, North said Landy was not agreed
- When North was asked why 2S was bid , North said that he always shows a major when responding
Advice on ruling would be appreciated
East felt South's bids were based on UI by the failuire to alert 2C
My veiw
N/S did not have a partnership agreement
North's bid of 2S was natural
South applied UI implied by the non alert of 2C and subsequent bids by South based on known fit gained by UI
My view - Adjust score to 4D by W making 10
Comments
As usual we look at the MI and UI issues. (Also assume no other UI)
See the white book - 1.4.5
There is no longer an automatic adjustment for a fielded misbid. Instead, the TD will determine what the likely partnership understanding is and rule on possible misinformation on that basis.
Since there are convention cards available I think that we have to assume that South has misbid (misexplanation is the defauit). i.e there IS an agreement. Providing there is no evidence that South has forgotton in similar situations then I do not think that EW have been misinformed.
It is not possible to provide guidance as to the strength of evidence required before a player may legitimately act on the basis that partner has misbid. Individual cases are rare and can be judged on their merits.
I don't like North's "I always show a major", The 5 clubs in his hand strongly suggests that South has misbid: there is no need for him to tell EW that he thinks South has forgotton (unless he has previous). Is this "compelling evidence"?
When a player fields a misbid with no compelling evidence from the legal auction and their own hand that a misbid has occurred, the TD will often rule as in §1.4.5.2 (b). Alternatively, the player can be assumed to have acted on unauthorised information. If the TD finds that there was unauthorised information, the TD should rule on that basis.
Obviously South must call the director before the opening lead is faced - although in this case I don't think EW will bid on, they should have been given the chance (obviously a losing decision) - I can't think they would double on the auction. If you want you could issue a pp for this breach.
Now onto the UI
This is a slightly unusual case since the UI suggests that North has an actual spade suit rather than just giving preference (usually it is the reverse) - thus that it would be safer for South to bid 4 Spades.
For law 16B to apply the bid of 4 Spades must be demonstrably suggested by the call and another call (pass?) to be a LA. I think the latter is definitely the case. With regards to the former Law 73C also comes into play
1. When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information [see Law 16B1(a)].
This is the law I would apply (and like you rule back)
Well, it does look to me as if North is playing Landy as well as South. I guess you might say they'd likely bid 3S, but that they feel the need to bid 2S over 2D? Maybe that is their style, but I'm not wholly convinced. I would apply law 21 B b , and assume mistaken explanation, therefore a failure to alert. I'm not sure that really affects the ruling though, EW seem likely to bid similarly :).
Curiously, it doesn't really affect the UI argument either. South believed they were bidding Landy, North did not alert, which suggests a genuine spade suit, and that is still UI. I think I'd poll the 4S bid, but probably pass is a logical alternative. So we can still judge to roll it back to 4D.
Tricky isn't it? Neither North or South has Landy (or any other defence to 1NT convention) on their card. Maybe the TD should have found out whether South plays Landy with anyone else or whether they had just decided to play/ not play the convention and hadn't updated their cards. Regrettably we do not have that information. (which shows how difficult judgement calls are to make).
On the evidence presented (duplicate CCs, no alert by North) I will stick to my theory that North guessed South's misbid through the number of his clubs in his hand. If the facts change I reserve the right to change my opinion.
To abuse UI once (by bidding 3 Spades - assuming pass is a LA in that situation and I am pretty sure it is since South's hand is nothing special for a Landy 2 Club overcall) is bad enough - but to do it twice (by bidding 4 Spades) is reprehensible. I suppose that suggests the final contract should be 3D+1 - not that it makes any difference.
(I just looked at the hand on the EBU site for a better view. Although 3NT by EW makes, I don;t think EW will bid it after the insipid 2 Diamond overcall.)
This one does look as though there are grounds for a pp for bidding 4S. If you feel that just one pp is inadequate to cover how heinous the bid is, you could add it to weejonnie's suggestion of a pp for not calling the director sooner, which would make two penalties. Of course, this would be in addition to rolling the contract back, which isn't a penalty at all.
Comments are appreciated - especially "shows how difficult judgement calls are to make"
I believe the facts are right, North was clear that they were not playing Landy - and would add
South plays Landy with other partners - South is the more experienced player.
North has only recently started playing with South and it is highly likely that North does not use conventional 2C defences to 1NT - a once per week club player who enjoys his bridge but has not developed conventional bids - the 2S bid appeared to a genuine (but questionable) response to the 2C overcall - a player with greater experience and if playing natural 2C overcall would simply raise clubs - I think the 2S was just a genuine "forward move" in the bidding on the mistaken premise of "always show your major"
I don't think North guessed that South was playing Landy based on the number of clubs in his hand - I don't think his table experience has taken him that far.
The consensus of the forum is to rule back to 4D making .
The comments of the forum on applying procedural penalties to South for using UI are interesting from my point of view as a club director - I need to persuade South to check the system with partner, ensure the convention cards include the system, not to introduce ad hoc bids such as Landy without making sure partner understands , and to understand the rules on UI
South won't be happy about the roll back to 4D - my intention at the moment is to say I have had expert advice to roll back to 4D and there was additional expert advice to apply a pps - I am not applying them but warn South
that PP can be applied if using UI .
It's worth noting, Rosss, that a warning is a form of pp, merely one that doesn't impact on your score this time. It reminds South that such use of UI won't be tolerated in the future and that a repeat will likely cost him (and his partner of the evening) the equivalent of 25% of a top.
The question that needs to be asked is what North thought the 2C bid meant. If it is natural, then a 2S response is very unusual. What did North think he was responding to?
Hi PeterB001- The North player was fairly inexperienced. At the time he (North) said the partnership had no agreement to play Landy - (hence the failure to alert). When asked why he bid 2S his response was he always shows his major before the minor - hence the 2S response. As you say if the 2C is read as natural then the 2S is unusual - extremely unusual for experienced players - however I find that for less experienced club players responding to overcalls does not always follow the expected bridge logic.
I take the explanation of the 2S bid at face value and put it down to inexperience.