Adjustment for UI?
Game all, IMPs. The N/S hands are:
!s K2
!h A5
!d KQ1063
!c J852
!s AQ83
!h Q1094
!d 984
!c Q7
W deals and opens 1 !s (Precision style). N overcalls 2 !d . E passes and S bids 2NT. This is where the trouble starts.
Systemically, S's 2NT is a natural, non-forcing invitation. However N alerts it. The auction continues with 3 !c by N and 3NT by S, ending the auction. E/W ask about the alert and are told by N that it requests N to bid 3 !c . S says that that agreement does not apply in this auction - 2NT was natural and invitational.
3NT makes - on the lie of the cards it cannot be defeated, and on the actual defence S had a safe line for an overtrick.
E/W ask for a ruling on the basis that without the alert of 2NT it seems obvious for S to rebid 3 !d rather than 3NT.
In the course of your investigations as TD you discover that S is right as to the meaning of 2NT. Had E bid (2 !h or 2 !s ), however, over N's 2 !d , then 2NT by South would have been as described by N, showing a competitive bid in one of the minors, weaker than an immediate bid of 3 !c or 3 !d . (In fact it requests N to bid 3 !c with tolerance, 3 !d otherwise, rather than 3 !c regardless). In other words N/S have agreed to play "Good/Bad 2NT" when RHO has bid in a competitive auction, but not when he has passed.
S says that he nearly bid 3NT on the first round, and that if he had bid 3 !d , N would have bid 3NT. E/W say that if S was on the borderline between 2NT and 3NT, this provides evidence that S was expecting more for 2 !d than N actually held, so N would have treated his hand as (sub)minimum, and there is no reason to allow a side in possession of UI to get it right and bid a 23-count 3NT that just happens to be cold. The contract should therefore be adjusted to 3 !d . As 3 !d has the same four top losers as 3NT, plus a spade ruff that is simple enough to find (E, who is on lead against 3 !d , has a singleton in his partner's spade suit, and the Ace of trumps, W has the AK of clubs as entries, and there are no quick discards). It is clear enough that 3 !d would be down one.
Obviously you would take a poll of N/S's peers (this was a last-16 match in an EBU KO Plate competition, and all the players are of competent tournament standard), but where does your instinct say the case lies along the following spectrum:
(a) no adjustment
(b) borderline adjustment
(c) clear adjustment but not blatant use of UI
(d) blatant use of UI, so a possible penalty on top of an adjustment?
Does it make any difference if you are also told that there were four separate occasions in the match when this N and S had different explanations for their auctions (S being apparently correct most of the time, and none of the instances requiring rulings).
This is not a live case - sadly my team lost by sufficient to make any ruling moot.
Comments
Why would North bid over 3!D - isn't that South's weakest way of raising to 3!D?
The history of different explanations does not really impact UI rulings - both NS are going to have to bid as if their original understanding of the auction was right - regardless of what the actual "agreement" was.
I'm not sure here that 3NT was suggested by the UI. From South's point of view, North bids a natural 2!d, South invites in notrumps, and North bids 3!c. A repeat of the same suit there would likely be weak, but North bid a different suit. That looks a lot to me (and may have looked to South) like a game try, in which case it would indicate a stop in clubs and concern over the majors. And doesn't South have close to the perfect hand for accepting that sort of game try?
I think it's reasonable to argue that 3NT was counter-suggested by the UI. With the UI, North's 3!c doesn't say much about clubs (or anything), so aggressive bids like 3NT become less attractive. If the same auction had taken place without the UI, 3NT looks like a pretty good gamble. So it may be that South was forced to bid 3NT, rather than barred from it!
Isn't South required to bid as if he hasn't heard North's incorrect alert, which would be the case if they were playing with screens? If South were to take his partner's 3C bid at face value based on his own understanding of their agreement, which the TD determines to be correct, would he bid 3NT or 3D?
Well, firstly it seems to me that if we were adjusting, we assume North thinks South is trying to sign off with some minor suit hand. So that he would pass a 3D bid seems a fair assumption.
What is 3C over a natural invite anyway? Undiscussed for most partnerships, but this is relevant, because that is what South should assume North to have. If it is some kind of a game try, as ais523 suggestsm there's far less reason to adjust. If it is undiscussed, then this is how I would poll it, the assumptions the pollees make about the meaning of 3C being a guideline.
I do think the UI suggests bidding 3NT. We have a clear alternative meaning for 2NT that suggests South knows N is likely to treat his hand as weak. This contra-indicates a bid North might pass with a good hand. I'm not sure how many players would bid 3D though, you need the poll results for that :).
My instincts are b), although I do suspect deliberate use of UI by South, I'd be asking him why he bid 3NT.
That it's the fourth seperate similar incident doesn't affect the individual case, I think it is a reason to have a quiet word with the pair about straightening out their agreements.
I agree that North passing a 3D bid by South is a fair assumption. But before we get to North's response, the question is, or should be, what would be the 'proper' bid by South after North's 3C bid if he did not have the UI from North's alert and incorrect explanation of the agreement. (Law 75A requires South not to take advantage of his knowledge that his call of 2NT has been misinterpreted by his partner.) This is what the polls should ask, giving the bidding up to 3C without the alert and on the basis of the agreement being that 2NT means what their system says, as confirmed by South. If the polls weigh towards 3D then I would adjust to a contract of 3D by North. If the polls weigh towards 3NT then the table result stands.
Clearly UI here. I would adjust to 3D plus a penalty since south's 2NT has been misinterpreted by North. South has this knowledge (UI) from North.
I'm not sure what you mean by tolerance. Doesn't it mean that NT would be OK and so 3NT is better than 3D?
Alan
I can't think off the top of my head of a sequence where a change of suit after a non-forcing invitation isn't a strong bid. Without the UI, 3NT seems obvious.
For me 3NT is the only sensible bid. Partner has bid on, showing a new suit at the 3 level, after my non-forcing limit bid. Why contract for 9 tricks in a minor when we have all suits well stopped and a likely source of tricks when we could easily be making the same 9 tricks in NT for a vulnerable game? Also consider that bidding both minors this way usually denies a weakish 2-suiter.
By contrast the UI suggests bidding 3D as now partner is just responding to a forcing bid, and is only showing C tolerance rather than a proper suit.
That on the lie of the cards 3N makes while 3D goes off because of a defensive ruff is rub of the green.
For me, without an alert, a new suit at the 3 level would be forcing (normally to game) and not going to 3NT themselves would indicate some concerns with the other 4th suit (stop in !S already been shown with the 2NT bid). It could even indicate some interest in going further, depending on the next bid.
So, without being able to cue bid !H, I would then sign off in 3NT.
With the alert, I would think, partner only bid 3!C because he was forced to... as he was forced then this had no meaning other than a tolerance for clubs (3 cards) and so I would be more likely to bid 3!D, so that partner can make the decision (pass with (for example) a poor 8 count and 6!D, or bid on with a decent hand)
So, there are 3 possible options for me...
3D - suggested by the UI
3NT - counter suggested by the UI
3H - I don't like this as without a stop in N hand, we would be past 3NT and 5 minor does not look sensible
So, it is clearly a case where one bids 3NT and hope it makes.
My tuppence worth
1D-1H
2C-2NT
3C
I think this brings into focus a change in the wording in Law 16 under the 2017 Laws, which I can't recall seeing much discussed.
"...could demonstrably have been suggested..." (the wording in force from 1997 to 2017 - prior to that it was "...could reasonably have been suggested...") has become "...is demonstrably suggested..."
As I understand it, the 1997-2017 wording requires that one can demonstrate a sensible argument why a particular action is suggested. There may be an equally sensible argument that something contrary was suggested. We have seen examples upthread. Under that wording it would be possible to disallow 3NT if 3NT was more successful than 3 !d (according to JamesC's argument, for example); but one could also disallow 3 !d if (on a different layout, the club suit being wide open, for example) if 3 !d were more successful than 3NT (according to ais523's argument). In other words, if there were reasonably convincing arguments either way, the player in receipt of UI could not be allowed to get it right.
The change from "could have" to "is" suggests to me that one may now have to pick which argument one finds more convincing, and stick to that. If that is so, I find it a retrograde step.
Well, if 3C is a strong bid, would you show the diamond support or just bid 3NT? I suspect the latter, but this is why we poll :)
Would those who would not adjust because they consider 3NT to be contra-indicated, rather than suggested, by the UI, consider a PP under Law 73C if the 3NT bid was noticeably quick?
Would those who would adjust (other than rkcb1430 who has already said he would) consider a PP on top of an adjustment if ditto?
To be honest, it was all a bit intangible. S seemed to be a generally methodical (i.e. slowish) bidder, but the 3NT bid was fairly untroubled. The impression was that it was a case of "partner misunderstood my 2NT, I'd better bid 3NT" (an example of "unauthorised panic").
So, taking some action may be suggested, but to fall foul of this law it would need to be provable...
The issue with out of tempo bid to 3NT is a newly raised point... hmmm... maybe there was panic, difficult to tell without being there or knowing the people involved.
Though the word untroubled makes me think that perhaps they were doing a stirling job of not showing that there had been a misunderstanding?
Quite right.
But after 1D-2NT (nat, inv); 3C is usually non-forcing.
I also know pairs who would always reserve their rights when this happens, and then always call the Director.
I suspect that many Directors would start by assuming misuse of UI unless there is a is a very convincing argument. Because I'm such a nice person I start by assuming that South has done his best unless there is strong evidence.
I have to admit that 16B1a is my least favourite law.
Alan
I suppose to some extent whether 3 !c is permissible in this auction would have to be found out. Also: If NS play some form of Unusual No Trump then this would also suggest that the 3 !c call is anti-systemic. The alternative is that North is 6-4 or so in the minors. However that would probably make 3NT MORE attractive. At IMPS I cannot see South doing anything other than bidding the vulnerable game. (Polling would find that out).
Couple of other things - did South alert the 3 !c response (no partnership agreement) - and was the director called at the end of the auction?
With regards to the "demonstrably suggested" - it should be also noted that any attempt to make use of (or cater for) additional information is also forbidden. Thus you cannot take steps to give your partner the chance to clarify his problem.
Well... i play relatively simple systems, so new suit at the 3 level is game forcing, unless forced such as
1H - 2D - P - P
X - P - P - 3C
Here it is not forcing, due to the forcing nature of the double.
In this case
1S - 2D - P - 2NT (stop in 1S, invite to game)
P - 3C
To me 3D would have been unhappy to play in game, better in (presumably 6 card D suit). 3NT to play. 3C would show stops in clubs, game values, possibly an issue with Hs.
Edit: pass would have been to play (happyish for nt but not game values)
3C is permissable as this was the error by north... the bid in questio is 3NT
It 2NT is recognised as game invite, then 3NT would be natural and fircing i guess, so not alertable?
What it all boils down to is whether, without the UI, South's call should be 3D or 3NT, i.e. whether 3NT is demonstrably suggested over 3D by the UI, and whether 3D is actually a logical alternative.
According to law 16 B 1 b whether 3D is a logical alternative has to be established by seeing whether a significant proportion of players of the class in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider and some might select.
From the posts it does seem clear that a number of us, assuming we consider ourselves to be in the same class as the players (this is important, otherwise what we would bid in the same situation is not relevant) and using the same systems (again this is important, what any of us plays is again irrelevant) would consider 3D as a logical alternative and some might even select it. From that standpoint 3D would be a logical alternative. We can either go by our own judgement or support it with a poll.
As long as 3D is seen as a logical alternative the TD would have no option but to cancel the 3NT and assign as a 3D contract by South.
Having said all that, if I were South I would bid 3NT but as a director I must not allow myself to be influenced by what I would do.
With due respect, the question of 3C by North being permissible or not should not arise because North is not in receipt of any UI. They can be playing any system they like, and the 3C call may be anti-systemic and/or a mis-bid, it is not an infraction.
If, systemically, we think 3C is strong and forcing, then it seems unlikely to me that 3D is a logical alternative. If we don't think that is the case, then, clearly, 3D is a LA. I don't think that it can be correct to just combine the two positions.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. of course North has no UI and can bid whatever he pleases. BUT IF the bid of 3 !c is anti-systemic i.e. there is no way he can respond 3 !c systematically after South's response then that fact is AI to South.
I don't actually know, but I would be surprised if they were not playing an immediate 2NT as both minors. They might play split range of course (not so fashionable nowadays, but some still play it), in which case 2 !d then 3 !c would be intermediate values.
3 !c was not alerted, but I wouldn't be surprised if this S didn't realise that "no agreement" was alertable. This was a match played privately so no TD was available onsite. E indicated at the end of the hand that he wanted a ruling, and we did try to call a couple of TD's at the next scoring break. When we couldn't get through to the first couple we tried (I can't imagine what Gordon can have had to do at 10pm on a Friday night apart from answer his phone to give a ruling), we decided to play the last set and deal with a request for a ruling by email if the match was close enough, which in the event it wasn't.
I agree that the posts have demonstrated that 3 !d is a logical alternative. There seems to be less agreement as to what is demonstrably suggested by the UI.
I'd be surprised to find that 3!c was systemically impossible. Presumably it shows clubs, and excludes any hand that could have been shown otherwise, such as by an immediate Unusual 2NT. There may or may not be an explicit or implicit agreement as to strength. I'm with Gordon in that (if it arose undiscussed) I would expect it not to show extras (in which case there is no inference as to worry about hearts - it just says that 3 of a minor may be a better spot than 2NT). On the other hand if it shows an acceptance of the invitation with implicit worry about hearts, then 3NT by S is evident. We will never know.
Thanks to everyone for their contributions.