UNT over potentially short club
Opponents open 1C, announced as could be 2.
S takes this as shortage (perhaps because she has 6 clubs), and bids 2NT thinking it shows clubs and diamonds.
The bid is alerted and described as "lowest two unbid suits" (which is exactly what it says on their convention card). Everyone else assumes it is diamonds and hearts.
NS have never discussed how UNT would be played in the case of a potentially short club.
Has there been misinformation? If NS had agreed that a potentially short club would be treated as an actually short one then yes, N should have clarified what suits were meant.
However they have not. We should assume misinformation rather than mis-bid unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case though, I would have thought that treating the club bid as natural would come under generally assumed bridge knowledge.
Thoughts?
Comments
"NS have never discussed how UNT would be played in the case of a potentially short club."
Which presumably means they have no agreement. (Cue law 75 etc). Correct explanation is possibly "Over a bid that is unequivocally natural it shows the two lowest unbid suits, we have no agreement over a possible short club". I assume there are no system notes as to how to handle a possible short club.
Certainly I think that it is normally assumed that the 'could be two' club bid should be taken as natural. I believe statistics show that having 6 clubs is more likely than just having two. Although S suspects that in this case there may only be 2 clubs, she should realise that partner doesn't know the club situation (6 & 2 is the same as 2 & 6).
So, IMHO in theory South hasn't misbid. although she didn;t realise it, she has made a call that she hopes her partner will correctly interpret.
Bear in mind that a 1 !c bid is only announced as "could be 2" if it is potentially natural, i.e. it is also what is opened with long clubs. Otherwise it would be alerted.
South is guilty of inventing system at the table, hoping to survive but being disappointed. "No agreement over a potentially short club, but... " [what weejonnie said], or if you are David Burn, "We don't know what we're doing, but..." seem appropriate explanations.
So there is misinformation because clubs is a bid suit and the inference of red suits flows from what N said. It may be quite innocent, of course, because it may not even have occurred to N that partner could possibly be trying to show clubs in this sequence.
That depends on the short club. If the only time a club is two is on precisely a 4-4-3-2 distribution that's true. If they open 1C on all weak NTs, including those with 5 diamonds (or even including those with a 5-card major), it isn't.
Yes - but in the latter cases doesn't partner now have to alert it? (or at least announce the possibility).
Announce: "may be two and may have five diamonds" or the like.
Announceable bids are never alertable, no matter how weird the meaning. Non-forcing potentially-short-minor openings are announceable unless canapé or forcing (in which case they're alertable).
However, in the most recent alerting rules, potential for weird side-suits (i.e. five-card suits longer than the opened suit) over a potentially-short-minor is indeed included in the announcement. The hypothetical "1!c is non-forcing and shows clubs or any weak NT, even 5332 with a major" would be announced as "may be two, and may have another five-card suit".