Was there damage
N/s playing Lucas - 6-10 points 5 spades and any other suit 4+
S KQ863
H 94
D K7542
C 5
S 4 S. 1072
H KJ76532. H. -
D - D AQJ108
C AQ963 C J10872
S AJ95
H AQ108
D 963
C K4
N E. S. W
2s. 2NT. X. 3H
NB. NB. 4S
Result. 4S - 1
There were no alerts
East/ west had nothing on their convention card about any defence to weak bids
East said she meant the 2NT as the minors
South felt damaged as he thought that the 2 no trumps was natural and his hearts an Club king would make and 4 spades is probably on , If this was alerted as the minors then the cards would be wrong so he would have only bid 3 spades
East / west were a weak pair
What decision as a director would you give
Comments
W should have alerted 2NT as undiscussed. (This is something that few players actually do, though.)
I'm assuming S's argument is basically "2NT is normally pretty strong, I have 14 HCP, N has at least 6, thus W must be broke". That means that if S believes 2NT to be natural, then at least one of the CA or HK are highly likely to be onside. I don't think it's necessarily the case that both will be, though: W's pull to hearts implies length there, and probable values there, giving a decent chance the HK or HJ will be offside (and after a 2S opening, hearts is one of the least important suits to have stopped for your notrumps call). It's also worth noting that some partnerships play 2NT as weaker than others, and S didn't ask.
With the correct explanation, S is still going to believe the CA to be likely onside, because E has shown the minors; the HK becomes more likely offside, but not by much. However, one major difference is that S is going to be much more interested in defending (EW apparently have a horrible misfit, and you likely have the balance of the points); I'm not convinced that S would have pulled to 3S rather than doubling with correct information. That said, S would have done better to double: double-dummy 3HX goes down two, which outscores 3S regardless of vulnerability (which wasn't shown, and probably makes a difference here).
(One other issue is the skill levels of the players. 3S, of course, doesn't make double-dummy: EW can take two heart ruffs, a diamond ruff, two Aces and the club finesse. Apparently two of those tricks were missed on the actual hand, which makes it hard to predict what could have happened in various alternative contracts.)
So I think there probably was damage, although I'm not sure I trust S's judgement much, and it's not clear what a fair adjustment would be. If S is adamant about bidding 3S, then the adjustment to 3S= is probably reasonable, especially as the more natural course of action would likely have been better-scoring. (I considered briefly whether 4S was bad enough that NS shouldn't get the benefit of an adjustment, but decided that it isn't nearly that bad.)
I'm not sure there is misinformation here. An undiscussed bid should only be alerted if there is no specific agreement about it and there is some reason to think it may not be natural (or it may contain specific information). Most systems have by default any bid that is not specifically detailed is natural.
If I was playing with a partner that I had not discussed any defences to opening weak 2s with, I would treat a 2NT overcall as natural, 16ish HCP.
I appreciate that "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of
evidence to the contrary." (Law 21B1b), however I think it would be going over the top to apply that here. The law usually applies where players think they are playing different conventions.
Here we have a weak pair with no defensive methods to a weak 2, and one of them makes one up, or gets confused about unusual no trump. I would verify this by questioning (what defence did E think he was playing?) If E had got confused then that would be enough evidence for me to determine mistaken bid
No misinformation = no damage.
Incidentally, Law 75C says that where there is a mistaken call, there is no infraction and "Regardless of damage, the result stands". Yet in 12B1 it says that damage only exists as a result of an infraction.
If North's bid was not alerted or announced, there is no reason for East to assume it is a weak bid. West should, of course have alerted 2NT if he believed it to be UNT, but the lack of any announcement or alert from South leaves West in a difficult position. He does not know what his partner's bid means, unless he knows what North's bid means. There is a risk of UI if he asks. If E/W are a weak pair, as was indicated, they are likely to find this situation difficult to deal with.
The information that I have been given is that NS are 59% and 60% NGS and EW are 46% and 48% NGS, but I wasn't told that the 2 !s bid wasn't alerted, though I am not sure that that is likely to matter too much.
I wouldn't expect West to alert the 2NT when he has no reason to think it won't be natural.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
This isn't a weak 2, it's Lucas.
From the information we know so far, it's quite possible that there is some relevant agreement about weak 2s, and the partners disagreed about whether it applied to Lucas or not.
That said, if 2!s was neither announced nor alerted (it should have been alerted), I don't think you can reasonably give NS redress for any confusion this causes about what EW's bids mean.
If South only bids 3 Spades might not EW bid again? 5 Clubs is laydown and 6 Clubs makes unless a spade is led. So there may not actually be any damage - South's raise has stopped EW bidding their game.
Would like to know West's thoughts. If Partner is showing a good balanced hand i.e. is natural then 4 Hearts seems an underbid, let alone 3. (Give partner AS, AQH KC and 7H is almost laydown!). Not saying that this is an extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction of course.
Suppose 2S was alerted and East did not ask but bid 2NT, then West should alert and say "We have no agreement what this means. Over a weak two it would be unusual asking for the minors". (assuming that is the relative agreement) (Law 20F1) - and South now has to decide what to do. In other words- South is not entitled to know that East meant the call to show the minors if that is not their agreement. (Law 75D3)
Black Topaz: "If North's bid was not alerted or announced, there is no reason for East to assume it is a weak bid."
Well it has to be something. If it was natural (showing only spades) the strength should have been announced. If it was anything else, it should have been alerted. If it wasn't announced and wasn't alerted, all EW can assume is that South has forgotten to act or doesn't know the alerting regulations.
When an experienced pair claim damage in cases like this, I'd really like to adjust the board to 5C making or better to EW. Surely the most likely outcome if South does bid 3S is that West will bid again and East will support. Isn't that the right result?