BBO Discussion Forums: Jacoby 2NT - BBO Discussion Forums

In his "Ruling the Game" column in the July ACBL Bulletin, Mike Flader responded to a query about a problem with opponents' Jacoby 2NT auction. We weren't given all the hands, but I'm not sure we need them. The bidding was
Per ACBL regs, both 2NT and 3♦ require an alert. 3♦ was alerted, 2NT was not. West, before making the opening lead, asked for an explanation of the alert, and was told it showed a singleton. So holding ♦AJxxx, he led the ace. All followed, three low diamonds appearing in dummy and declarer playing the 5. West led a trump, declarer won in dummy and led a low diamond (dummy had 3), East played low, declarer the Queen, and West the Ace. West now led another diamond, figuring that declarer would ruff, and considering this a safe lead. Declarer won the trick with the Queen King, so at the end of play West called the director, who allowed the score to stand. Mike explained that, assuming the TD investigated and determined the pair were indeed playing Jacoby 2NT, the explanation was correct, and per Law 75C, the director cannot adjust the score.

I agree with him, as far as he goes, but I'm not sure he went far enough. There has also been a breach of Law 75B, in that 2NT was not alerted. That law requires North, before the opening lead is made, to call the director (here the law says he "should" call the TD), and to explain that there was a failure to alert 2NT (here the law uses the phrase "must explain"). Had North done so, or had the director addressed the question at the table, West might have concluded that South did not understand that 2NT was Jacoby, and therefore was not (or at least might not have been) showing a singleton. In that case, West might have chosen some other defense. Of course, even had he done so, they might not have got a better result, but that's not the point I'm after. It seems to me that given that the TD apparently did not address this question (nor did Mike), this was TD error, and should have been ruled under Law 82C. Again, without the hands, we can't know what the outcome should have been, but I'm after proper TD procedure here, not what the score adjustment, if any, should have been.

One last point: because 75B uses "must" in specifying that North "must explain" the failure to alert, it seems to me that his failure to do so should result in a procedural penalty rather more frequently than "more often than not". Do my readers agree?

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-June-28, 21:26
Reason for edit: Correct the play to the first few tricks

Agree with the issue you raised; but not the facts of the play.

I read the article, too; and after some other lead, declarer drew trumps and led a diamond to the queen. I wondered if declarer was taking advantage of the explanation by responder of 3D to induce a diamond continuation --whether that was o.k. to do, etc. Declarer held KQT

I may have got the facts wrong, I was writing from memory. I'll check the article. But I don't think it matters to the points I was making.

blackshoe, on 2011-June-28, 21:03, said:

It doesn't matter to the points you were making. But it raises new points. Yours are quite pertinent to your scenario.

You're right, Agua, as to how the play went. I'll change my OP. I still think the actual play is irrelevant to the thread, so let's not dwell on that. As for new points, let's deal with them after we deal with mine, please.

So, did South have ♦KQTx? Did he think he was bidding a natural suit over partner's natural 2N?

It seems to me that someone is out looking for a reason to penalize rather than to give redress for damage?

In what way was anybody damaged by the missing alert of the 2NT bid? West should have to show an alternative line of play that could be likely had the 2NT bid been correctly alerted. (Note that West is not entitled to learn whether South misunderstood the 2NT bid or just forgot to alert it.)

(BTW: What does a jump to 4♦ show with Jacoby? I play a similar convention we name "Stenberg" where 2NT is also game forcing. Any answer other than a direct jump to game shows extra values; 3♦ then shows a side suit while 4♦ shows a singleton.)

pran, on 2011-June-29, 01:19, said:

Indeed West is not entitled to know whether South misunderstood or just forgot. But in the normal course of events when someone forgets to alert, and then the legal requirement to correct the explanation at the end of the auction is complied with, he may, at his own risk, draw his own conclusions about the course of events that has occurred.

This is a Law 23 case, not a misinformation case. EW are not damaged by the MI, specifically EW cannot attribute any damage to the MI. But North failed to carry out a legal duty under 75B, and EW are claiming that they were damaged by N's failure to adhere to that legal duty. If North had carried out that duty, they coudl at their own risk, have drawn the conclusion that S misunderstood rather than forgot. I think it is eminently reasonable to say that in every case where a player fails to correct a misexplanation that such a player "could have been aware that such a failure to correct "could well damage" the opposition, regardless of what the actual cards and misexplanation area. So there is a good case for an adjustment under Law 23.

I doubt that there is a case for an adjustment on the basis you state. The skill level of the E/W pair would be relevant.

The ACBL general conditions of contest provide that "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves."

The fact that 3♦ was alerted as showing a singleton would strongly suggest to most experienced ACBL players that 2NT was Jacoby. If 2NT were an old-fashioned balanced 13-15 point raise, 3♦ would show a second suit, not a singleton.

Moreover, by the time West led his second diamond, E/W could see the dummy and could see that 2NT was Jacoby.

So assuming that E/W were experienced players who were familiar with Jacoby 2NT and its common continuations, they should have known tht 2NT was Jacoby. Therefore the argument that "if only we had known that 2NT was Jacoby, we would have suspected that declarer had forgotten 2NT was Jacoby and therefore wasn't really showing a singleton we 3♦," probably wouldn't fly.

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-28, 21:35, said:

We were told that South had KQT. As for what he thought he was doing, that information was not in the article, but it seems clear from the lack of alert of 2NT and the fact he didn't have a singleton diamond that he was not responding to Jacoby 2NT.

pran, on 2011-June-29, 01:19, said:

No. Someone is looking for the correct procedure for the TD to follow in ruling. Someone said so. Twice, if someone recalls correctly.

I don't know that there was any damage. There is no indication in the article that West claimed there was, but that may be because he didn't understand (since the TD ignored it) that the failure to alert 2NT was also an infraction.

Which law requires West to "show an alternative line of play…"? I assert that there is none.

In the simple form of Jacoby 2NT that I suspect this pair are playing, a jump to the four level in a new suit shows a decent five card suit, one that may be a source of tricks. Though I do not see what that, or what the fact that people in a different country play a different, although similar, convention, has to do with the questions at hand.

I have some concerns about UI North had from missing alert on 2NT Jacoby bid.
Was his 4♥ is authomatic bid after 3♦ from his partner or he tried to avoid disaster if partner did not understand his Jacoby?
It is hard to say with no cards, but North had 3 small ♦, partner shown ♦ shortness. Why did he dicide shut up the bidding and not investigate slam?

I agree with the OP conclusion.

I think Bobby Wolff would have a field day with this one.

blackshoe, on 2011-June-29, 06:52, said:

Which law authorises redress for damage to a player that cannot show damage? (With at least some probability)

blackshoe, on 2011-June-28, 18:45, said:

pran, on 2011-June-29, 01:19, said:

blackshoe, on 2011-June-29, 06:52, said:

pran, on 2011-June-29, 16:28, said:

A procedural penalty is not a redress for damages, as the NOS does not directly gain benefit from a PP; a PP is a punishment against OS for failing to follow proper procedures.

A similar problem was doing the rounds at the level of WBF LC a year or so ago (I hope I get his right).

South is dealer and opens 2♥ and is raised to 4♥. 2♥ is weak (in fact and by agreement) but when asked (before the opening lead) North says it is strong. West did not double the final contract, and would not double if 2♥ was weak (or if it was strong) and North knew this when he bid 4♥. But West would double if 2♥ was weak and North thought it was strong when he bid 4♥. 4♥ will not make.

Two questions:

• South corrects the explanation before the opening lead, is West allowed to change his final Pass to Double?
  
• South does not correct the explanation before the opening lead, but the corrrect explanation comes to light at the end of the hand. Are East/West entitled to an adjustment on the basis that had South corrected at the right time, West would have changed his final Pass to Double?

pran, on 2011-June-29, 16:28, said:

It is the TD's job to assess damage, not the players'.

If North-South can demonstrate that:

2NT really was Jacoby in their methods; and
South's 3♦ really did show a singleton in their methods;

then had North-South followed the alert procedure correctly throughout, East-West would simply have been fixed. No doubt the above assumptions formed the basis of the ruling given in the Bulletin (which would not, for obvious reasons, discuss why it was that North signed off in 4♥ having received an apparently favourable response to 2NT - the article was not about use of UI by North).

"Correct TD procedure" is usually to restore equity in the presumed absence of any infraction. Hence, a TD may correctly rule that if South had not committed the infraction of failing to alert 2NT, the table result was the equitable result and should stand.

What blackshoe is arguing is that when North failed to correct the non-alert of 2NT, East-West were deprived of the opportunity to know that South had cocked things up in some way or other, or at any rate to guess that he might have done (either by failing to alert Jacoby or by failing to respond correctly to it). He has a point, in that if North had followed correct procedure after the auction by explaining that 2NT was Jacoby, West might or might not have misdefended - when North did not follow correct procedure, West was "bound to" misdefend.

But "correct procedure" is designed only to ensure that East-West are properly informed about North-South's methods; it is not designed (nor should it be) to allow East-West to know anything either about North-South's actual hands or about North-South's actual thought processes. If East-West had been properly and tempestively [look it up] informed about North-South's methods, West would have misdefended, and the table result should stand.

I stress, however, that the foregoing is true if and only if North-South really were playing Jacoby as assumed in the article. If in reality North-South had a history of forgetting Jacoby or the responses thereto, then of course East-West would be entitled to that information and perhaps to redress.

RMB1, on 2011-June-29, 16:46, said:

It will depend on the alerting regulations in force. If there has been a failure to alert, then in case 1, 21B1{a} applies, and in case 2, 75B applies. However, if there is no MI, then there can be no damage from MI, and no redress. If there was no requirement to alert 2♥, then there is no MI. Look at it this way: if 2♥ is weak, and responder thinks it is strong, then his 4♥ is a misbid. Opponents are not entitled to know, in general, that he has misbid.