1NT = 15–17
2♠ = natural (not self-alerted)

4♠x made 4 (NS 790)

After the play, West checked the NS convention card. It said 2♠ showed spades plus a minor. West called the director.

The director chatted with North and South and judged that:

• South believed 2♠ was natural, and
• North knew what the convention card said, but also “knew” that South wouldn’t remember, so North “knew” 2♠ was natural.

The director therefore ruled that, convention card notwithstanding, the actual NS agreement was that 2♠ was natural. Therefore EW were not misinformed.

NS broke Law 75D2 by posting a convention card describing “an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist.” In a high-level event, the director might assess a procedural penalty (although there’s no way to assess a procedural penalty in a virtual club game on BBO 🤔). The director asked NS to revise their convention card to reflect their actual mutual agreements.

Ruling: no misinformation; result stands

What if the director had determined that NS really did have a mutual agreement that 2♠ showed spades plus a minor and had failed to alert? The new alert procedure says “Penalties for failing to Alert are not automatic. However, a player who is misinformed by an opponent’s failure to Alert will be protected.” Alas, it isn’t that simple! The Laws (12B1, 21B1a, 21B3, 40B3a, 47E2, 75B1, 75D3) repeatedly state that the director shall adjust the score if, and only if, the non-offending side was damaged “because of,” “influenced by,” “from,” or “as a consequence of” misinformation, or misinformation “results in damage.” Any adjusted score is “based upon the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner.”

If South had actually shown a two-suiter without self-alerting, would West have bid differently? Why? West was damaged by deciding to double, but if there had been misinformation, would West’s decision to double actually have been a consequence of the misinformation? Would the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner have been that West would have doubled anyway?

4♥  made 5. All agreed that North unmistakably hesitated before passing over 3NT.

Ruling: North’s hesitation demonstrably suggested that South not pass out 3NT. Pass was a logical alternative. Therefore South’s 4♥  bid was a violation of Laws 16B and 73C. The contract was adjusted to 3NTW. Following Law 12C1c, the director estimated there was a 50% chance 3NT would be down 2 (6 matchpoints for NS) and a 50% chance it would be down 4 (8 matchpoints for NS) and assigned a score of 7 matchpoints for NS.

For more information, see the Rulings FAQ article on Hesitations, Failures to Alert and Misinformation.

West’s 3♠ bid showed a good hand and a good suit (Ogust).

North led the ♣3 to the J, Q, and A. Declarer led a trump to dummy’s Q and South’s A. South led the ♦6, and North made a face. North won the ♦A and returned the deuce. South ruffed and led a club. North ruffed and gave South a second diamond ruff.

Table result: 4♥W–2, NS 200.

North’s reaction to South’s diamond lead was an “extraneous gesture” violating Law 73B1. South was therefore prohibited by Laws 73C and 16B1 from “choosing from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.” The director ruled that the “extraneous information” “demonstrably suggested” leading a club at trick five, but after polling a few players the director ruled that at trick five South had no “logical alternative” (see Law 16B1b) to returning a club.

(The director notes that two NS pairs set 4♥W only one trick after the ♣3 opening lead. The director suspects that those South players never got a second diamond ruff because they did return a club when they were in with the ♥A.)

Director’s ruling: The table result stands. North-South penalized for North’s impropriety.

At the table, EW scored 170 for 3♥W+1. There was an acknowledged break in tempo (BIT) before East’s second-round pass.

East alerted West’s 2NT bid and explained it as a transfer to diamonds. At the table, East made 3NT for 600.