West opened the bidding with 2NT holding AKxx = Kx = - = AKQJxxx ending in a contract of 6S by West making 6. South held the AH and the AD. On the opening lead of a heart, South won with the A and played the AD - assuming West had a least 2 diamonds based on the opening bid of 2NT - which was trumped. South claimed to be damaged by West's 2NT opening bid with a void in diamonds. How should I rule? Marcia McCalden
Notrump with a void (or singleton) is a touchy subject. The rules are as follows: A partnership may not have the agreement to open a natural no-trump opener with a singleton or a void. This boils down to partnership expectations. If all 3 other players at the table are fooled by the opener, it is not illegal.
Agreements are created either explicitly or implicitly. Explicit agreements are those you discuss with your partner, such as 1 notrump forcing, or jacoby 2NT or weak 2s or the range of your 1NT opener. Implicit agreements are agreements that build due to usage. If your partnership opens 1 or 2 NT with a singelton or a void just a couple of times, the implicit agreement that you will do so is created. It is that AGREEMENT that is illegal.
In this situation, if the player who opened 2NT has opened like that before, or, while being queried about the reason (they should always be made to defend their bid) admit that they did it to "show points", it is likely that the illegal agreement to open NT with unbalanced hands has been formed, and you now have an illegal action that will allow you to adjust the board, if there is a possible adjustment. If you, as the director, can not determine that this agreement exists, there has been no infraction of law, and an adjustment is not allowed. In order to adjust a board, there must be an infraction of law.
Another thing to look at on this board is; even if you determine that there is an illegal agreement, did that illegal agreement directly lead to damage? I can't imagine that 6S isn't going to make, unless there is a possible club ruff at trick 2, after the heart lead. If the 6S contract is not unreasonable, then there still may not have been any damage. South's complaint is not that they were misled, but that they didn't get to cash the second trick they expected to set the contract.
So, to finally rule, there are three steps to go through.
1 - was there an illegal agreement in effect? If not, then we're not going to adjust the board. There has been no infraction of law. Chew out the 2NT opener, and tell him/her that if they ever do it again with this partner, that will create the implicit, illegal agreement, and will bring about penalties. If so: on to #2
2 - did the illegal agreement directly cause damage? This can occur in one of two ways: 1-the offending side reached a contract that cannot reasonably be reached without the illegal agreement (if you can only reach 6S with a 2NT opener, and probably would not reach it with a 2C opener, this situation applies) 2-The defense did change, and allowed an unmakeable contract to make (or set it less than it should have been set). I think this is highly unlikely in this situation.
3 - did the non-offenders commit an action that led to their own bad result? Attempting to cash a second ace against a slam is not in this category, in most cases. The non-offending side is required to continue to play bridge within their own abilities and experience. If they take a wild or gambling action, they live with their own bad result. (This occurrence often leads to a split score, with both sides receiving the short end of the stick.)
Only when all three of these questions have a "yes" do we adjust boards. In this case, I'll make a couple of assumptions:
1 - there is no chance for a club ruff at trick #2.
2 - After a 1C or 2C opener, 6S is pretty likely to be bid.
3 - There is no illegal agreement to open a NT with an unbalanced hand.
4 - 6S makes, indepently of the AD being led at trick 2.
I would not adjust the board. If #3 is wrong, and I find that the illegal agreement exists, I would still not adjust the board, given the other 3 assumptions are still correct. I would penalize the offender 1/4 board, and tell them that next time they'll receive a full board penalty. If I don't find evidence of the illegal agreement, I would tell the offender that if they ever open a NT with an unbalanced hand with this partner again, I will automatically penalize them, as they have now created an illegal agreement.
