[MFA]

Hmm, I seem to absorb the TD cases at the moment...

Scoring: IMP

1♠ - 1NT
2♥ - 2NT*
3♥ a.p.

---

Screens

E-W plays 10+ 2-o-1's.

2NT was alerted from east to south as "good 3H raise". Therefore south felt unable to penalty double 3♥.
2NT was alerted from west to north as "good 3H raise OR both minors".

After the board (down only three after an unmentionable defense), south feels damaged, since he feels he has a penalty double if 2nt is not unequivocally a good raise.

Do you agree that south might have a penalty double if given a different explanation rather than the actual one?

Would you allow west to make some rescue attempt if 3♥ were doubled? What bid then?
Note that west explains that this 2NT agreement was quite fuzzy, and his intent were to redouble 3♥ as SOS to make partner understand the situation.
E-W is a top-class pair, but they have been changing the system lately, so they might not be on the same wavelength in all sequences. It is, however, not quite possible for the TD to establish the exact partnership agreement about 2NT.

[Codo]

I think if the offenders cannot prove that they had just a wrong bid, you need to rule wrong explanation.
Next question: Was there a possible damage? Obviously, 3 Heart doubled had been better for the non-offending side.

Had South doubled if he had received the right explanation? I had not, but he claimed that he had. With no other sources, I belive him and rule that he should be allowed to double 3 Heart.

Should West be allowed to rescue with a XX? I don't think so. If they have the agreement, that 2 NT has both meanings, a XX could well be business. An if West knows that Partner has understood his 2 NT bid correctly, he surely had shown a hand with zero interest for the minors, so the only possible rescue would be 3 Spade. But west did not say that 3 Spade was an option, so I would rule the score as 3 Heart X -3.

[jdonn]

It's very difficult to answer without knowing something. Did west believe there was agreement that 2NT could be either hand type, or did he believe 2NT meant either the heart raise or the minors but he couldn't remember which?

[Tbur]

1. S's dbl on 3♥ would not be reasonable, since he can not dbl a 4♣ or even a 4♦ bid.
2. Yes, I believe that W should be allowed to rescue in 4♣. Even if E is sigl there, a 6-1 fit is better than a 5-1.
3. I don't accept Ws assertion that he would rdbl to show SOS. Why this should not show a max support in ♥? Why would not he bid 4♣ to show both minors?
4. It is obvious that EW missunderstanding should be punished acording to the rules of wrong expanation. For me is also obvious that score (-3 undoubled) stands.

[MFA]

jdonn, on Sep 29 2008, 08:57 PM, said:

It's very difficult to answer without knowing something. Did west believe there was agreement that 2NT could be either hand type, or did he believe 2NT meant either the heart raise or the minors but he couldn't remember which?

West thought they played 2-way 2NT. This explanation was written to north during the auction.

[MFA]

Codo, on Sep 29 2008, 03:47 AM, said:

Should West be allowed to rescue with a XX? I don't think so. If they have the agreement, that 2 NT has both meanings, a XX could well be business.

West claims, of course, that E-W have a clear agreement that XX of a partscore is always SOS (unless it's a lead director they XX, I suspect).
E-W is a seasoned partnership. They have recently changed their 1M response system from something extremely convoluted to just "normal" bridge.

Quote

An if West knows that Partner has understood his 2 NT bid correctly, he surely had shown a hand with zero interest for the minors, so the only possible rescue would be 3 Spade. But west did not say that 3 Spade was an option, so I would rule the score as 3 Heart X -3.

Well, TD just asked west what he would do, so therefore west didn't give a list of options.

Imo it comes down to evaluating two things.
1. Is south damaged by east's explanation and should consequently be allowed to double 3♥? Yes or no.
2. If the answer is yes, then TD should use law 12C2:

Quote

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

What is then "the most favorable result that was likely"? Is it likely that west would pass 3♥X or take a preference to 3♠, which is roughly equally bad? This is the TD's judgement and what the players claim at the table about their intentions he can attach importance to at his own discretion.

3♥ should have been down 5, but the defense slipped 2 tricks. 3♠ is down four if NS are remotely sober, but of that we cannot be sure, unfortunately .
4♣ is down only one. Opener is 5413.