[YesHoney]

Red vs. white
15-17 NT

1NT 2♦ X 2♥
3♣ p 3NT

Down 3 undoubled.

2♦ alerted as Capp (M's), no particular agreement on X.
At the end of the hand it is explained that the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M.

Opener's hand: xx AKx Jxx AKxxx
Doubler's hand: J9xxx QT95 x QTx

3NT seems like a gross overbid although the bidder argues that he can picture a couple of hands where 3NT makes. On the other hand it seems true that bidding would be different if he knew real meaning of 2♦.

How should TD rule?

[RMB1]

YesHoney, on 2011-September-13, 11:54, said:

How should TD rule?

My first instinct is that if double of 2♦ has no particular meaning, would that (lack of) meaning change if the meaning of 2♦ was different? In which case, would the non-offending side bid any different with a different explanation.

But I guess 2♥ should have been alerted(?) and explained as to play in overcaller's major. So with a correct explanation of 2♦ or 2♥, opener would not necessarily bid 3♣ in case partner wants to double 2♠. Depending on the 2♥ bidder's hand, the offenders might declare 2♠X or 3♥X, presumably going off.

But really there is no substitute for asking the non-offending side at the earliest opportunity how they would have bid differently with a different explanation, and basing any adjustment on their answer.

It may be that 3NT is a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or wild or gambling" in the sense of Law 12C1b, depending on local guidelines, in which case neither side will get a good score.

[hrothgar]

1. 2♦ was alerted as the majors
2. Responder doubled, presumably suggesting that he wants to penalize at least one major suit contract. This strikes me as aggressive, but not unreasonable.
3. The overcall is advanced to 2♥ (fine)
4. The 1NT opener goes off the deep end and decides to introduce a club suit rather than hit 2♥
5. The doubler now decides that his quack ridden 5 count is worth forcing to game (presumably based on the Queen of clubs

Personally, I think that the bad result was subsequent to the MI, but not consequent.
No adjustment for the Non offending side.

Offending side should know their card.
Adjust things to 2D making however many...

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-13, 12:34, said:

Offending side should know their card.
Adjust things to 2D making however many...

Amusing side note: the table result (before adjustment) could easily have been reciprocating 400's for a push at teams (5♦=). But we are not told whether it was teams.

[mrdct]

---

Whilst I wouldn't bid 3NT myself, with both of RHO's suits stopped and a pretty handy holding in the suit partner freely introduced at the 3-level, I don't think it's a SEWoG.

East-West were given misinformation about the 2♦ bid and north has UI from the misexplanation of it. Had East been properly informed about the meaning of 2♦ he most likely would've passed, south would still bid 2♥ under the misapprehension that North has Majors and then North is either going to pass 2♥ if that's his Major or bid 2♠. Either way, the adjustment is to NS playing in 2 of North's Major which probably won't make.

[iviehoff]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-13, 12:34, said:

Personally, I think that the bad result was subsequent to the MI, but not consequent.
No adjustment for the Non offending side.

If you wish the non-offending side to retain the effect of their subsequent misjudgments, then "no adjustment for the non-offending side" is no longer the legal way of dealing with it, rather you should apply 12C1b.

Your second sentence tends to imply you would adjust for the offending side. But if the bad result was entirely subsequent, as you suggest, then there was no damage from the offence and no adjustment for the offending side is possible. But that is not the case here.

The correct way of analysing the situation is that the non-offending side made their misjudgment, or had their bad luck, whichever you prefer, in a situation that would not have occurred had the offence not been committed. That counts as damage under the laws of bridge. Only if the non-offending side's actions would have been precisely the same with correct information can you say that there was no damage.

[paulg]

mrdct, on 2011-September-13, 22:12, said:

---

Whilst I wouldn't bid 3NT myself, with both of RHO's suits stopped and a pretty handy holding in the suit partner freely introduced at the 3-level, I don't think it's a SEWoG.

East-West were given misinformation about the 2♦ bid and north has UI from the misexplanation of it. Had East been properly informed about the meaning of 2♦ he most likely would've passed, south would still bid 2♥ under the misapprehension that North has Majors and then North is either going to pass 2♥ if that's his Major or bid 2♠. Either way, the adjustment is to NS playing in 2 of North's Major which probably won't make.

I was thinking along the same lines. I would not have bid like either East or West, but I know people who would.

[Trinidad]

mrdct, on 2011-September-13, 22:12, said:

---

Whilst I wouldn't bid 3NT myself, with both of RHO's suits stopped and a pretty handy holding in the suit partner freely introduced at the 3-level, I don't think it's a SEWoG.

East-West were given misinformation about the 2♦ bid and north has UI from the misexplanation of it. Had East been properly informed about the meaning of 2♦ he most likely would've passed, south would still bid 2♥ under the misapprehension that North has Majors and then North is either going to pass 2♥ if that's his Major or bid 2♠. Either way, the adjustment is to NS playing in 2 of North's Major which probably won't make.

Basically, I agree with mrdct. But I am not so sure about his AS.

Of course, I would need to see the whole hand, but my first question to North would be: "Why didn't you lead your partner's suit?". Holding ♦AKQT9 would be a good reason , but I could imagine that North chose his opening lead based on the UI that South didn't have a real heart suit (main version of DONT where redouble asks for partner's major) or a preference of the majors over diamonds (if you play to ignore the double). If 3NT went down because North led a diamond from a holding that is less solid than ♦AKQT9 then he has used UI and the AS may well be 3NT making (depending on the club split).

The fact that 3NT has a decent chance of making as long as North follows the rules and does not use UI, is enough reason not to rule it a SEWoG (also if North happens to hold ♦AKQT9).

Rik

[Hanoi5]

---

This is my take on what happened during the bidding. I don't know the rest but when the smoke cleared E/W were down 3 (yes, they could have made). Declarer didn't try clubs since they might be 5-0 on the bidding. Director let the table score stand, what would you have ruled?

[mrdct]

Hanoi5, on 2011-September-14, 12:46, said:

This is my take on what happened during the bidding. I don't know the rest but when the smoke cleared E/W were down 3 (yes, they could have made). Declarer didn't try clubs since they might be 5-0 on the bidding. Director let the table score stand, what would you have ruled?

I'm still in the camp that what East-West did during the auction was somewhat anti-percentage, but not without bridge merit so I'm not going down the SEWoG path.

The suggestion that East might have been able to make 3NT is interesting. I'm struggling to see a position where if North-South haven't cashed-out 3NT can fail so we appear to be in "serious error" territory for the declarer play. If declarer got in before the defence cashed-out and then "didn't try clubs" he seems to have completley abandoned all of his quite legitimate chances of making the contract which would most certainly be a "serious error" under Law 12C1(b) so for East-West, they are keeping the table result (3NTE-3 -150)

For North-South, absent the UI and with East-West knowing the correct meaning of 2♦ there will be no double by West or 3♣ by East and South will clearly bid 2♠ after the pass/correct 2♥ bid by North. North will now assume South is 6-4 in the Majors and will pass 2♠ which looks to be down two after South gets tapped-off, so they get 2♠S-2 -200.

[aguahombre]

Are you sure it isn't down 3?
I can't see more than 4 spades and a diamond.

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on 2011-September-14, 12:46, said:

Director let the table score stand, what would you have ruled?

Let's start from the beginning. South has the information from North's explanation that 2♦ shows both majors that he and his partner are not on the same page. This information is not authorized to South — he cannot make use of it in determining his further bids or plays (Law 16A, Law 16B1, Law 73C). South, apparently believing (without the UI) that their agreement is that 2♦ shows diamonds and a major, would (again without the UI) treat 2♥ as "pass or correct" in an uncontested auction. Here, however, he's going to have to go to the three level to show his spades, which takes them to the four level if partner cannot tolerate spades. There's also the AI that West is apparently prepared to double either major for penalty, and that East has a strong NT opener. All things considered, I'm not at all sure there's an LA to South's pass of 3♣. Nor do I think that South has not made at least some effort to avoid taking advantage of the UI (though in the end he may be judged to have failed in that effort). So let's set aside the UI question for the moment.

Whether North's explanation of 2♦ is MI depends on their actual agreement, and I'm not sure we've been told what that is. If it is DONT, the explanation is MI. If the agreement is Cappelleti or something similar, as North apparently believes, there is no MI. I hate to do it, but assume the agreement is DONT. Is West's double unreasonable? I don't think so. But it was clearly based on the (presumed) MI, so if the X leads to damage, the TD should adjust the score (Law 21B3). Did it? I don't think so. East, over 2♥, should it seems to me X for penalties. We are told he bid 3♣ because "everybody else was talking", which I would certainly call "wild". Whether West's subsequent 3NT can be considered either wild or gambling depends on what he thought 3♣ meant. If he thought East was showing a stopper in ♦ as well as in clubs, and not just length in clubs, then I don't think 3NT is unreasonable. If he thought 3♣ was just clubs, well, I would probably have passed with QTx in support, but that doesn't necessarily make 3NT wild or gambling either. It might be a serious error, but if so is it unrelated to the presumed infraction (MI)? I don't think so.

BTW, all this talk of serious errors, wild actions, or gambling actions, is based on Law 12C1{b}, which provides that in adjusting the score, the TD will not compensate the NOS for damage caused by their own such actions.

So there was MI, causing damage. Would West have done something different given the explanation "♦ and a major"? I doubt it. How about East? Well, if he doesn't make the (still) wild 3♣ bid, he might double 2♥. What will South do? He should probably bid 2♠, which West will double. North doesn't expect South to have diamonds, so they'll probably play in 2♠X, which looks to be down 2. Are there other possibilities? Well, I don't think passing 2♥X is an LA to 2♠, so that's out. I could be wrong, but I don't see any other potential results. So in a Law 12C1{c} jurisdiction (weighted scores), I'd just assign -500 to NS, and +500 to EW. This is an adjustment of +700 in EW's score, iirc (+500 for the adjusted result, +200 more for the -200 they got in 3NT-4). If 3♣ is adjudged to be "wild", then how much of that 700 point difference is due to it? The interesting thing is that had they played in 3♣, they might well have made an overtrick. Do we withhold compensation though? Maybe we do because 3NT was a serious error. But I'm not sure it rises to that level. An error, certainly, but serious? Again, I think I would give the full adjustment to EW, but I might be persuaded otherwise. If I am, I would give +300 (+500-(700-500)) for EW, considering they caused 200 points of the damage themselves). This is all based on Law 12C1{a}.

If this happened in a 12C1{e} jurisdiction, I would give the same adjustment.

If we judge that South has "used UI" (i.e., fallen afoul Law 16B1{a} or Law 73C), then we have a problem. As we know, the laws do not deal well with multiple infractions. If "use of UI" has cause less damage than the MI did, the practical answer is probably just to ignore it for purposes of score adjustment. If it caused more damage than the MI did, then the accepted practice is (I think) to adjust for the "use of UI" and ignore the MI, again for purposes of score adjustment.

I have not mentioned procedural penalties yet (they are why I said "for purposes of score adjustment" above). There have been infractions of law, so PPs are certainly legal. Whether to issue them, though, is a matter of judgement which depends on the venue, the circumstances, and the players involved. In general, I would say that PPs in this kind of case would be rare, so I won't try to analyze whether I think there should be any here, just say "probably not".

Added: I haven't read mrdct's or Agua's replies to Hanoi's post yet.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-September-14, 17:59
Reason for edit: Add final comment

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 17:57, said:

There's also the AI that West is apparently prepared to double either major for penalty,

The OP said that the double was "no particular agreement" and there is no indication that it was alerted, enquired about or described.

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 17:57, said:

Whether North's explanation of 2♦ is MI depends on their actual agreement, and I'm not sure we've been told what that is.

The OP said the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M which is an undisputed fact so this is clearly a case of MI .

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 17:57, said:

We are told he bid 3♣ because "everybody else was talking", which I would certainly call "wild".

The explanation of the 3♣ bid in the hand diagram looks fairly tongue-in-cheek to me and looks more along the lines of "we are in a competitive auction for the partscore so I might as well get my suit into the action". Whilst it may not be the expert bid, 3♣ is far from being "wild" - it's just competing for the partscore.

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 17:57, said:

Would West have done something different given the explanation "♦ and a major"? I doubt it.

It would be useful to know a little bit more about East-West's style and agreements, although we are told as a fact that the double of 2♦ showing Majors was "no agreement" so it's probably quite likely that they have no idea what they are doing after 1NT intervention. What we do know is that West chose to double 2♦ holding 5-4 in the overcaller's suits and a fairly weak hand. If West had been told 2♦ was ♦ and a Major, there is every chance that he would choose pass rather than double and the Laws require us to resolve doubtful point such as this in favour of the NOS. I would most definately be adjudicating this hand on the basis that West would not have doubled a 2♦ bid with the correct explanation.

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 17:57, said:

How about East? Well, if he doesn't make the (still) wild 3♣ bid, he might double 2♥.

With no double of 2♦ from partner, East is unlikely to bid again as he's quite marginal (potentially wild or gambling) for his 3♣ bid with the double from partner; so without any encouragement from his mate, he will surely pass throughout.

blackshoe, on 2011-September-14, 17:57, said:

What will South do? He should probably bid 2♠, which West will double.

I agree that South will bid 2♠, but there is no way West will double it if he's in possession of an accurate explanation of 2♦ as he would be concerned about the opponents running to a superior 3♦ contract.

aguahombre, on 2011-September-14, 17:53, said:

Are you sure it isn't down 3?
I can't see more than 4 spades and a diamond.

Quite possibly, but I was thinking the tapping defence would probably be employed allowing declarer 5 trump tricks potentially. When I get a chance I'll stick it into a double dummy solver to see what's what.

[aguahombre]

the tapping stops before dummy gets a spade trick...then they start leading trumps

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-14, 21:12, said:

the tapping stops before dummy gets a spade trick...then they start leading trumps

You are right - three down looks normal. However, East-West don't stike me as the sharpest tools in the shed so I'm fairly sure they will find a way to slop a trick somewhere - perhaps West will be too scared to lead away from his ♠J9xxx at any point.

[blackshoe]

I had a long "speech" prepared, but to Hell with that. Suffice it to say, mrdct, that you're entitled to your opinion, but your arguments do not convince me to change mine.

I will add one thing from my "speech": the OP said that 2♦ was explained, presumably by South, at the end of the auction, as ♦ and a major, which is clearly what he (South) thought was the agreement, but it most certainly is not an "undisputed fact" that this was their agreement. More evidence is required.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-15, 02:07, said:

I will add one thing from my "speech": the OP said that 2♦ was explained, presumably by South, at the end of the auction, as ♦ and a major, which is clearly what he (South) thought was the agreement, but it most certainly is not an "undisputed fact" that this was their agreement. More evidence is required.

We can only work with the facts as presented which were "At the end of the hand it is explained that the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M". There was no suggestion that this was in dispute. My presumption would be that at the end of the hand South would've said, "pensé que nos pusimos de acuerdo para jugar DONT" and South would've said, "oh, lo siento compañero, se me olvidó". If there was doubt regarding what the North-South agreement was, I'm sure the OP would've said so.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-13, 12:34, said:

Offending side should know their card.

Under which Law?

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-September-15, 02:45, said:

We can only work with the facts as presented which were "At the end of the hand it is explained that the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M". There was no suggestion that this was in dispute. My presumption would be that at the end of the hand South would've said, "pensé que nos pusimos de acuerdo para jugar DONT" and South would've said, "oh, lo siento compañero, se me olvidó". If there was doubt regarding what the North-South agreement was, I'm sure the OP would've said so.

I'm not — and "dispute" as we're discussing it here isn't limited to "dispute by someone at the table". And I don't speak Spanish, so whatever you said there, it means nothing to me.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-15, 06:55, said:

Under which Law?

That would be a matter of local regulation I would expect. My Spanish isn't good enough to find the appropriate reference on the FVB website, but I assume any sensible bridge jurisdiction would have an equivalent regulation to the ABF Tournament Regulations:

5.5 A partnership’s knowledge of its system

5.5.1 A partnership should be able to explain its own system clearly. The Director may impose a procedural penalty upon any pair that consistently displays ignorance of its system and in an extreme case may require the pair to cease playing its system and revert to a more natural system for the remainder of the session. The Director shall report such a ruling to the Tournament Sub-Committee. The Tournament Sub-Committee may prohibit the partnership from playing its system in subsequent sessions and events unless and until the partnership is able to demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of the system.

5.5.2 Should the Director consider that a pair has been damaged due to the opponents’ inability to explain their system, he/she may apply the provisions of the Code that relate to misinformation in order to provide redress and/or restore equity.