[pran]

I would be extremely surprised if West would not close the auction with a PASS if given the opportunity and knowing that the 2 ♦ bid is strong and artificial (after South's pass).

The TD error here actually helped the offending side; there is no doubt that had the Director not erred then North had had the pleasure of playing in 2♦. I would have adjusted the board to 2♦ with the maximum number of tricks reasonably won by North/South effective for North/South, and with the minimum number of tricks reasonably won by North/South effective for East/West. That is giving each side the benefit of doubt due to TD error.

[blackshoe]

If the agreement is that 2♦ is forcing, then UI or no UI responder's initial pass is asystemic. If the agreement is that it is forcing, but responder might pass with a weak hand and long diamonds, then the pass is not asystemic. Absent UI, if the pass is asystemic, opener is permitted to base his further bidding on the conclusion that responder has forgotten the agreement. With the UI, opener will come to the same conclusion, but now it is "tainted" and he can't use it. In the second case (the possibility of 'pass' is part of their agreement), absent UI opener should act as if responder has the hand he's shown, weak with diamonds. With UI, he is again constrained by Laws 16 and 73C to avoid taking advantage of the UI. So again he should act as if responder has the hand he's shown. A weak hand with diamonds doesn't double in this auction, so opener has failed to avoid taking advantage of UI.

[ggwhiz]

One final question,

South has met their obligations in a timely manner. Should the Director ask West (away from the table) what they would do in pass out seat BEFORE the auction continues?

E/W are entitled to protection but not a double shot which might occur in a different hand and scenazio. ie. bid and play the hand out and then claim a different action in pass out seat after knowing all 4 hands.

[pran]

ggwhiz, on 2011-November-12, 14:54, said:

One final question,

South has met their obligations in a timely manner. Should the Director ask West (away from the table) what they would do in pass out seat BEFORE the auction continues?

E/W are entitled to protection but not a double shot which might occur in a different hand and scenazio. ie. bid and play the hand out and then claim a different action in pass out seat after knowing all 4 hands.

Given the following situation:
2♦ - pass - pass - 2♠ (after being told that the 2♦ opening bid is weak)
X - and then South corrects his explanation to 2♦ is strong and artificial.

The Director shall now offer West to retract his 2♠ bid if (he says) he would have made a different call with this knowledge at the time he bid 2♠.

South is bound by his pass, the fact that he would not have passed had he remembered the agreement in time is irrelevant here.

And I cannot imagine any West who would not change his 2♠ bid to a closing pass in this situation?

[jillybean]

Let me state again, 2♦ is forcing, we have no agreement or expectation that partner will pass with a weak hand & diamonds.

Any comments on East's bid of 3♦, which was made after the correct 2♦ explanation was given?

[mycroft]

South remembered after the double and did what he was supposed to do. After South wakes up to the MI, 4♥ is obvious from his hand. South is allowed to use the auction to remember his agreements...so all's good from that front. However...

North, on the other hand has heard "weak, diamonds", and there's a good chance that doubling will wake up his partner, so there's clear UI, it's clear that the UI has suggested the alternative taken. I have no idea whether there was damage, or whether pass is a LA (do they play negative doubles after 2♦? Or after 1NT? Is 3, or 5, ♦ an LA after partner made the antisystemic "I want to play 2♦" call?(1)). I'd have to work that out if that were the problem.

The TD made a clear wrong ruling, if in fact she was called before 3♦. West, with the correct information, would obviously pass; that score seems to be the best one for E-W and should now be assigned, the chance for West to make that choice himself not having been given. I think that's the score assignable to N-S as well, treating them as "South corrected in time for West to take her call back" non-offenders.

If North is considered to have made a call suggested by the UI when it's clear that others are logical but not taken, a good discussion about his obligations is in order. If North is experienced enough (and X isn't the only LA for this partnership), a penalty is in order.

This is a classic hand for the "but we got to the obvious place" rebuttal - yes, but *this pair* wouldn't have, without the MI/UI.

(1) This is the classic "That call doesn't exist" conundrum. You will get arguments that that, in itself, translates to "partner forgot, and thinks it's weak"; you will get arguments that "whether or not it's forcing, South just came up with the sanest call with xx xxx JTxxxx xx or the like, and you have to treat it that way". You will get arguments that either of those are valid *for this partnership*, but maybe not for more (or less) experienced partnerships - and any of these may be right, for *this* partnership (but not in general!)