[nige1]

 mycroft, on 2014-November-06, 17:43, said:

Gordon: 'surprisingly often' means either 'more than 0%' or 'against me'. SNIP

Mycroft speaks for himself; not for me.

When it's unclear whether opponents have committed an infraction, and you are about to take the action that would be normal for your partnership, be wary of being seduced by the song of the siren SEWOG. In previously discussed cases, members argued that such an action was bad enough to reduce redress. Sometimes conversely, your normal action would have worked well but the director decides no infraction has occurred

[mycroft]

Sorry if I were unclear.

My first comment was aimed specifically at Gordon's #13 "FYP". I assumed, given the key words "surprisingly often" and the nature of his FYP, that everyone realized I was making yet another smart (potentially insert word here) comment.

When I then stated "In general", I meant "I'm done snarking at/with Gordon specifically, and am now talking to the main point".

When I "talked to people", I was, of course, "talking" to E/W, assuming they had the bright idea of raising the argument in the OP with me. It's a standard "not everyone plays the same system as you do, and that's not a problem legally or ethically" statement to a standard "but that sequence means..." (to you, sure; to most people/experts/whatever, yeah; not necessarily to this pair). The "added" bit was "if I believe they're trying one on, I might point out, with an example, that I wasn't born yesterday; 'good try, though' ".

My belief, from the OP description, was that the opponents had a misunderstanding, and that did not result in a good score to E/W, so their story is an attempt to get what they deserve from the TD. Obviously, were I at the table, table feel, tone, and potentially lack of reporting bias may convince me otherwise - in which case I'll explain. But if I really am getting the "they had a bidding misunderstanding (that isn't unexpected because we're playing an anti-field system (*)), and didn't get a bad score" vibe from them at the table, the "come on, even *you* don't believe the line you're giving me" subtext would come out.

Again my apologies for being unclear. I've been working 14-hour days this past two weeks, and my "restful weekend" was directing 4 sessions...

(*) We don't know where this club is. *If* it's ACBL, then it's very likely that weak NTs and runouts are very uncommon. I know that *I* get a lot of good scores from unfamiliarity of my opponents vs a weak NT or our runouts; while I'm not going to give them back, I do believe that if you play fundamentally unfamiliar methods, that there's going to be more UI-that-means-nothing (or simply "I've never seen this before") or misunderstandings than normal, and if they rub-of-the-green against me, I should eat it just as I would if my system, all on its own, led to a zero-MP +200. The confusion of a fundamentally unfamiliar system (whether I play it because it's unfamiliar or because I think it's better or I enjoy it more) is a part of the system and its wins and losses are system wins and losses.

If the OP is from an area where weak NTs are common, then by all means delete the parenthetical comment.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-November-07, 10:07, said:

Even if you know you want to be in game, you may not know what strain. You'd need a self-sufficient suit to "just bid the game".

In such a case, would you not double and then cue bid?

[helene_t]

Yes but in this case there is no cuebid as opps just bid no trumps .

Anyway I don't remember the last time I hold a gf flexible hand and opps opened a strong nt. It could probably happen if you play against Fred/Brad though

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-07, 17:22, said:

In such a case, would you not double and then cue bid?

I didn't think the 2NT artificial cuebid was a tool used by the person who had made a strong double. I thought it was only used by advancer after an overcall.

[mycroft]

Yes, I would see X-and-NT as "I actually have a 20-count, partner; I know where all the points are, too. In that bad hand of yours, do you have a conceivable entry? If so, we can make at least one more trick than the field, and almost certainly game."

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2014-November-08, 10:50, said:

I didn't think the 2NT artificial cuebid was a tool used by the person who had made a strong double. I thought it was only used by advancer after an overcall.

 mycroft, on 2014-November-10, 10:20, said:

Yes, I would see X-and-NT as "I actually have a 20-count, partner; I know where all the points are, too. In that bad hand of yours, do you have a conceivable entry? If so, we can make at least one more trick than the field, and almost certainly game."

Agree with Mycroft. I was thinking the opening bid was in a suit. My bad.

[vigfus]

PASS is certanly an LA
E/W were misinformed, but were not damaged. North was honest to bid 2♠, that gave E/W extra chance to gain on that board.

[RMB1]

To grab a phrase from another topic

 blackshoe, on 2014-November-10, 19:48, said:

I don't think we've answered the OP's questions yet.

Or to reword the topic title: does anyone disagree with the ruling (table result stands)?

To adjust we would need to decide that
- some bid at 3♠ or above was a logical alternative (because I think Pass is suggested over 3♠); OR
- some bid between 2NT and 3♥ was a logical alternative AND was suggested by the unauthorised information.