[jeffford76]

---

North/South is an A pair and East/West is a C pair. At the conclusion of the auction East says that she should have alerted 2NT as they play it as a transfer to diamonds. The director is called, and South declines to change the final pass, but away from the table says that if he had known 2NT showed a diamond transfer he would have passed it out. Later when asked if he didn't think something fishy was happening he said that he thought 2NT might have been conventional, but he looked at East's card and it is marked with 3C on the 1NT-2S line and nothing is marked on the 1NT-2NT line, so he assumed given that and the failure to alert that they were playing 2S as their bid to get out in either minor and 2NT as natural.

3D made 4. Any adjustment?

[ahydra]

I would adjust to 2NT if there was damage, but it appears there's none - doesn't 2NT make 9 tricks via six diamonds and one trick in each other suit?

ahydra

[paulg]

ahydra, on 2014-December-03, 05:33, said:

I would adjust to 2NT if there was damage, but it appears there's none - doesn't 2NT make 9 tricks via six diamonds and one trick in each other suit?

Not on a spade lead.

[billw55]

I guess south is not allowed to change his double to pass, or else he would do so.

Anyway, agree with no damage, I don't think a spade lead against 2NT is very likely.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2014-December-03, 07:38, said:

I guess south is not allowed to change his double to pass, or else he would do so.

Anyway, agree with no damage, I don't think a spade lead against 2NT is very likely.

Players of the NOS can change only their last call, and then only if it was not followed by a call from partner (Law 21).

It seems this happened in North America. Here, Law 12C1{e} specifies

Quote

For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

So the question is not whether a spade lead is likely, but whether it is "at all probable".

That same law says

Quote

The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.

So the question here is what favorable results are likely, and then which one is most favorable. But all this depends on whether there was damage:

Quote

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred

So what would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred? Perhaps not 2NT failing, but 2NT making 2 is better for the NOS than 3♦ making 4. So if 2NT making two is the expectation, there was damage.

To me the interesting point here, though, is that if the TD rules that 2NT was the expectation, so that there was damage and the score should be adjusted, then I think that for the OS, it seems the "most favorable (to the NOS) result that was likely" is 2NT making, while possibly the "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for the OS might be 2NT down 1. Split scores, but that's not a problem (per 12C1{f}). And yes, I realize that the TD would be assigning to the NOS the score for a result that was rejected as a determiner of whether there was damage. That's the interesting point: it seems to me that even though it was rejected for damage-determining purposes, it's still a possible adjustment for the OS, because the criteria are different.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-03, 10:05, said:

So the question here is what favorable results are likely, and then which one is most favorable. But all this depends on whether there was damage:
So what would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred? Perhaps not 2NT failing, but 2NT making 2 is better for the NOS than 3♦ making 4. So if 2NT making two is the expectation, there was damage.

Ah, I missed that 3♦ made 4. Just looking at the deal, I was expecting making 3.

[lamford]

paulg, on 2014-December-03, 05:57, said:

Not on a spade lead.

Indeed; a spade lead beats 2NT. But that is unlikely, and South will probably lead a club, so 2NT= seems fair. Maybe 20% of 2NT-1 in weighted jurisdictions. I agree South would pass out 2NT.

[jeffford76]

billw55, on 2014-December-03, 11:49, said:

Ah, I missed that 3♦ made 4. Just looking at the deal, I was expecting making 3.

The first (and only) club toward the KQ was ducked.

[ArtK78]

The defense is going to have to be pretty darn good to beat 2NT. Even holding it to 8 tricks is not trivial.

First, you need a spade lead. On any other lead declarer is cold for 8 tricks and may very well emerge with 9.

Second, North must merely cover the card played from dummy. Not a trivial play.

Third, NS must discard well on the run of 6 diamonds. North must retain all of his spades, and South must retain his Jx of spades and AQ of hearts.

If NS do all of this, they can beat 2NT.

In the context of a ruling, I don't believe that you can assume that the defense will be good enough to obtain a better score that -130. This is aside from the fact that NS could have held 3♦ to -110 on a spade lead. So NS had it within their power to get -110, which is probably a reasonable score. Why should the TD assume that NS will get the defense right to beat 2NT?

There is an even more important issue that everyone seems to be overlooking. In club games, it is not a very good policy for an "A" pair to call the cops to get adjustments in these types of situations. All that will happen is that you engender a great deal of ill will. NS may have been able to protect themselves by asking questions rather than by making assumptions as to the meaning of the 2NT bid. Of course, NS may have made a tactical decision that asking questions would only cause the opponents to remember agreements that they had forgotten. Given the great importance of the club game in the grand scheme of things, it is usually better politically and socially to ignore these type of issues and just go on with the game.

[jeffford76]

No one has mentioned South's double so far. How much does it matter to the ruling that South shouldn't have doubled 2NT to begin with?

Poll posted here on that action: http://bridgewinners...g-problem-6400/

[trevahound]

I was consulted about this hand after this session (I play at the same club game with Jeffford76, it's definitely the best game in the Seattle area).

Some questions I'd like to see discussed are "is it possible for W to have a 2nt natural invite, given N's opening, E's overcall, and S's hand?". How much to we require the NOS to protect themselves from stated agreements (via a lack of alert and nothing on the CC) when the rest of the auction makes it highly unlikely the stated agreement is correct? How much does south need to hold to know something isn't right? And if that's the case, is failing to double fielding partner's presumed psyche? How about when we know partner would never psyche against a pair this weak/inexperienced?

I'm curious how to handle the above questions in this sort of situation.

[nige1]

Assuming that the director confirms that transfer is the EW agreement, then NS were misinformed by the failure to alert. South seems to have done his best to protect himself while trying to avoid give massive UI to partner. Given that North opened the bidding, South's double is certainly not a SEWOG.

IMO, against 2N, a ♠ lead is quite reasonable, so the director should adjust. The director shouldn't automatically rule for offenders just because their opponents are experts.

[lamford]

trevahound, on 2014-December-03, 13:10, said:

And if that's the case, is failing to double fielding partner's presumed psyche?

South is entitled to the lack of an alert, knowing that East has treated it as natural, and the full EW agreements, which are probably something like "system on" so that 2NT shows diamonds (or one minor, it matters not). South is entitled to both, and there is no obligation to double if he thinks that the opponents are likely to have had a misunderstanding. If West had bid 3NT, then failure to double that might be fielding, but not 2NT where the opponents are very likely to have a better spot. The fact that South doubled with MI is not relevant (unless it is ridiculously deemed SEWOG). What is relevant is what he would have done without the MI.

Typo corrected.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2014-December-04, 08:15

[blackshoe]

How does one double MI? I thought one doubled bids.

[trevahound]

lamford, on 2014-December-03, 18:27, said:

South is entitled to the lack of an alert, knowing that East has treated it as natural, and the full EW agreements, which are probably something like "system on" so that 2NT shows diamonds (or one minor, it matters not). South is entitled to both, and there is no obligation to double if he thinks that the opponents are likely to have had a misunderstanding. If West had bid 3NT, then failure to double that might be fielding, but not 2NT where the opponents are very likely to have a better spot. The fact that South doubled MI is not relevant (unless it is ridiculously deemed SEWOG). What is relevant is what he would have done without the MI.

Well, South is playing for a layout I'm having trouble picturing. Give N 11 high (and they are not playing a big club or anything), E 15 (14?), S 8, and W has what for their invite? 6?

I don't think it's fair to expect us to "disbelieve" opp's explanations, but on the other hand, do we have to be at the table at all? Either someone psyched, or someone's wrong on what their agreements are, by simple math. You can say that's irrelevant, and I ask as a follow-up at what number of hcpts by S does it become relevant? 10? 12? How to decide?

[gordontd]

trevahound, on 2014-December-03, 13:10, said:

Some questions I'd like to see discussed are "is it possible for W to have a 2nt natural invite, given N's opening, E's overcall, and S's hand?". How much to we require the NOS to protect themselves from stated agreements (via a lack of alert and nothing on the CC) when the rest of the auction makes it highly unlikely the stated agreement is correct? How much does south need to hold to know something isn't right? And if that's the case, is failing to double fielding partner's presumed psyche? How about when we know partner would never psyche against a pair this weak/inexperienced?

I think the main question to be answered is what would have happened if the 2NT bid had been alerted. Having answered that, you might ask whether the double by South was wild or gambling.

[barmar]

There's no law against fielding a psych. You're not allowed to have psychic controls, which are agreements specifically designed to cater for psych, but figuring out that partner may have psyched from the auction is certainly allowed.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2014-December-04, 01:46, said:

I think the main question to be answered is what would have happened if the 2NT bid had been alerted. Having answered that, you might ask whether the double by South was wild or gambling.

Given that it converted a likely -120 (with some chance of +50) into a likely -110, even if it was decided it was wild or gambling, you would only deny NS redress for the difference, which is in their favour anyway. If you think that ducking the ace of clubs was a serious error, you could deny NS redress for the difference between -130 and -110. In a matchpoint event these differences could be significant. Neither of these comes close to the criteria given in the White Book for SEWoG. But you are right to ask.