[newmoon]

---

This was MPs. E-W were life masters. West asked if the 2♠ bid was forcing, before making her second double.

South explained that he took it as non-forcing and passed, and that this situation had never occurred before in their short partnership. After the second double, North emerged with a 4♥ bid, holding 14 points and a 6=2=3=2 shape and A-K tight in hearts. 4♥ made on the nose.

Their short CC did not cover this situation. West complained, stating that with her 3=2=4=4 shape and 15 points, she was justified in MPs to reopen.

Your ruling please?

[barmar]

In order to determine if there was misinformation, we need to know what their actual agreement is. But West's question seems silly. South had already passed, so obviously he didn't consider it forcing. The answer just told him what he already could see from the auction.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-May-02, 22:01, said:

In order to determine if there was misinformation, we need to know what their actual agreement is. But West's question seems silly. South had already passed, so obviously he didn't consider it forcing. The answer just told him what he already could see from the auction.

Furthermore, West's second double is one of those "Maybe you didn't see my first double" bids, for which he now wants redress??? Gimme a break.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-May-02, 22:01, said:

But West's question seems silly. South had already passed, so obviously he didn't consider it forcing.

Not necessarily.

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-02, 23:49, said:

Not necessarily.

What not? Silly or not forcing?

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2015-May-03, 02:10, said:

What not? Silly or not forcing?

South could have psyched.

[mcphee]

West may be a life master but a brain dead one for sure.I am sure it would have taken me some time to stop laughing.

[ggwhiz]

Can I adjust it to 4♥ doubled for 590?

[nige1]

newmoon, on 2015-May-02, 21:46, said:

This was MPs. E-W were life masters. West asked if the 2♠ bid was forcing, before making her second double. South explained that he took it as non-forcing and passed, and that this situation had never occurred before in their short partnership. After the second double, North emerged with a 4♥ bid, holding 14 points and a 6=2=3=2 shape and A-K tight in hearts. 4♥ made on the nose. Their short CC did not cover this situation. West complained, stating that with her 3=2=4=4 shape and 15 points, she was justified in MPs to reopen. Your ruling please?

---

Agree with Barmar that the director must determine the actual NS agreement. Suppose, for the sake of argment, that the NS agreement is that 2♠ is forcing or at least highly constructive. Also agree with Vampyr that North has the UI that South is unlikely to have psyched or taken a view with a weak hand. Arguably, this suggests that North bid 4♥. Hence, perhaps, the director should rule damage.

On the other hand, after South's pass, West's question does seem unnecessary. Worse, the question seems likely to damage NS. Without West's Secretary Bird question, EW would seem to have no cause for complaint.

Incidentally, IMO, some MI rulings show that a pair can be judged to have an "agreement" even when they misremember it. (Relevant to the recent disclosure thread).

[aguahombre]

Over here (ACBL) Natural and non-forcing responses of 2NT or a simple new suit are alertable.

I, for some reason, assumed that after an intervening Double non-forcing new suit bids were not alertable. I was wrong.

So, if this case was in our jurisdiction, the MI would be to East (before the Pass by South); West still has no misinformation at the point where he chose his 2nd Double. So, this tangent doesn't change anything. Actually it makes West's second Double even dumber; if E/W do belong in this auction, they could get a TD ruling if the TD judges East would have bid over 2S without the MI (failure to alert) --for West passing is a free shot, Doubling is no-win.

[phoenix214]

Not 100% sure on the rulings here, but why on earth does W ask what is 2S here, as the action developed it is obvious that the answer is going to be NAT, NF. So now what? X again because you have minors? Looks like a misfit situation + there might be some misunderstanding and partner can come alive as well. So i have no idea how there can be any damage done to W, it was her own decision at that point.

[blackshoe]

"Justified to reopen" does not mean "guaranteed to get a good result when you do".

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-03, 14:56, said:

Over here (ACBL) Natural and non-forcing responses of 2NT or a simple new suit are alertable.

I wish we had that here.

Recently I read the summary of BWS in an issue from the 80s. Over weak 2s it was listed "2NT only force". I found it interesting.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-03, 17:34, said:

I wish we had that here.

Recently I read the summary of BWS in an issue from the 80s. Over weak 2s it was listed "2NT only force". I found it interesting.

Indeed, that is interesting; RONF has been bandied around since forever. I was just under the mistaken impression that after a Double, it was off -- and then 2NT was the only force. The reasoning we have used is that the Double allows both a correction and a GF, free of charge -- the redouble is a tool.

[Lanor Fow]

It sounds like the agreement is undiscussed. Whilst I never like the 'I'm taking it as...' explanation, the 'this has never come up' part seems to give the correct information, so I'm not sure there is MI.

Even were there MI, had W heart 'undiscussed' given south's pass, I cannot see this changing their action.

No adjustment (I'd have a word with South about explanations)

[barmar]

I'm less bothered by "taking it as". You're required to disclose implicit understandings based on partnership experience, and I think this is just a way to indicate that this is what you're doing.

I suppose you don't like that it reeks of UI, telling partner how you're interpreting his bid. But consider an alternative wording: "we haven't discussed this situations specifically, but based on partnership experience [or meta-agreements] I believe we have an implicit understanding that it means X". This is fully in accord with the Laws, IMO, but passes exactly the same information to both the opponents (AI) and partner (UI). So what is actually gained by saying it this way, when the common, terse answer is obviously equivalent?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-May-05, 08:58, said:

I'm less bothered by "taking it as". You're required to disclose implicit understandings based on partnership experience, and I think this is just a way to indicate that this is what you're doing.

I suppose you don't like that it reeks of UI, telling partner how you're interpreting his bid. But consider an alternative wording: "we haven't discussed this situations specifically, but based on partnership experience [or meta-agreements] I believe we have an implicit understanding that it means X". This is fully in accord with the Laws, IMO, but passes exactly the same information to both the opponents (AI) and partner (UI). So what is actually gained by saying it this way, when the common, terse answer is obviously equivalent?

Hmm, this is very interesting --- and almost convinced me. The problem I see is that a person can "take it as" from his/her own fertile mind totally divorced from any partnership experience or meta-agreement; and the words, "I take it as..." don't tell us whether it is such an implicit agreement or not.

[barmar]

If he just said "That shows X", but doesn't go into detail about why he thinks this, would you know whether it's an implicit agreement or not? I don't think players are actually required to tell you all the thought processes behind their explanation -- they don't have to tell you whether it's an explicit or implicit agreement.

In fact, "I take it as" doesn't deny that it's an explicit agreement. If we have the auction 1♠-2NT, I take it as Jacoby because we've agreed that this is what it is. Although I admit that people don't usually use this phrase for clear agreements. But they often use it when they do have an agreement, they're just a little unsure. While some people don't say anything different when they're unsure, they just say what they think it is.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-May-05, 15:04, said:

I don't think players are actually required to tell you all the thought processes behind their explanation -- they don't have to tell you whether it's an explicit or implicit agreement.

I believe they do have to tell to whether it is an explicit agreement or whether it is an agreement the person asked surmised (and is thus unsure). I don't believe "I take it as...." quite does that.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-May-02, 22:01, said:

In order to determine if there was misinformation, we need to know what their actual agreement is. But West's question seems silly. South had already passed, so obviously he didn't consider it forcing. The answer just told him what he already could see from the auction.

West wanted to know what the NS agreement was, not was South that it was. If West does not ask, he cannot claim MI, as he draws the inference that it is non-forcing at his peril.