[campboy]

pran, on 2011-March-22, 07:49, said:

I did. Who says I didn't?

Of course any statement by NOS that possibly has been damaged will be "self-serving", what is the point? Once a statement from NOS represents real "logical alternatives" it should as a main rule be accepted.

We frown on self-serving statements from OS trying to protect themselves in a lost case, not from NOS requesting redress for real damage.

(And I hope you can accept that one or two isolated opinions that an action is highly improbable is rather irrelevant for the question of SEWoG, particularly when a majority on the scene expressed different opinions?)

I do not understand what "logical alternatives" have to do with anything. There is no question of use of UI. I also did not mention the question of SEWoG at all.

I do not "frown on" self-serving statements by either side, I simply recognise that they may be influenced by wishful thinking. I certainly take them into account, and this statement increases my estimate of the probability that the player would double 2NT -- but it does not increase it to anything near certainty.

Anyway, I think this is a distraction. My main point is that even if we accept that the player would double 2NT, I do not think 3♥ undoubled is a likely -- or even plausible -- outcome.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-March-22, 02:57, said:

1: South holds a hand with which pass over a weak 2NT opening showing both minors is (normally) immediately a lost game (while pass over a strong 2NT is very sensible).

Absolutely true. But bidding over it is the quickest way to -800 by coming at the 3-level on a weak no-trump with no shape, so is not automatic. Furthermore, if you double on a hand as weak as this partner will have difficulty evaluating hands.

pran, on 2011-March-22, 02:57, said:

2: I see no sensible action in this position other than a double to inform partner of general strength and reasonable support in both majors.

Fair enough: but others do, and I think pass should be considered.

pran, on 2011-March-22, 03:27, said:

When an irregularity has prevented normal development of auction and/or play then TD should accept statements from NOS on what actions they would have taken absent the irregularity (unless such stated actions are clearly speculative based on the existence of the irregularity). TD must definitely not without solid reason (implictly) accuse NOS of lying to him, and my experience is that players are honest and trustworthy in this respect. It is only natural that players are biased from what they know after the fact, but as reasonable doubt shall be resolved in favour of NOS. This is seldom (if ever) any problem.

This is too simplistic, and as with other self-serving statements assuming them to be correct is not necessarily a good idea. Players do not always know how they would bid in a particular situation and it is very difficult for them to give the wrong answer when they know the answer that succeeds. Better is for TDs to use polls and their own judgement and that of their consultants and consider the range of possible actions.

pran, on 2011-March-22, 07:49, said:

Of course any statement by NOS that possibly has been damaged will be "self-serving", what is the point? Once a statement from NOS represents real "logical alternatives" it should as a main rule be accepted.

We frown on self-serving statements from OS trying to protect themselves in a lost case, not from NOS requesting redress for real damage.

We frown on self-serving statements because it is very difficult for players to be completely honest even with themselves when they are asked something and they know which answer is to their benefit. This applies just as much to non-offenders as to offenders.

[mycroft]

If doubling 2NT is "automatic" for South with an effective 11 count (12 shell, minus something for 3433) with 6 LTs in East's suit without confidence that E-W have a fit, so North will be short, I want to play my Precision system (which includes the same 2NT opener) against him for money. Give West any one of North's controls (assuming that "weak" means something close to East's hand) and he's going to just love 2NT-X-XX-p-p... (especially as without the double, they'll be -110 or -130 into a bunch of -150s and -400s. So doubling turns an A+ at least into a very round zero).

Having said that, East is a supermax for any "weak" minors bid I've ever seen (in my system at all white, making the CA a small one would make it a maximum, but I'd probably think it too big for 4-8 anyway because of the void. I might do it with the hand posted at unfavourable, but not equal VUL (VUL, we're 8-12)).

Also, having said that, I am very willing to let "well, South knows *now* that doubling 2NT was safe" slide, at least a bit, when the offenders clearly caused this problem. "Yeah, I don't really believe him either, but if you had just remembered your system and Alerted and explained it right the first time, then we could have seen whether he did it straight up. So you'll excuse me if I give him some of the benefit of the doubt here".

The "well, nobody else got there" fake poll makes my blood boil. "Yeah, but how many other tables got a 2NT opening?" is my reaction any time a director tries that on me here. If everybody is playing the same system, you can assume that many of the auctions are similar and can count as a poll. But not in general, and explicitly not when people are playing an unusual system.

[bluejak]

mycroft, on 2011-March-22, 11:32, said:

Also, having said that, I am very willing to let "well, South knows *now* that doubling 2NT was safe" slide, at least a bit, when the offenders clearly caused this problem. "Yeah, I don't really believe him either, but if you had just remembered your system and Alerted and explained it right the first time, then we could have seen whether he did it straight up. So you'll excuse me if I give him some of the benefit of the doubt here".

Remember, mycroft, this one is not a North American problem. No-one needs to decide whether or not South would double: it is not black or white. We can adjust on the basis that a percentage of the time he would double, and a percentage not. Since he is the non-offending side we can lean a little in his favour from what we actually think.

[dburn]

Since the original post contains the datum that:

"2NT was (on request by South at his first turn to call) explained by West as natural"

one might be more inclined than one would otherwise be to accept the statement that South would not have passed over it had it been described as unnatural.

[nigel_k]

I'm skeptical about the immediate double of 2NT but, as Bluejak says, we can adjust based on some percentage chance South would do this.

But even if South would always pass 2NT with the correct explanation, I think there is still damage to N/S. South's second double would take on a different meaning if he had originally failed to double an unusual 2NT opening. The second round double would then be weaker and clearly balancing and the case for North to pull would be more compelling. Instead, the misexplanation means that South's second round double might now contain stronger hands that would be a clearcut double of an unusual 2NT opening, but not of a strong 2NT opening.

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-March-22, 19:52, said:

Since the original post contains the datum that:

"2NT was (on request by South at his first turn to call) explained by West as natural"

one might be more inclined than one would otherwise be to accept the statement that South would not have passed over it had it been described as unnatural.

Precisely!

At least one commentator who has grasped a very essential point.

[gnasher]

I don't understand the scepticism about South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT. Nor do I understand the suggestion that it's unsound to do so.

To me it seems playable to use a double of 2NT to show a balanced hand with opening values. It's unlikely that the opponents will be able to judge to play in 2NTx or 2NTxx when it's right. In fact, I suspect that few pairs would even be able to play in 2NT after this start. Doubling 2NT is certainly much safer than passing 2NT and then doubling 3m.

The main disadvantage is that with a stronger balanced hand you'd have to act twice, by doubling 2NT and then acting again on the next round. That is, you take more risk with a strong hand, but less with a more common weaker hand. That seems a reasonable tradeoff.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether NS's methods were rock solid or barking mad. All that matters is what their methods actually were. We have four pieces of evidence that South's hand is a first-round double in this partnership:
- South said it was.
- The director believed him.
- South was apparently interested in acting on the first round.
- Having been deprived of a chance to act on the first round, South thought his hand merited action on the second.

Against that, all we have is some people, from a different country, who tell us that in their style this hand would be too weak for a first-round double.

[campboy]

nigel_k, on 2011-March-22, 20:32, said:

But even if South would always pass 2NT with the correct explanation, I think there is still damage to N/S. South's second double would take on a different meaning if he had originally failed to double an unusual 2NT opening. The second round double would then be weaker and clearly balancing and the case for North to pull would be more compelling. Instead, the misexplanation means that South's second round double might now contain stronger hands that would be a clearcut double of an unusual 2NT opening, but not of a strong 2NT opening.

I disagree. N/S were clearly told that they could get an adjustment if damaged by South's inability to act on the first round, so North shouldn't be playing him for a hand which would have done so. In fact, isn't it illegal to play him for such a hand, given that North has UI telling him that South was interested in acting on the first round?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-23, 03:30, said:

To me it seems playable to use a double of 2NT to show a balanced hand with opening values. It's unlikely that the opponents will be able to judge to play in 2NTx or 2NTxx when it's right. In fact, I suspect that few pairs would even be able to play in 2NT after this start. Doubling 2NT is certainly much safer than passing 2NT and then doubling 3m.

I would agree that those methods seem very sensible, and could well have been the ones of this pair. But what I cannot agree is that North is less likely to double 3C if his partner shows a minimum balanced hand than he is to pass out a (presumed) takeout double of 3C which, at matchpoints, could be some 4-4-4-1 ten-count. Do you think the delayed double shows a better hand?

[lamford]

pran, on 2011-March-23, 00:54, said:

Precisely!

At least one commentator who has grasped a very essential point.

And not commented on the fact that South asked at all when 2NT was not alerted; why did he not think it was a balanced hand of some larger range than his moth-eaten collection? Did North alert the question followed by a pass as showing a weak NT in standard methods?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-March-23, 11:05, said:

I would agree that those methods seem very sensible, and could well have been the ones of this pair. But what I cannot agree is that North is less likely to double 3C if his partner shows a minimum balanced hand than he is to pass out a (presumed) takeout double of 3C which, at matchpoints, could be some 4-4-4-1 ten-count. Do you think the delayed double shows a better hand?

I don't know, because I wasn't there when NS discussed this sequence, if they did. (If you're asking me what I would have for this double, I would have some hand with short clubs consistent with my previous inaction. But you knew that.)

Anyway, I wasn't discussing anyone's second-round action - my point was only that it seemed unreasonable to dismiss South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-March-23, 11:08, said:

And not commented on the fact that South asked at all when 2NT was not alerted; why did he not think it was a balanced hand of some larger range than his moth-eaten collection? Did North alert the question followed by a pass as showing a weak NT in standard methods?

If RHO has a balanced 20-count and you have a balanced 13-count, it's inadvisable to tell everyone. Partner will already have noticed that he doesn't have many high cards, but the information may well be of interest to the opponents.

[nige1]

The arguments of Gnasher and DBurn convince me.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-March-23, 11:08, said:

And not commented on the fact that South asked at all when 2NT was not alerted; why did he not think it was a balanced hand of some larger range than his moth-eaten collection? Did North alert the question followed by a pass as showing a weak NT in standard methods?

Maybe a 2NT opening is more often conventional in Norway than one might expect in England. In that case, South (who played this hand in Norway) might be in the habit of asking whenever 2NT is opened, just in case. After all, he doesn't live in England, where we have a stupid regulation to the effect that... but you all know about it by now.

[pran]

campboy, on 2011-March-23, 04:28, said:

I disagree. N/S were clearly told that they could get an adjustment if damaged by South's inability to act on the first round, so North shouldn't be playing him for a hand which would have done so. In fact, isn't it illegal to play him for such a hand, given that North has UI telling him that South was interested in acting on the first round?

What UI?
TD rulings are generally AI to all players unless (some of) the information is specifically UI to OS.

The players (both NOS and OS) are supposed to continue playing bridge as good as possible also after an irregularity. NOS failing to play bridge and instead rely upon a subsequent adjustment may result in some redress being denied.

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-March-23, 13:51, said:

Maybe a 2NT opening is more often conventional in Norway than one might expect in England. In that case, South (who played this hand in Norway) might be in the habit of asking whenever 2NT is opened, just in case. After all, he doesn't live in England, where we have a stupid regulation to the effect that... but you all know about it by now.

Artificial 2NT opening bids are definitely not uncommon in Norway (except among beginners). I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation of the ratio between artificial and traditionally strong 2NT opening bids should reveal about equal ratio (50% - 50%).

[dburn]

pran, on 2011-March-23, 16:10, said:

What UI?

Did South ask about 2NT behind a screen? If so, there is no UI, but if not...

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-March-23, 16:19, said:

Did South ask about 2NT behind a screen? If so, there is no UI, but if not...

No screens used.

South had every reason to suspect an irregularity and call TD when dummy was faced, and all "information" North received in this situation was a direct consequence of this irregularity (mainly through TD rulings). Such information is AI (at least) to NOS, but might be a factor when ruling on an adjustment. I saw no reason to let this have any impact on the question of adjustment here.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-March-23, 16:29, said:

South had every reason to suspect an irregularity and call TD when dummy was faced,

Your original post said he asked at his first turn to call.