[pran]

 gordontd, on 2011-March-23, 17:11, said:

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

Yes, and was told that the 2NT opening bid was natural (and strong).

[campboy]

 pran, on 2011-March-23, 17:30, said:

Yes, and was told that the 2NT opening bid was natural (and strong).

The fact that he asked about the opening is UI to partner. The answer he got being wrong doesn't change this.

[bluejak]

 gnasher, on 2011-March-23, 13:39, said:

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.

I don't think anyone has suggested dismissing it.

Too many posts seem to me to be based on black or white premises. Why?

The correct approach for TDs and ACs is to gather and assess evidence, including what people say about their actions. As a general policy, some evidence is stronger than other evidence. Written evidence tends to be strong: self-serving statements considerably less so.

In this case a player made a self-serving statement about what he would have done if he had been told what 2NT showed correctly. I objected to the presumption that we take this as 100% true without question, but at the other end of the scale no-one should dismiss it either.

Burn pointed out what pran had apparently missed, that asking in the first place strengthened the likelihood that he would have doubled. True enough: it is another piece of evidence to be considered.

[dburn]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-23, 19:18, said:

Burn pointed out what pran had apparently missed, that asking in the first place strengthened the likelihood that he would have doubled. True enough: it is another piece of evidence to be considered.

Burn pointed out only what pran knew to be true: that South asked about 2NT before being told that it "was natural" (which it wasn't). Pran certainly hadn't missed it; indeed, it was a crucial point in the ruling that pran gave.

I am not entirely sure what campboy is on about. Sure, North would have had some UI from South's original question, but what has that got to do with anything? West misexplained 2NT, so South passed it - if West hadn't misexplained 2NT, South would not have passed it (or at least, the preponderance of evidence is that South would not have passed it). So, one rules on the basis that the auction proceeded 2NT - (non-pass) - whatever - whatever.

To rule North-South's subsequent actions in the actual position "serious errors unrelated to the infraction", or "wild or gambling", seems to me absurd. South was doubtless trying to place his side in the same position as it would have been in if West had explained East's opening correctly. North was doubtless just as confused by the whole business as everybody else was (and as everybody else still is, if campboy and bluejak are considered a representative sample of "everybody"), so nothing he did could possibly be construed as serious, let alone an error.

[pran]

 campboy, on 2011-March-23, 18:34, said:

The fact that he asked about the opening is UI to partner. The answer he got being wrong doesn't change this.

Correct, but irrelevant:
South's first question and the (incorrect) answer to this was UI to North when he made his first pass, but (together with all the other available information) AI at the time he was offered to withdraw this pass (after the irregularity was revealed).

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-23, 19:18, said:

I don't think anyone has suggested dismissing it.

Sorry, in attempting to paraphrase my earlier post I inadventently changed the meaning. What I meant was that it was unreasonable for you, and to a greater extent others, to be so sceptical of South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT.

Having said that, these comments seem fairly dismissive:

nigel_k: "Pass of 2NT by South looks normal to me after a correct explanation... I would also adjust to 3H-2, but not because South would have doubled 2NT. If the explanation had been correct from the start, I would expect the same auction but with North bidding 3♥ at the end..."

Lamford: "a high percentage of the (unlucky) table result should stand, perhaps all of it. I don't think South would be taking immediate action ..."

campboy: "As others have said, it is not at all clear that the player really would have acted differently with correct information. It is completely safe to say, after you've already been deprived of your chance to double initially, that you would have done so"

Poky: "Would he bid something else on 2NT (with the right information) what would prevent him even to come in situation od doubling 3?? - No, he wouldn't."

[hotShot]

If West thought that 2NT is natural and strong, than 3♣ would usually be some kind of Stayman and not some the preference for one of Easts minors.

Once North gets the correct information that East is at least 5-5 in the minors, he knows that EW do not necessarily have a fit, and that East has at most 3 cards in the majors, and at least one of them is split 4-1 or 5-0.

I think it's AI for North that South dbl was made under pressure.
Given that:
opps might have no fit,
the double does not necessarily promise both majors and a fit is not guaranteed and
at least one major splits badly.

I see no reason to judge North pass was SEWoG, not that it matters as it is obviously related to the MI.

Actually I think that " 2NT shows a weak hand with (at least) 5-5 in minors" should not include an 11 HCP monster with a void.
South is under a lot of pressure and given that an average 2NT both minor opening will be weaker than this one, South has to assume that NS has the majority of points and he has to submit that information to North. Dbl seems the only reasonable way to do that with the given hand.

So I don't think that South dbl was SEWoG, not that it matters as it is obviously related to the MI.

Given the correct information the probable results are 3♥-2 and 3♣=. North still knows that East has only 3 cards in the majors and that one major will split 4-1 or 5-0, so 3♣= should have some weight in a mixed score.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2011-March-23, 13:43, said:

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.

I agree, it is only partner that we should tell. Then he will be able to double with a 7 count when it goes 2NT-Pass-Pass and pass with a 7 count when you don't ask. And as far as telling the opponents is concerned, giving them benefit in the play, I don't expect the opponents to draw any inferences - after all you might be the sort that always asks about unalerted bids.

In practice, of course, the person does not think whether the UI is likely to be useful to partner. But asking with this hand over an unalerted 2NT, if one does not always ask, can raise suspicions.

[campboy]

 dburn, on 2011-March-23, 21:49, said:

I am not entirely sure what campboy is on about. Sure, North would have had some UI from South's original question, but what has that got to do with anything? West misexplained 2NT, so South passed it - if West hadn't misexplained 2NT, South would not have passed it (or at least, the preponderance of evidence is that South would not have passed it). So, one rules on the basis that the auction proceeded 2NT - (non-pass) - whatever - whatever.

I was responding to Nigel's suggestion that North might have passed 3♣x at the table because he was playing South for a hand strong enough to do something over the initial 2NT. North should not do this, firstly because he was told by the TD that they could get an adjusted score on the basis of South acting initially if this was likely the case and secondly because it is suggested by UI.

I agree that if we adjust the score we do so on the basis that the auction would -- some proportion of the time -- have proceded 2NT - (non-pass) - whatever. That is why I have previously asked for a plausible auction with that start ending in 3♥ undoubled -- but I haven't been given one.

[campboy]

 hotShot, on 2011-March-24, 03:46, said:

I see no reason to judge North pass was SEWoG, not that it matters as it is obviously related to the MI.

As a side point, it could matter. The "unrelated to the infraction" clause only comes in if we consider it a "serious error", rather than "wild or gambling". I don't think it's either, but I think you could make a better argument for WoG than for SE.

[bluejak]

 dburn, on 2011-March-23, 21:49, said:

Burn pointed out only what pran knew to be true: that South asked about 2NT before being told that it "was natural" (which it wasn't). Pran certainly hadn't missed it; indeed, it was a crucial point in the ruling that pran gave.

Pran did not say so, which is why I am surprised if he considered it so crucial. No-one actually mentioned it before you as having relevance.

 dburn, on 2011-March-23, 21:49, said:

To rule North-South's subsequent actions in the actual position "serious errors unrelated to the infraction", or "wild or gambling", seems to me absurd. South was doubtless trying to place his side in the same position as it would have been in if West had explained East's opening correctly. North was doubtless just as confused by the whole business as everybody else was (and as everybody else still is, if campboy and bluejak are considered a representative sample of "everybody"), so nothing he did could possibly be construed as serious, let alone an error.

It is not entirely clear how I am confused, having merely pointed out one matter, which I shall expand on below.

 gnasher, on 2011-March-24, 03:10, said:

Sorry, in attempting to paraphrase my earlier post I inadventently changed the meaning. What I meant was that it was unreasonable for you, and to a greater extent others, to be so sceptical of South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT.

Having said that, these comments seem fairly dismissive:

nigel_k: "Pass of 2NT by South looks normal to me after a correct explanation... I would also adjust to 3H-2, but not because South would have doubled 2NT. If the explanation had been correct from the start, I would expect the same auction but with North bidding 3♥ at the end..."

Lamford: "a high percentage of the (unlucky) table result should stand, perhaps all of it. I don't think South would be taking immediate action ..."

campboy: "As others have said, it is not at all clear that the player really would have acted differently with correct information. It is completely safe to say, after you've already been deprived of your chance to double initially, that you would have done so"

Poky: "Would he bid something else on 2NT (with the right information) what would prevent him even to come in situation od do ubling 3?? - No, he wouldn't."

We must get out of the habit of treating everything as black or white. When you pick up a hand - say a weak no-trump - and your opponent makes a bid - say 2NT for the minors - you have to decide what to do. Few people are so absolutely certain what to do that they would decide instantly at the table. It is a problem. nigel_k and myself believe we would pass. That proves nothing, of course, except that double is not 100% obvious. Neither of us have said that the player concerned would automatically have passed. Lamford gives an opinion which leans toward him not taking immediate action, but not completely confidently. I do not understand Poky's comment.

So, how many of us have said he would definitely, 100%, not double? Lamford with doubt, no-one else.

Throughout this and other threads there seem too much of this black and white. The game is played by consideration and choice: so should rulings be.



One last point. Burn points out that South asked what the 2NT was, and that this is relevant. Sure it is, but why did he ask? Suppose it was a 4=4=3=2 15 count, with which I would certainly take action over a 2NT for the minors: if RHO opened 2NT [no alert] it would not occur to me to ask, I would merely pass very fast. Why did he ask? Does he always ask 2NT openings? I do not know, but I would ask him why he asked the question.

[pran]

 dburn, on 2011-March-23, 21:49, said:

Burn pointed out only what pran knew to be true: that South asked about 2NT before being told that it "was natural" (which it wasn't). Pran certainly hadn't missed it; indeed, it was a crucial point in the ruling that pran gave.

 bluejak, on 2011-March-24, 09:49, said:

Pran did not say so, which is why I am surprised if he considered it so crucial. No-one actually mentioned it before you as having relevance.

On its face this is a plain lie; I do indeed hope that it instead is only a lousy mistake from a failure to notice:

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

(the first text line) in my OP.

[nigel_k]

 campboy, on 2011-March-24, 06:31, said:

I was responding to Nigel's suggestion that North might have passed 3♣x at the table because he was playing South for a hand strong enough to do something over the initial 2NT. North should not do this, firstly because he was told by the TD that they could get an adjusted score on the basis of South acting initially if this was likely the case and secondly because it is suggested by UI.

I don't agree that the UI matters much here. If the opponents open 2NT unalerted and partner passes, you are entitled to assume he could have any hand that is not worth acting over a strong 2NT. If the opponents later offer a correct explanation and partner doubles, there is a much wider range of hands he could have compared to if he had passed 2NT after being told it was weak with minors. All of this is authorised and doesn't rely on the fact that parter asked a question.

After the corrected explanation and director call, I think North should just keep playing bridge. That is, make the best decision he can given that he has less idea about partner's hand compared to the situation where 2NT had been alerted immediately. He should not try to game the system by bidding on the basis that partner has a weak hand and calling for an adjustment if partner turns out to be strong. Certainly if he acts reasonably on the basis that partner might be strong he should not be prevented from getting redress.

[pran]

 nigel_k, on 2011-March-24, 12:57, said:

I don't agree that the UI matters much here. If the opponents open 2NT unalerted and partner passes, you are entitled to assume he could have any hand that is not worth acting over a strong 2NT. If the opponents later offer a correct explanation and partner doubles, there is a much wider range of hands he could have compared to if he had passed 2NT after being told it was weak with minors. All of this is authorised and doesn't rely on the fact that parter asked a question.

After the corrected explanation and director call, I think North should just keep playing bridge. That is, make the best decision he can given that he has less idea about partner's hand compared to the situation where 2NT had been alerted immediately. He should not try to game the system by bidding on the basis that partner has a weak hand and calling for an adjustment if partner turns out to be strong. Certainly if he acts reasonably on the basis that partner might be strong he should not be prevented from getting redress.

Precisely! (All enhancements are mine)

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-24, 09:49, said:

So, how many of us have said he would definitely, 100%, not double?

When did I imply that anyone had said that?

What I said was that I didn't understand the degree of scepticism about South's statements, and then I quoted some statements which I said were "fairly dismissive" of what South said he would done. I note that none of the people I quoted has disagreed with that interpretation.

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2011-March-24, 12:15, said:

On its face this is a plain lie; I do indeed hope that it instead is only a lousy mistake from a failure to notice:

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

(the first text line) in my OP.

Of course it is not a lie. You have quoted correctly: that is how we know the question was asked. But, until Burn pointed it out, you never gave it as a reason why you believed he would have taken action. Nothing you wrote suggested you had noticed this logic until you agreed with Burn.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2011-March-24, 14:15, said:

What I said was that I didn't understand the degree of scepticism about South's statements, and then I quoted some statements which I said were "fairly dismissive" of what South said he would done. I note that none of the people I quoted has disagreed with that interpretation.

I am still "fairly dismissive" of the claim by South that he would have doubled 2NT, and the fact that I have not reiterated my opinion should not persuade you otherwise.

You argue that South said he would have done. As Mandy Rice-Davies said of Lord Astor in the Profumo affair, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" It is in South's interests to make this statement, as the TD will never give him a worse result for the double that never was.

And you point out that the TD believed him. This is a TD that thought double of 3C, or pass of 3C doubled might be SEWoG. It sounds like he might believe that he had won 50,000,000 dollars in the Nigerian lottery and needs to send his bank details in.

You think that South was apparently interested in acting on the first round. Really? He was remarkably perceptive in thinking: "2NT has just been opened on my right, unalerted. I wonder if that might happen to be 5-5 in the minors, as I have agreed with my expert partner that double of that shows a weak NT. I had better ask, despite the risk of giving UI. As Burn has observed, they often open 2NT showing the minors in Norway, and perhaps they don't bother to alert it. In fact they don't really care much about rules at all - they might even agree a match drawn without any play."

And finally you indicate that his action on the second round was indicative of desiring to take action on the previous round. I fail to see the connection. As you state in another post there will be plenty of hands that take action after the opponents have subsided in 3C that would not be suitable for action on the previous round, whatever your methods. But you already knew that.

So, I reject all four of your reasons in favour of accepting South's statement.

More importantly, you fail to indicate how North-South were damaged. The following is wrong:

nigel_k: "I would also adjust to 3H-2, but not because South would have doubled 2NT. If the explanation had been correct from the start, I would expect the same auction but with North bidding 3♥ at the end because he now knows partner doesn't have a good hand given the pass of 2NT."

At the time of North making the decision to pass 3Cx he had full information about the opponent's methods, so no adjustment can be made for his choice at this point. The only adjustment is for earlier bids made based on MI, and we have already established that North had full information even at his first turn to call. If we do not believe South's claim, there is no reason to adjust, and if we do, then we still have to find a reason why the rest of the auction would be different.

[nigel_k]

 lamford, on 2011-March-24, 18:52, said:

More importantly, you fail to indicate how North-South were damaged. The following is wrong:

nigel_k: "I would also adjust to 3H-2, but not because South would have doubled 2NT. If the explanation had been correct from the start, I would expect the same auction but with North bidding 3♥ at the end because he now knows partner doesn't have a good hand given the pass of 2NT."

At the time of North making the decision to pass 3Cx he had full information about the opponent's methods, so no adjustment can be made for his choice at this point. The only adjustment is for earlier bids made based on MI, and we have already established that North had full information even at his first turn to call. If we do not believe South's claim, there is no reason to adjust, and if we do, then we still have to find a reason why the rest of the auction would be different.

The misinformation put North in a difficult position because the South hand was effectively unlimited. With correct information from the beginning, South's double would be limited to a hand too weak to double an unusual 2NT opening initially. Passing the double would then be less attractive.

I don't see why the the fact that North had a full explanation of the 2NT opening when he passed the double should necessarily prevent an adjustment after he chose to pass. The director can adjust if the misexplanation damaged the non-offending side in any way. Here it did so even if South would always pass 2NT.

[lamford]

 nigel_k, on 2011-March-24, 20:07, said:

I don't see why the the fact that North had a full explanation of the 2NT opening when he passed the double should necessarily prevent an adjustment after he chose to pass. The director can adjust if the misexplanation damaged the non-offending side in any way. Here it did so even if South would always pass 2NT.

I understand your argument, but 21B3 states: "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score." That implies that when it is not too late to change North's call, as here, he does not. If South would have bid differently, that is another matter, but North knows that South had incorrect information at the first turn, and correct information at the second, and he can use this information. That is all North is allowed.

[nigel_k]

 lamford, on 2011-March-24, 20:15, said:

I understand your argument, but 21B3 states: "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score." That implies that when it is not too late to change North's call, as here, he does not. If South would have bid differently, that is another matter, but North knows that South had incorrect information at the first turn, and correct information at the second, and he can use this information. That is all North is allowed.

The passage you quoted seems to cover this situation perfectly. It is too late for South to change his pass over 2NT and the offending side did gain an advantage from the irregularity. Therefore the score may be adjusted.

The director can't cancel North's pass of the double but he doesn't need to. He simply replaces the table result with a different result reflecting what would have happened had the irregularity not occurred.

I agree that it seems a bit odd to apply 21B3 if the director thinks South would not have made a different call. But the misinformation caused his pass to take on a different meaning that it would otherwise have. So I don't see any reason based on the literal wording, or logic, or fairness, not to adjust.