[vigfus]

---

1♣ Natural.
2♦ South alerted after having had a little thought. It is obvious that South thought North had Majors
At West's turn to bid, Double would have been take-out. Pass is not forcing.
I Asked 3 strong players what they would have bid with West's cards. They did not give same answers, but all were certain that N/S had a misunderstanding, 2♦ for Majors are common in Iceland.
N/S Convention card showed that 2♦ bid was weak in ♦
West did not ask N/S about the bidding. Based on the Alert and the 3♥ bid, West knew what was going on in South's mind and would have got the explainatin of Majors on the 2♦ bid if he had asked.
I did not find it strange that West did not ask about the N/S bidding, and therefore West did not loose any rights by not asking.
Ruling...
There is no way to determine what the contract would have been and result, if the 2♦ had been explained correctly.
I ruled 3 IMP's to E/W team based on Law 75B and 12C2a and 12C2b.
N/S appealed. The Appeal committie confirmed the ruling.

[bluejak]

So if West knew what was going on in what way was he damaged?

[mrdct]

The application of Law 75B is questionable as it only pertains to "Mistaken Explanation" and in this case no explanation of 2♦ was sought or obtained. I'm willing to accept, however, that the alert itself conveys an explanation of sorts that 2♦ is an alertable call; but as to what sorts of hands that excludes I'd need some advice on the Icelandic Alerting Regulations.

I don't think it is at all obvious that south believes 2♦ is majors. South may have alerted 2♦ because it shows unexpected strength or denies a second suit and is then responding with a splniter in ♥. I think West has to some extent failed to protect himself here and probably would've been best served in the first instance to not ask what 2♦ is, but do ask what 3♥ is. My thinking here is that if West is so sure that South thinks 2♦ is Majors, North will be ethically bound to describe 3♥ as a splinter which West can safely double for penalty which North will have to pass because he's got nothing more to say about his hand and South will have to pass because he's got UI that partner thinks he's got a splinter in ♥ and has been "woken up" that partner actually has a weak two in ♦.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I agree with the application of Laws 12C2a and 12C2b as if Iceland has "mainstream" alerting regulations there does seem to have been an infraction here of South's alert of a non-alertable call which then plunged the auction into a murky territory from which a sensible bridge result couldn't be obtained. I think North-South should consider themselves lucky to get away with -3 imps as things would've been a lot worse in 3♥x.

There could be a SEWoG issue here with West's decision to recklessly make assumptions as to what North and South were doing and thereby an argument to give North-South -3 imps and East-West 0 imps.

[WellSpyder]

I'm sorry, but I don't even understand the basis for considering an adjusted score here. You say you can't determine what the contract would have been if 2♦ had been explained correctly, but I think I can have a pretty good guess. Since West apparently knew exactly what 2♦ meant then I see no reason to expect the contract to be any different from what it was at the table.

Presumably we are not worrying about UI here? I see no reason why N should bid on over 3N if he reads 3♥ as a response to a natural weak 2♦.

[paulg]

Bluejak and WellSpyder have read the post slightly differently to me, inferring that West knew that 2♦ was weak whereas the implication from the post is that West believed that South thought that 2♦ was majors. There is no reference to West's understanding of 2♦.

The semifinal of the Icelandic Teams is going to feature good players and so I can understand the ruling that West did not have to ask about 2♦. I think it is pretty clear that South believes it is the majors. Has West been damaged by the MI? Yes, because he can no longer double 3♥ for penalty. If the 2♦ call had not been alerted, then he could probably double 3♥ and get a better score. So I would adjust to some percentage of 4♥-X, 4♥-XX and 5♦-X.

I really dislike the ruling that was given!

[WellSpyder]

paulg, on 2011-April-08, 04:04, said:

Bluejak and WellSpyder have read the post slightly differently to me, inferring that West knew that 2♦ was weak whereas the implication from the post is that West believed that South thought that 2♦ was majors. There is no reference to West's understanding of 2♦.

Thanks Paul for coming up with a possible explanation of what was going on. Your interpretation certainly looks possible, though the references to all players consulted being certain that NS had had a misunderstanding and that W did not ask because he knew what S was thinking certainly leave open the possibility that W also knew what N meant by the bid.

Quote

I really dislike the ruling that was given!

Looks like we agree there, at least!

One other thought occurs to me. My earlier post dismissed the idea of damage through UI, and I think that is fine as far as the bidding is concerned. But what about the play? We are not told what the result was or what the opening lead was, but if N led a ♦ rather than a ♥ we should at least consider the possibility that this was affected by UI....

[dburn]

bluejak, on 2011-April-07, 18:17, said:

So if West knew what was going on in what way was he damaged?

If he could double for penalty on the auction 1♣ - 2♦ (natural) - pass - 3♥ (whatever that means by a passed hand), but not on the auction 1♣ - 2♦ (majors) - pass - 3♥, then his side may very well have been damaged by South's incorrect explanation.

I don't expect anyone asked what South's 3♥ would have meant in response to a natural weak jump overcall. But someone should have done. Then, it might not have been so "impossible" to decide on an outcome.

[paulg]

WellSpyder, on 2011-April-08, 05:04, said:

One other thought occurs to me. My earlier post dismissed the idea of damage through UI, and I think that is fine as far as the bidding is concerned. But what about the play? We are not told what the result was or what the opening lead was, but if N led a ♦ rather than a ♥ we should at least consider the possibility that this was affected by UI....

Possibly if North had weaker diamonds and South were not a passed hand, but I think North is pretty safe leading the ♦K on this auction with his hand.

[Fluffy]

dburn, on 2011-April-08, 07:05, said:

If he could double for penalty on the auction 1♣ - 2♦ (natural) - pass - 3♥ (whatever that means by a passed hand), but not on the auction 1♣ - 2♦ (majors) - pass - 3♥, then his side may very well have been damaged by South's incorrect explanation.

There was no incorrect explanation, there was only an alert

[dburn]

Fluffy, on 2011-April-08, 07:49, said:

There was no incorrect explanation, there was only an alert

An alert of a natural and non-forcing 2♦ overcall is an incorrect explanation.

[vigfus]

My apologies for not recording the table resluts. 3 NT went 3 down. -300. The other table was 3♠ just made. 140 EW = 10 IMP's to the NS team.
The MI was not only for West. East also knew what the alert and 3♥ bid meant. There is no way East would PASS the double of 3♥ by West which is takeout.
West almost certanly knew that N/S had a misunderstanding, but West also knew that his partner had not that knowledge.

[Cyberyeti]

I read the original post as "W knew that N had the majors from the alert".

If W is aware the 2♦ bid is natural, presumably from N's point of view 3♥ is fit and should also be alerted ?

EW should be aware that this wheel has come off and can then pass 3♥ and have a piece of 4♦ as N surely must bid over 3♥. N should have been asked the question by the director as to what 3♥ over 2♦ (natural) meant.

[mgoetze]

dburn, on 2011-April-08, 09:38, said:

An alert of a natural and non-forcing 2♦ overcall is an incorrect explanation.

I'm glad you know the icelandic regulations so well. In Germany such bids are explicitly alertable, even though I consider that rule ridiculous.