[shevek]

---

All decent players. EW a new partnership. NS established, with memory issues.

At the end of the auction, South said 2♦ should have been alerted, 2-way Checkback. North had forgotten.
Director called, hand played out.
East led ♠4. EW had agreed 3rds & 5ths but East forgot, playing 4ths with all other partners vs NT.
After some thought, West ducked this for -1150.
Director recalled by East who at least wanted to withdraw his double, though NS contended he should have twigged after East's 3♠. Director initially awarded +660 NS.
West (moi) suggested that he would have passed 2♦ given correct info, that 2♦ would then have been passed out. The Director agreed to that and awarded +110 NS in 2♦.
What do you think of all that, particularly West's defence.

[ggwhiz]

shevek, on 2011-July-26, 21:33, said:

---

All decent players.

Out of 15 total bids in this auction, 7 never would have occured to me.

That said, I would not be involved if 2♦ were alerted or if it were not. The defence stands for -660 and I'm taking an aspirin.

I mis-read the part about 2 diamonds being passed out. Make it 5 aspirins.

[Rossoneri]

Sounds like EW did the damage to themselves.

[mrdct]

I agree with the director's second ruling of 3♦=.

A good way to look at this is to place a screen across the table in which case south would've told west he had a GF and then when the tray went to the other side north would pass what he thought was a natural and NF 2♦ bid and east isn't going to balance with his 8-count with ♦QJxx.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2011-July-27, 01:28, said:

I agree with the director's ruling.

The second ruling, presumably.

mrdct, on 2011-July-27, 01:28, said:

A good way to look at this is to place a screen across the table in which case south would've told west he had a GF and then when the tray went to the other side north would pass what he thought was a natural and NF 2♦ bid and east isn't going to balance with his 8-count with ♦QJxx.

This all depends on accepting that West would not have bid 2♠ with the correct information. I'm not yet convinced enough to give 100% of 2♦ as the final table result. Do you have weighted rulings where this took place? West would not have known there had been a misunderstanding, so wouldn't necessarily know to pass, but might be able to convince me.

I don't really think the double is affected by the misinformation (and even if it were, I think this defence might be a candidate for a "serious errror, unrelated to the infraction", which would deny EW redress).

[mrdct]

gordontd, on 2011-July-27, 03:50, said:

The second ruling, presumably.

Yep - edited my post accordingly.

gordontd, on 2011-July-27, 03:50, said:

This all depends on accepting that West would not have bid 2♠ with the correct information. I'm not yet convinced enough to give 100% of 2♦ as the final table result. Do you have weighted rulings where this took place? West would not have known there had been a misunderstanding, so wouldn't necessarily know to pass, but might be able to convince me.

I think west has shown his style of competitive bidding on the previous round when he took no action. He later backed in when the opps had (based on his information) found a fit, but I think it is reasonable to assume he would continue passing if south had shown an artificial GF given his earlier reluctance to bid.

gordontd, on 2011-July-27, 03:50, said:

I don't really think the double is affected by the misinformation (and even if it were, I think this defence might be a candidate for a "serious errror, unrelated to the infraction", which would deny EW redress).

If east had been told 2♦ was an artificial GF that surely would've reduced his propensity to double 3NT. East's double may well be careless or inferior, but I don't think it could be classed as a SEWoG.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2011-July-27, 04:19, said:

If east had been told 2♦ was an artificial GF that surely would've reduced his propensity to double 3NT.

Less likely to double if they had forced to game via two-way Stayman than when they forced to game via a cue-bid?

mrdct, on 2011-July-27, 04:19, said:

East's double may well be careless or inferior, but I don't think it could be classed as a SEWoG.

I didn't class it as SEWoG. It was the defence that I thought might be.

[bluejak]

Let us see what happened. 2♦ was not alerted: that's MI.

West bid 2♠ in a pre-balancing situation. Not as dangerous a bid as it looks, though not as safe as some auctions since North could have quite a fair hand.

Suppose West had known 2♦ was an artificial game force: would he have bid 2♠? No. He might have bid 1♠ the previous round and did not, so why should he bid 2♠ now?

If West passes, I see no reason for North or East to bid, so I would rule it back to 2♦ making …? I look at the OP to find the jurisdiction – not given. 11 tricks is unlikely – probably needs a diamond lead. 10 tricks quite normal on say a heart lead, two rounds of diamonds, four rounds of hearts. Of course 9 tricks also quite likely. Let us weight the number of tricks under Law 12C1C, or give 9 tricks under Law 12C1E.

But this is for N/S: how about Law 12C1B? What about East’s double and West’s duck? [Double duck with rice: a lovely Chinese meal! ] Are these SEWoG?

The problem with the double is that it is based on a pre-balancing 2♠. At the time East made it he was still misinformed. Of course, 3NT is cold off, so it is difficult to describe it as wild or gambling or a serious error.

How about the duck? It is not wild, nor gambling. But a serious error [unrelated to the infraction] [SEUTTI?]? East might sensibly have doubled with Kxx and an entry, so no, I do not believe it is SEUTTI.

So, Law 12C1C for both sides:

.. 10% of 2D +3, NS +150
+ 50% of 2D +2, NS +130
+ 40% of 2D +1, NS +110

Law 12C1E for both sides:

2D +1, NS +110, both at all probable and likely

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-July-27, 05:55, said:

How about the duck? It is not wild, nor gambling. But a serious error [unrelated to the infraction] [SEUTTI?]? East might sensibly have doubled with Kxx and an entry, so no, I do not believe it is SEUTTI.

My suggestion was intended to be that it was the lead that was the Serious Error - in this case with serious consequences for the rest of the defence. Looking back on my posts I wasn't very clear about that.

[bluejak]

In what way is the lead a serious error?

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-July-27, 06:09, said:

In what way is the lead a serious error?

They play 3rd and 5th, he led 4th and fooled his pard into ducking.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-27, 06:14, said:

They play 3rd and 5th, he led 4th and fooled his pard into ducking.

Indeed. They were set for a great board until he did that.

[bluejak]

O I C. Of course if he leads a true card his partner might get it wrong but still.

Ok, well, that's a judgement: do you consider the lead to be a SEUTTI? If so then we charge them the cost of the error: in practice that reduces it to no damage so they get table score.

[barmar]

Would this be appropriate for split scores? NS +130 because they should never have gotten to 3NT without the misinformation, EW -660 because failing to set the contract was due to East's SEUTTI (the defense might have gone wrong without it, but the incorrect lead almost guaranteed the failure). Misdefending because you've forgotten your system is a SE, IMHO, and there's no way to argue that the infraction induced it.

[campboy]

nige1, on 2011-July-27, 09:03, said:

Anyway it's irrelevant to the ruling. At least I believed it was, until I read Bluejak's comment above. No wonder so few can understand this rule! What a horrendous result for the victims! No kind soft-weighted ruling for them. Just a vicious -1150! Presumably the lucky law-breakers get some weighted 2♦/3NXX fudge?

No, the law-breakers always get a score in 2♦ (or a weighted score between some numbers of tricks in 2♦). Ruling SEWoG never changes the ruling for the OS, only for the NOS. And it's not complicated at all in this case -- if you want to deny redress, you do so for however much of the damage came from the mislead (here, all of it, since with a true lead they would have gone plus).

(Personally I would not rule this a SE, but it seems quite reasonable to do so.)

[blackshoe]

Matter of training. The better you train TDs, the more consistent their rulings will be.