[mjk43]

This hand occurred at our local club duplicate a couple of weeks ago. The director ruled one way and the pair who did not like the director's decision appealed to the club's appeals committee who ruled the other way. We should all like to learn from expert views on what the ruling should have been, please.

North’s 2S was alerted by South as “spades and a minor”<br>South’s 2NT was not alerted<br>

---

The strength of players in the club varies considerably; North South were not regular visitors to the club.
North South had no convention card.

On putting down dummy, South announced "You know what 2NT means, partner, we discussed it last time". North said he did not remember. The director was called and asked to have the hand presented at the end of the evening as he was a playing director and had not yet played the board - he later gave a ruling.

East's view at the time was that South's unalerted 2NT was to play (with the variety of standards at the club, many pairs do not have a system of continuation after aspro). Seeking a good pairs score, East doubled. In the auction, he then assumed that South panicked on hearing the double and sought to settle in North's minor or possibly a long club suit. The double of 3D was again based on the points being evenly split and North South having got themselves into a pickle. From the auction, East can deduce that South is likely to hold between 0 and 2 spades, between 5 and 7 hearts and hence about 6 cards in the minors but with no certainty about how they are split between clubs and diamonds.

3 diamonds doubled made plus one.

Given that there is potentially both UI and misinformation, what is the approrpiate ruling ?

Many thanks from all concerned both at the table and dealing with the ruling and the appeal.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, South has UI from the failure to alert 2N, and N's pass over 2N doesn't exist. It's also not clear what NS's agreed system is.

Guessing what N actually holds is well nigh impossible, as he also has UI from the alert if he doesn't have spades and a minor. Was 2♠ simply alerted or was it explained as ♠/m before N passed ?

Whatever is going on, S has LAs to 3♣ including pass, so I think the 3♣ bid must be cancelled. N has no reason to remove, he's better than he might be, so say we reset the contract to 2Nx. This is also going to make, sometimes with an overtrick, so I don't see that cancelling the 3♣ bid is relevant to the overall score.

OK so maybe E contends that he doesn't double with correct info. The only grounds for this is because he perceives the misunderstanding and reckons they have a better spot, as objectively 2N is more likely to go off on the auction with the correct explanation than with the lack of one. W has an absolute minimum (assuming 12-14) which has dimninished in value during the auction with no surprise in the diamond suit (give his partner ♥AKxx and ♣K and you're unlikely to beat this for example) so doubling 3♦ is SEWoG (serious error wild or gambling) IMO.

Do I know the East player well ? I've met people who would double on the grounds that they are going to get this back from the director if it's wrong, knowing full well what 2N meant, I've also met beginners who don't play any gadgets like this and would have no clue what 2N meant.

I think a lot of EW's damage is self inflicted. I have a lot more sympathy for E if NS are red, as the difference between 100 and 200 is big, but the difference between 50 and 100 probably isn't so I'm not sure his logic stands up, although I don't see his double as SEWoG.

Jurisdiction matters here too, are split/weighted scores available ? My opinion which will no doubt be torn apart by the more seasoned directors is that if E was going to double on this auction, he'd also double on the correctly explained auction most of the time (let's say 70%). W's double is so bad he should be made to keep it, but does he do it on the correctly explained auction ? maybe not so NS shouldn't get the benefit of it.

So for NS:

70% of 3♦+1
30% of 2N=/2N+1 in some combination

For EW:

70% of 3♦x+1
I'd like to say
30% of 2N=/2N+1 in some combination as this would reflect my view of the blame

But I'm not sure how the subsequent IMO SEWoG double of 3♦ affects this.

EW have been damaged by the MI, but IMO most of the damage is self inflicted.

Be interested to see how better directors than me assess this one.

[WellSpyder]

I think I might be less harsh than Cyberyeti on the UI issues. Sure, S has UI from the failure to alert 2N, and should try to work out what N's non-systemic pass over this is trying to show. But I'm not convinced there is really any LA to 3♣ once 2N has been doubled. Indeed, I think you could argue that a pass here rather than 3♣ might be suggested by the UI, since if anything partner's failure to alert 2N might be an indication that he did not intend his bid to show spades and a minor at all.

But the MI seems a serious issue, and S has made it much worse by failing to call the TD before the opening lead. Unless he is very inexperienced, surely there is a case for a PP here? If the TD had been called, he would have been able to give E a chance to reconsider his final double. As it is, we can only consider this as part of the ruling, and I would be quite sympathetic to the idea that E would not have doubled if he had understood what was going on since he would have had much less reason to believe the hand was a misfit.

[bluejak]

First, two "asides". We ask opening posters to say where this occurred: please do. Aspro does not come into it: this is not Aspro, it is one of the Cappelletti/Pottage/Crowhurst/Hamilton group, see Defences to 1NT.

So, consider UI: North has none, South has the lack of alert. But of course the pass of a forcing bid tells him what is going on anyway. He never intended to play 2NT, surely pass of 2NT doubled cannot be an LA?

So it is really a question of MI. Was there MI? Yes, it appears 2NT asks for a second suit. What would East have done with his hand if he knew that? Who knows? He has no double anyway, so it is difficult to see how his action is affected.

No damage, no adjustment.

As for a PP for not telling opponents that 2NT should have been alerted at the end of the auction, no, not unless he has been warned before. Just explain the Laws to him and make it clear what he should have done. Since it is only West's automatic pass that could have been taken back it caused no grief on this occasion.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:24, said:

As for a PP for not telling opponents that 2NT should have been alerted at the end of the auction, no, not unless he has been warned before. Just explain the Laws to him and make it clear what he should have done. Since it is only West's automatic pass that could have been taken back it caused no grief on this occasion.

Good point - sorry, I somehow thought it would have enabled East to pass rather than double if he wanted to.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:24, said:

First, two "asides". We ask opening posters to say where this occurred: please do. Aspro does not come into it: this is not Aspro, it is one of the Cappelletti/Pottage/Crowhurst/Hamilton group, see Defences to 1NT.

Looks like pinpoint astro to me, particularly if it requires 5 spades.

Quote

So, consider UI: North has none, South has the lack of alert. But of course the pass of a forcing bid tells him what is going on anyway. He never intended to play 2NT, surely pass of 2NT doubled cannot be an LA?

This is a non auction, but he's taken advantage of the UI to make the "safe" bid. Don't pass and XX both ask for partner's minor here, and it's not like he has a bad hand if partner sits it.

Quote

So it is really a question of MI. Was there MI? Yes, it appears 2NT asks for a second suit. What would East have done with his hand if he knew that? Who knows? He has no double anyway, so it is difficult to see how his action is affected.

I've seen it argued many times that when opps clearly have a misunderstanding, and it looks like they might have finished in a silly spot, you fail to make obvious doubles so they don't do something more sensible, let alone a pretty random X like this one.

Quote

No damage, no adjustment.

As for a PP for not telling opponents that 2NT should have been alerted at the end of the auction, no, not unless he has been warned before. Just explain the Laws to him and make it clear what he should have done. Since it is only West's automatic pass that could have been taken back it caused no grief on this occasion.

Agree with the second part of this.

I missaw the auction and thought W Xd 3♦, E did, and some of my comments in the previous post make no sense, but for either to X it is definitely SEWoG.

[bluejak]

My impression of the standard of N/S is that no, they do not play a redouble to mean bud a minor, they have probably no agreement over redouble. Pass certainly does not ask for partner's minor: 2NT did, and partner did not bid it. Pass clearly is happy with 2NT.

Pinpoint Astro is not Aspro. That is like saying that Stayman is Blackwood because they both have an 'a' in.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 15:30, said:

Pinpoint Astro is not Aspro. That is like saying that Stayman is Blackwood because they both have an 'a' in.

Yes, but ASPRO/ASPTRO/ASTRO/pinpoint are a family and was suggesting that saying it was one of the Cappelletti/Pottage/Crowhurst/Hamilton group might be wide of the mark.

Interesting question, if partner is ethical and hears you alert his 2♠, alerts your 2N and passes, what do you think he has ?

a) if no questions were asked
b) if you were asked about his 2♠ and said spades and a minor

basically what assumptions can you make about partner's hand in this auction ?

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:24, said:

Was there MI? Yes, it appears 2NT asks for a second suit. What would East have done with his hand if he knew that? Who knows? He has no double anyway, so it is difficult to see how his action is affected.

No damage, no adjustment.

Indeed it is hard to judge what East might have done if he knew 2NT was artificial, but he would be more likely to pass as he should be happier defending 2NT than defending the run to 3♦. I regard the double of 3♦ as SEWoG even for a poor player, so he gets that part of the bad result attributed to that double. One would need to know the MP frequencies to work that out. The double of 2NT was "related to the infraction", so does not get appraised for sewogness (is that the noun, paulg, or is it sewogity?). 2NT doubled was cold for an overtrick, on almost any sensible line, and I agree that East had no double. However, we might conclude that, say, 50% of the time he would pass out 2NT with correct information, and award a weighted score, with East-West still retaining the part attributed to the double of 3♦.

[mjj29]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-August-05, 04:58, said:

Yes, but ASPRO/ASPTRO/ASTRO/pinpoint are a family and was suggesting that saying it was one of the Cappelletti/Pottage/Crowhurst/Hamilton group might be wide of the mark.

Actually, pinpoint is more like the others than it is A[SPT]*RO, despite the name - the aTHINGro conventions are all just 2♣/♦, whereas the others (including pinpoint) have all 4 suits showing two-suiters.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-August-05, 04:58, said:

Yes, but ASPRO/ASPTRO/ASTRO/pinpoint are a family and was suggesting that saying it was one of the Cappelletti/Pottage/Crowhurst/Hamilton group might be wide of the mark.

Despite the name, no, they are not. Aspro/Astro/Asptro are a family of 2♣ and 2♦ bids showing 2-suiters including the majors, coupled with natural 2♥ and 2♠ bids. Pinpoint Astro is not, being totally dissimilar.

[blackshoe]

I've always seen Pinpoint Astro as more similar to Brozel. In fact, IIRC, it's identical to Brozel, except that Brozel defines jumps to the three level as 4441, short in the bid suit.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-August-08, 09:44, said:

Despite the name, no, they are not. Aspro/Astro/Asptro are a family of 2♣ and 2♦ bids showing 2-suiters including the majors, coupled with natural 2♥ and 2♠ bids. Pinpoint Astro is not, being totally dissimilar.

This discussion seems to bring us back round to red-headed stepchildren

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2011-August-08, 10:18, said:

This discussion seems to bring us back round to red-headed stepchildren

Now, now...no being sexist Gordon!

[ggwhiz]

mjk43, on 2011-August-04, 01:19, said:

Seeking a good pairs score, East doubled.

I agree with all the posts that point in detail to the damage to E/W being self-inflicted.

Especially the point about changing +50 into +100 on these colours as a max. expectation that won't pay off. Result stands for me.