[One Short]

---

On arriving at the table, East informs NS that they are playing Multi 2♦ and both East and West have Convention Cards confirming this.
East opens the bidding with 2♦ and West, having a brainstorm, announces this as "strong non-forcing"
Nothing further was spoken by anyone until East, prior to the opening lead being faced, told NS that his partner had forgotten the system and had given the wrong explanation.
South then remarked that the final call could therefore be changed but choose not to do so.
The director was not called at any time.
West goes off 8 for a plus score to NS of 400.
With hindsight on seeing the traveller at the end of play South wished to change the result. The other scores show NS in 3NT four times making 10 or 11 tricks, in 4♠ two times making 9 or 10 tricks and a further 3 part scores.

Should NS have been allowed their appeal so as give them 660/630 and a joint first/second in substitution for their 6th place?

The system bid by West should have been 2♥ and possibly North is in a dilemma because East could have a strong hand that the 2♦ bid allows. North was well aware of EW system as he remarked before bidding started that EW were not the only ones on the night who were playing Multi 2♦. North in fact does partner East on a regular basis when they themselves play Multi 2♦. West is regarded as one of the best players in the club but was not aware of the system failure until his partner pointed it out.

[RMB1]

One Short, on 2011-September-11, 12:23, said:

Should NS have been allowed their appeal so as give them 660/630 and a joint first/second in substitution for their 6th place?

Its a request for a ruling not an appeal and the ruling will not be influenced by the effect it might have on the final ranking.

NS need to do more that say "everyone else was in game our way so we deserve +630".

The EW auction will not change: West has not UI and East has not (IMO) used UI.

So the TD needs to ask NS what they would have done differently with different information: if 2♦ is described as a multi, and the remaining bids are natural. The most credible answer is that North will double at some stage. The TD needs to assess the credibility of some action by NS. The TD might produce a weighted score involving 3NT-8 and 3NTX-8.

But the TD might decide that NS would not act differently with the correct explanation of 2♦ and let the table result stand.

[ggwhiz]

One Short, on 2011-September-11, 12:23, said:

---

The director was not called at any time.

North South just lost any sympathy I might have had for their plight.

That said, they made their own ruling, seem to have followed proper procedure (perhaps incomplete) and want an adjusted score? I don't think so.

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on 2011-September-11, 13:17, said:

North South just lost any sympathy I might have had for their plight.

That said, they made their own ruling, seem to have followed proper procedure (perhaps incomplete) and want an adjusted score? I don't think so.

And why would North dream of doubling 3NT? He has Ax of hearts underneath the weak two bidder, and no reason to think it is not cold. No adjustment for me.

[bluejak]

Neither North nor South has a double of 3NT. If East really has a weak two West could have a monster.

The only basis for a double is that North or South know that they have been misinformed and know that East and West have had a misunderstanding. But rulings are not given on that basis: adjustments assume that the opponents are fully and correctly informed, but do not know that their opponents have had a misunderstanding.

Of course, in fact, both North and South did have an excellent idea that their opponents had had a misunderstanding but failed to find a double anyway!

[blackshoe]

Where was West when East informed NS ("on arriving at the table") that their agreement was multi? At what point, if any, did NS examine EW's convention cards.

There is no appeal here, as there has not yet been a ruling. As to that, I agree with the others who have said "result stands".

If it did go to appeal, I would judge it an AWM.

[mrdct]

Isn't anyone concerned about East's 3♥ bid?

A 3♣ response to a multi 2♦ opening may well convey, "I am pretty weak myself and want to play this in 3♣ opposite either weak M" which is a pretty common treatment in my part of the world particularly if 5-card suits are within the agreed partnership constraints for the weak two option. As East, I'd be expecting partner to hold something like a 1147 to have not made a pass/correct 2M bid or a 2NT enquiry. The UI that West thinks East is a strong two in ♦ demonstrably suggests bidding 3♥ whereas Pass may well be a logical alternative for East. Accordingly, the first thing the TD needs to do is ascertain what the systemic meaning of 3♣ is.

Unless the East-West convention card says "3m F" or similar under "Responses to 2♦", I am going to presume that 3♣ was non-forcing; in which case if East had passed, South would've balanced with a double as it's obvious now that East doesn't hold the strong two anymore (he'd probably have a look at the convention card to confirm it now or possibly recollect the pre-alert of the 2♦ multi at the start of the round) and North will then bid a practical 3NT, get a ♥ or ♣ lead and make 11 tricks.

I will poll a few of South's peers to confirm that they would in fact balance with a double if 3♣ came back to them, and assuming the majority do, adjust the score to NS +660.

If, on the other hand, 3♣ was determined to be a forcing bid, I'm going to let the table result stand on the basis that even with the correct initial explanation of 2♦, north can't act over a natural and forcing 3♣ bid by West. The only thing North-South may have done differently is double 3NT but in possession of all of the information, including East-West's apparent misunderstanding, they chose not to.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-September-11, 19:05, said:

A 3♣ response to a multi 2♦ opening may well convey, "I am pretty weak myself and want to play this in 3♣ opposite either weak M" which is a pretty common treatment in my part of the world particularly if 5-card suits are within the agreed partnership constraints for the weak two option.

The majority method on the sites I searched was natural and forcing, with the only other option I found as natural and invitational. I think it would be alertable if non-forcing, but I am never quite sure on how much of a surprise the NF nature has to be. Perhaps bluejak can tell us.

And I would presume natural and forcing if the CC was silent on the matter. Asking the players is preferable of course!

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 20:41, said:

The majority method on the sites I searched was natural and forcing, with the only other option I found as natural and invitational. I think it would be alertable if non-forcing, but I am never quite sure on how much of a surprise the NF nature has to be. Perhaps bluejak can tell us.

And I would presume natural and forcing if the CC was silent on the matter. Asking the players is preferable of course!

Given that North and East are regular partners and play the multi-2♦ together, I'd be inclined to ask North how he and East play 3♣ if the CC is silent as any representation by East-West could be self-serving (intended or otherwise). The EBU system card has a very big box for responses to 2♦ right on the first page so I would presume that if it's been left blank as to what 3m means, the agreement is "undiscussed" unless East-West can produce evidence to the contrary.

[gnasher]

mrdct, on 2011-September-11, 21:22, said:

Given that North and East are regular partners and play the multi-2♦ together, I'd be inclined to ask North how he and East play 3♣ if the CC is silent as any representation by East-West could be self-serving (intended or otherwise).

Why do you think North's answer would be any less self-serving than East's?

I don't particularly object to finding out what North thinks EW's agremeent is likely to be, but I don't really see any point when we can just ask East instead. It seems unlikely that East will lie about his agreements in the presence of his regular partner.

[ggwhiz]

Given that E/W have lived up to their legal obligations as described and that North knows the system I don't think polling on what others play is relevant.

I see no reason not to expect a straight answer on the 3♣ bid from North and East and would be shocked if a failure to alert happened and North did not already include that little detail. Even more shocked that the Director was not called.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-September-11, 20:41, said:

The majority method on the sites I searched was natural and forcing, with the only other option I found as natural and invitational. I think it would be alertable if non-forcing, but I am never quite sure on how much of a surprise the NF nature has to be. Perhaps bluejak can tell us.

And I would presume natural and forcing if the CC was silent on the matter. Asking the players is preferable of course!

I must confess that the problem had not occurred to me because natural and forcing seems obvious. But it should have been investigated.

gnasher, on 2011-September-12, 02:04, said:

Why do you think North's answer would be any less self-serving than East's?

I don't particularly object to finding out what North thinks EW's agremeent is likely to be, but I don't really see any point when we can just ask East instead. It seems unlikely that East will lie about his agreements in the presence of his regular partner.

For reasons I have never understood a lot of people assume self-serving statements by the offending side should be discounted completely, and self-serving statements by the non-offending side should be treated as definitely correct. Strange!