[mr1303]

---

There was much disagreement on this board.

NS play a variable NT. In third seat, South claims their agreement is that in 3rd seat they play 9-13 at all vulnerabilities (any hand that cannot have enough for game). North claims that would be suicide to do it when vulnerable.

NS can document that their escape methods from 1NT are as follows. If 1NT is mini (10-13 usually for 1st/2nd NV) then XX is a rescue, and all other bids are to play. If 1NT is strongish (13-16) then all bids are transfers.

Unfortunately the convention card and system file does not document what range 1NT is in 3rd seat when vulnerable.

EW claimed damage, saying that had they known 2D was a transfer to hearts, 2D would've been passed out.

How do you rule?

[ahydra]

I'm guessing West asked (or was told by means of announcement) about both 1NT and 2D, and got "13-16" and "natural" respectively? In which case there has been MI because NS didn't have an agreement about 1NT, as the lack of SC detail + their argument shows. Hence I adjust to 2D-4.

As an aside: suppose you agree to play variable NT and on one hand partner opens 1NT. You now realise you forgot to agree a range for this board's particular position/vul combo. How should you announce the range?

ahydra

[helene_t]

Certainly adjust to 2♦-4 for NS but for EW I am not so sure. West's second double looks like a serious error and/or a double-shot so I am inclined to let EW keep their result.

[iviehoff]

Is this behind screens? If not, I think it is best handled as a UI case. N likely has UI from S's non-alert and likely committed an infraction in taking out 2DX to 2H. I adjust to 2DX, even better than EW asked for.

W's second double is nowhere near the required standard for being a serious error.

[campboy]

I agree with ahydra. I wouldn't adjust to 2♦x because I don't think passing is an LA for North unless he has diamond tolerance.

How can doubling be a serious error? If opponents actually have diamonds it might well go one off and you need that +200.

[ArtK78]

First, I agree with North that playing 9-13 1NT opening in third seat vul is suicide. Yet I have seen players who play mini NT vul in 3rd seat.

Assuming that there were no screens, North would have explained the 1NT opening at the table as 13-16. South could not "correct" N's explanation until the auction was concluded. Furthermore, South would have explained the 2♦ bid as natural. North could not "correct" S's explanation until the auction was concluded. Neither E nor W would have any reason to doubt these explanations, unless the NS system card threw some doubt on the agreements. In any event, at least one of these was MI, and I cannot see any reason for W not to double 2♦.

After the pull to 2♥, I would call the TD and get explanations of all of the bidding by each of N and S with his or her partner away from the table. At that point the problem would be known, and the board would probably be unplayable. An adjusted score should be assigned without giving W an opportunity to act over 2♥.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-September-18, 07:14, said:

I agree with ahydra. I wouldn't adjust to 2♦x because I don't think passing is an LA for North unless he has diamond tolerance.

It's an arguable point that probably needs a poll and information on whether this pair opens 1N with a 6-cd minor sometimes. However if N is permitted to bid, then I think that avoiding use of the UI requires a call of 2S in preference to 2H. So N clearly needs to be reminded, perhaps painfully, of the need to avoid use of UI.

W's claim that he wouldn't double 2D was based upon being told that 2D is a transfer: but is he basing this choice on also knowing that the player who failed to complete the transfer didn't know that? It's very easy to choose not to double when you know a player who didn't know it was a transfer didn't complete it. He isn't entitled to all that. He is allowed to deduce that a player didn't understand his partner's bid from a later correction by the player themself. But in relation to the moment at which MI was given, he is entitled only to correct information, not immeidate evidence of a mistunderstanding. Correct information would be that they don't have a clear agreement for this position/vulnerability. Now that information does make clear that the players don't know what they are doing, but it doesn't reveal unambiguously that the player who passed doesn't have a diamond suit. It is now perhaps less clear to pass it out.

[iviehoff]

ArtK78, on 2013-September-18, 08:31, said:

After the pull to 2♥, I would call the TD and get explanations of all of the bidding by each of N and S with his or her partner away from the table. At that point the problem would be known, and the board would probably be unplayable. An adjusted score should be assigned without giving W an opportunity to act over 2♥.

Taking the players away from the table is at the director's discretion, not the opponent's request. It should never happen if a player is confident in the explanation of a bid he is due to give, even if it is inconsistent with an explanation of another bid confidently provided by his partner. Misbids happen; misexplanations happen; UI happens; partnership misunderstandings happen; failure to make clear agreements happen; none of these things makes a board unplayable. What happened here is a common case of a partnership where one player confidently thinks its one thing and the other partner something else: - you play the hand out and adjust if necessary for UI and/or MI.

[ArtK78]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-18, 08:56, said:

Taking the players away from the table is at the director's discretion, not the opponent's request. It should never happen if a player is confident in the explanation of a bid he is due to give, even if it is inconsistent with an explanation of another bid confidently provided by his partner. Misbids happen; misexplanations happen; UI happens; partnership misunderstandings happen; failure to make clear agreements happen; none of these things makes a board unplayable. What happened here is a common case of a partnership where one player confidently thinks its one thing and the other partner something else: - you play the hand out and adjust if necessary for UI and/or MI.

You are correct that having a player leave the table so that his partner can explain the entire auction without his partner being present is at the discretion of the TD, but it would be unreasonable under these circumstances for the TD to do anything else.

As for continuing the auction and going forward with the play, you may be right that this is the normal procedure. It may in fact be the only procedure. But given what has happened in the auction to this point, it would be difficult for EW to deal with the situation in anything approaching a normal manner. I believe that the TD has the authority to assign an adjusted score at this point, deeming it impossible to obtain a reasonable result by continuing the auction and the play. I could be wrong about this, but it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2013-September-18, 08:31, said:

After the pull to 2♥, I would call the TD and get explanations of all of the bidding by each of N and S with his or her partner away from the table. At that point the problem would be known, and the board would probably be unplayable. An adjusted score should be assigned without giving W an opportunity to act over 2♥.

Following what law?

"Assign" an adjusted score, when you are suggesting the board is unplayable, is the wrong word. One "awards" an adjusted score, which will be either "assigned" (Law 12C1) or "artificial" (Law 12C2). If the board is unplayable, you would award an artificial adjusted score.

[Bbradley62]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-18, 08:47, said:

... if N is permitted to bid, then I think that avoiding use of the UI requires a call of 2S in preference to 2H. So N clearly needs to be reminded, perhaps painfully, of the need to avoid use of UI.

Isn't it South's pass of 2♦ that provides the information that there is a disagreement as to the meaning of the 2♦ bid? (OP doesn't say who asked the question, so it's not clear whether the pass occurred before or after the question, but I think the pass provides Authorized Information in any event.)

I do, however, think 2♠ is a better bid than 2♥.

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-18, 06:21, said:

Is this behind screens? If not, I think it is best handled as a UI case. N likely has UI from S's non-alert and likely committed an infraction in taking out 2DX to 2H. I adjust to 2DX, even better than EW asked for.

W's second double is nowhere near the required standard for being a serious error.

Passing out 2♦X is not an option for N, the pass by S implies 2 hearts and 5 (or 6 if you do that sort of thing) diamonds, I would bid 2♠ as another poster suggests, this will usually be a 5-3 fit.

[ahydra]

North thinks 2D is transfer - 100% forcing, right? So when South PASSES, surely he can deduce something has gone badly wrong and bid whatever he likes?

True, the double of 1NT may make a difference - so perhaps we should find out from this pair whether they would ever pass a transfer in this situation, but I doubt they would. [If it turns out they do, e.g. only with 2 hearts and 5-6 diamonds, then pass and 2S are the LAs, as others have said]

ahydra

[campboy]

If for some reason I was playing transfers after a penalty double of 1NT I would certainly pass a 2♦ transfer with 3253 shape. Partner should be doing something else with his good hands.

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2013-September-19, 09:56, said:

North thinks 2D is transfer - 100% forcing, right? So when South PASSES, surely he can deduce something has gone badly wrong and bid whatever he likes?

Surely? No.