[Trinidad]

The following deal occurred a couple of weeks ago. The form of scoring is Butler (IMP pairs), in a field of 10 tables with the top and bottom score removed from the calculation of the datum score. The hand was played in an average bridge club with a total of about 40 tables in play. The field consisted of the top 20 pairs in this club.

---

Before bidding 2♥, East asked for the meaning of the double. (If it would have been lead directing, he could have passed to make West declarer in a heart contract.)

3♦ went down 1. EW (particularly East) were not happy. They claim that North may have used UI when he pulled the contract to 3♦.

How would the forum rule?

Rik

(I was involved as an "advisor to the TD".)

[sanst]

More should be clear about the NS agreements and methods. With what hand do they, especially S, overcall 1NT vul vs nv? What is the agreement about the double? In Holland lead directing is usual. Knowing all that, you do as you should, according to the Dutch Code of Practice, poll. Whatever we think - I think that S forgot the agreement - is not relevant.
There’s something else: should your decision be that N used the information from the explanation, she or he deserves whatever PP, which can be a warning, is usual given the circumstances and experience of the player.

[Tramticket]

What was the director's ruling?

What was the actual N/S agreement? Is anything documented? What evidence do we have on this?

What did North believe the agreement was when he doubled 2♦? (I'm guessing from the hand that he believed that he was showing diamonds - but we need to confirm).

If the double was showing diamonds, what would the 2♠ mean? This one is particularly difficult, given that South passed initially. I am struggling to construct a hand that passes over 1NT, hears partner show diamonds and now wants to make a free bid insisting on spades. [If I made this bid I would be showing a diamond fit as well as spade values - has South suggested this?]. You need to poll players to understand the logical alternatives for North - I suspect that you would get a few respondents confused by the poll(!), but would expect that pass would be a logical alternative - implying that the score should be rolled back to 2♠ Doubled (making not many tricks).

I would consider a PP unless North uses the fit-non-jump argument to explain the bid.

[Trinidad]

Tramticket, on 2019-November-14, 06:34, said:

What was the director's ruling?

What was the actual N/S agreement? Is anything documented? What evidence do we have on this?

What did North believe the agreement was when he doubled 2♦? (I'm guessing from the hand that he believed that he was showing diamonds - but we need to confirm).

If the double was showing diamonds, what would the 2♠ mean? This one is particularly difficult, given that South passed initially. I am struggling to construct a hand that passes over 1NT, hears partner show diamonds and now wants to make a free bid insisting on spades. [If I made this bid I would be showing a diamond fit as well as spade values - has South suggested this?]. You need to poll players to understand the logical alternatives for North - I suspect that you would get a few respondents confused by the poll(!), but would expect that pass would be a logical alternative - implying that the score should be rolled back to 2♠ Doubled (making not many tricks).

I would consider a PP unless North uses the fit-non-jump argument to explain the bid.

You can safely assume that NS did not have a firm agreement and that North meant the double as lead directing. If you would tell North that 2♠ could be fit showing, he would reply with "Huh?!? What?!? What are you talking about? 2♠ is natural."

I can give you the decision by the TD. He ruled that:
North has already shown his diamond suit and South was not interested. Many players would not even have considered the diamond suit good enough for a lead directing double. To follow it up with 3♦ would be xxxx... sorry, I mean ... pass must be an LA. And the 3♦ bid could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. He ruled 2♠X-3, -800 for NS, +800 for EW.

Rik

[Tramticket]

Trinidad, on 2019-November-14, 09:49, said:

You can safely assume that NS did not have a firm agreement and that North meant the double as lead directing. If you would tell North that 2♠ could be fit showing, he would reply with "Huh?!? What?!? What are you talking about? 2♠ is natural."

I can give you the decision by the TD. He ruled that:
North has already shown his diamond suit and South was not interested. Many players would not even have considered the diamond suit good enough for a lead directing double. To follow it up with 3♦ would be xxxx... sorry, I mean ... pass must be an LA. And the 3♦ bid could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI. He ruled 2♠X-3, -800 for NS, +800 for EW.

Rik

And N/S are appealing This? They would do well to get to 5 tricks.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2019-November-14, 11:37, said:

And N/S are appealing This? They would do well to get to 5 tricks.

They would do well to get to 4 tricks... not that it changes much.

[helene_t]

I agree with the ruling.

What NS' actual agreement is is irrelevant. He had clearly UI which made pulling morre attractive, and pass is a very logical alternative, to put it mildly.

That he chose 3♦ instead of 3♣ makes it even clearer that he is aware that S didn't understand that he was showing diamonds.

[Trinidad]

I myself was thinking of a 50%-50% weighted AS of 2♠X-6 and 2♠X-5. I think that if East would declare a spade contract, he might easily take 11 tricks.

But when I started counting the tricks for EW in a spade contract, the gathered directors smiled at me and said that down 3 should be enough, "because North would appeal anyway". So, I would have hoped that the appeals committee would have ruled a little harsher, to teach North that he should think a little more objectively before he lodged an appeal. Unfortunately, they simply upheld the TDs decision.

A side question: What do we think of EW? Is it a Serious Error (12C1e) to let NS play 3♦ when East knows there is a nine card heart fit, looking at a doubleton diamond?

Rik

[blackshoe]

I would rather make the ruling I believe to be correct than to make a different ruling because "North will appeal anyway". Make the correct ruling, and let the chips fall where they may.

What "harsher" ruling would you like the AC to have made? Your weighted score that you allowed other TDs to talk you out of? Or something else?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-15, 10:47, said:

Your weighted score that you allowed other TDs to talk you out of?

As I said, I was not the TD. The TD asked me for my advice.

And yes, I would have found it nice if a player who appeals "because he always does", would learn that "not winning" is not the worst possible outcome of an appeal.

RIk

[sanst]

Trinidad, on 2019-November-15, 08:57, said:

A side question: What do we think of EW? Is it a Serious Error (12C1e) to let NS play 3♦ when East knows there is a nine card heart fit, looking at a doubleton diamond?

Certainly not a serious error. Not only sees E that a wheel has come off for NS, who are vulnerable and his side is not. It’s unknown to him what diamonds and HCP W has. His partner should have a good impression of his hand by the double of 2♠. Now W is in the lead. Doubling 2♠ might not have been such a smart idea when you can’t double 3♦, but it’s really nothing near a serious error.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2019-November-15, 11:23, said:

As I said, I was not the TD. The TD asked me for my advice.

Ah. My apologies.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on 2019-November-14, 14:31, said:

That he chose 3♦ instead of 3♣ makes it even clearer that he is aware that S didn't understand that he was showing diamonds.

And that he was taking advantage of the UI.

I would adjust the score and impose a significant penalty under L73C.