VixTD, on 2013-February-19, 08:22, said:
I answered the director call, and fortunately had another regular from this forum on the opposing team to consult during the break.
We decided that East had a duty to alert the double even though he had no agreement, as the action he took was consistent with ascribing it an alertable meaning. The lack of alert constituted misinformation to NS.
North had been very insistent immediately after the hand had been played out that she would have redoubled. I know this is not proof that she would have done, and she could have been pulling the wool over my eyes, but even though I couldn't find much enthusiasm for the call among players I consulted, it's the sort of thing some players do, and one or two players thought it was a possible action, so I ruled that she might redouble about half of the time.
South might take this out into spades, but he's not likely to stay there if he does, so I thought West would likely have to make a decision over a 4♣ bid. He might bid 4♥, but bearing in mind that East preferred to defend 3♦X than bid game in hearts on the last round, he might also decide to defend. Finally, if he does bid 4♥, how likely is he to make it? Deep Finesse says he can make ten tricks, but I can't see how. Some of the players I asked thought it might make, but I didn't get a very convincing line of play from them. The adjustment I eventually came up with was:
40% 3♦X(S)-2
20% 4♣X(S)-1
20% 4♥(E)-1
20% ♥(E)=
In retrospect I think I was generous to NS in allowing them to redouble quite so often, and I redressed the balance by allowing West to make 4♥ as much as half the time.
In MI cases, sometimes when a player of the non-offending side says: "I would have done XYZ had the opponents alerted/explained differently" it would be more accurate for him to say "I wish I had done XYZ" or "If I had known all four hands I would have done XYZ".
Whilst players do sometimes take strange actions at the table, it's always a dilemma for a TD when a player claims that he would have taken an implausible action. Is the player making this up, or does he really bid like this?
In this particular case, I would like to consider some more basic questions.
1. What was the infraction?
The infraction was the failure to alert, as apparently required by the dubiously worded Orange Book 5B10 regulation.
2. What would/might have happened, had the infraction not occurred?
If East had alerted the double, this would have prompted North (assuming he was considering acting at all) to ask about the meaning of the double. He would have been told "no agreement". Hence any putative adjusted score should be on the basis of North assuming that E/W have no agreement about the double, not on the basis that it was agreed to be penalties.
Help
