[twcho]

---

This is team match played without screen.
When West asked for explanation bid before his final pass, South explained that the 1♦ bid shows 4+♦, always not a balanced hand. North said that 2♣ is an artificial GF relay, not necessary ♣ but he forgot to alert. South explained that 2♦ shows 4+♥. 2♥ shows 4♥. Now West called for director explaining that NS has missed the alert of the artificial 2♣ bid.

Director asked NS for the confirmation of fact and NS concurred. West asked what were the available options for him. NS gave their detailed system notes to director and the explanation were all correct. Now director asked whether West want to do anything now but pass. West said that he will pass now. Now director told the players to start the play. And he will consider again if the MI (missing alert) will cause damage to the non-offending side. East led ♠5 and North soon claimed 12 tricks after ♦Q appeared on the 1st round of ♦.

Clearly, North was awakened, probably due to the alert by his partner on his seemingly natural 2♦ bid. He realized that he had made a wrong bid of 2♦ (he doesn't have 4♥) and now tried an impossible bid, 3NT. South, knowing that this 3NT bid was an impossible bid, drew the conclusion that his partner must have forgotten the 2♣ bid and didn't have 4♥ for his 2♦ rebid which merely shows a natural rebid of ♦ and therefore determined to pass the 3NT bid.

Director was called to table again after the play finished and West said that he will definitely double the artificial 2♣ bid if he knew that it does not guarantee ♣. However, after the double, it is quite impossible to guess the auction development. Director, after consulting three other players, come back with the result that among those being consulted, one of them will continue to bid 3NT even though he has a singleton. As the other table also played in 3NT and ended down 1. Director ruled that the table result to be adjusted to 3NT-1.

Do you agree with the ruling?

[pran]

Is your description of the events accurate in that West asked for explanation and called the Director before he made his final pass?

If so then the Director made a serious error in not giving East the option to withdraw his pass over the 3NT bid and make a diffferent call!

One may argue that East with his cards has no alternative to his pass in that turn, this is irrelevant. He shall be given this option.

Aside from that I agree with the ruling.

[twcho]

Yes, description accurate. West can't ask until it is his turn to bid.

[RMB1]

The director should have addressed the potential damage from the use of unauthorised information - even if he might rule no damage. North has logical alternatives to 3NT and chose 3NT because he knew partner thought 2♦ was artificial. What the logical alternatives are depend on what North thought the system was when he bid 2♦: 2♠ (stopper), 2NT (nat), 3♥ (support) might be possible. Without more knowledge of the different North and South understandings, it is impossible to know what contracts might be reached and whether EW were damaged.

South also has unauthorised information from the failure to alert 2♣ and from the slow 3NT. Either might suggest that North has forgotten the system and suggest passing 3NT over the logical alternative of 4♥ (known eight card fit). But 4♥ plays no worse than 3NT, so EW were not damaged by the failure to bid 4♥.

[Aardv]

I'm unclear how the UI rules should be applied in this case. Ordinarily, we might oblige N-S to persist in their misunderstanding up to 6H. But on this deal 6H is going to make.

Instead, the director has ruled that West would double 2C, showing clubs, but North would nevertheless bid 3NT. That strikes me as impossible. As I understand it, North is supposed to bid on the basis that 2C was natural and West doubled it to show clubs. I'm not sure you can perform a useful poll on this incredible auction, but if you can, I don't believe anyone who understands the question would bid 3NT with the North cards.

On the other hand, both North and South seem to have made blatant use of UI. The director should at least have a serious conversation with them about their obligations.

[Bbradley62]

twcho, on 2014-May-11, 13:03, said:

Clearly, North was awakened, probably due to the alert by his partner on his seemingly natural 2♦ bid. He realized that he had made a wrong bid of 2♦ (he doesn't have 4♥) and now tried an impossible bid, 3NT...

Aardv, on 2014-May-11, 15:22, said:

... both North and South seem to have made blatant use of UI.

It's not clear to me that North did anything wrong. Give peers (we have no idea what level this means) the North hand, and require them to open 1♦, giving them the description as provided by South. Tell them that partner bids a natural and game-forcing 2♣; they will almost certainly rebid diamonds. Now tell them that partner makes a natural 2♥ bid. It's entirely possible that many will bid 3N, having the Ace of the unbid suit. I suppose 4♥ is also a logical alternative, but it's not clear enough (with the information provided) to conclude that North has acted unethically.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-May-11, 13:34, said:

Is your description of the events accurate in that West asked for explanation and called the Director before he made his final pass?

If so then the Director made a serious error in not giving East the option to withdraw his pass over the 3NT bid and make a diffferent call!

One may argue that East with his cards has no alternative to his pass in that turn, this is irrelevant. He shall be given this option.

Aside from that I agree with the ruling.

Well, if there was director error, Law 82C applies, which might well change the score adjustment.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-May-11, 18:20, said:

Well, if there was director error, Law 82C applies, which might well change the score adjustment.

Indeed.

But I maintain my opinion on the ruling (3NT-1):

North forgot to alert, forgot his system and bid a natural 2♦

The logic behind my ruling is that North bid 3NT based on South's "natural" 2♣ bid and then ended in a natural 3NT contract. Subsequent statements by North and South do not change my understanding of what really happened and why.

The argument that this would never have happened without the misinformation because West then would have doubled the 2♣ bid is immaterial. What happened did happen and the offending side must face the consequences of its offence.

The only remaining question for me is to judge if the director's error has had any influence, in this case I find that very unlikely.

[helene_t]

Aardv, on 2014-May-11, 15:22, said:

Instead, the director has ruled that West would double 2C, showing clubs, but North would nevertheless bid 3NT.

I don't think North is entitled to know that the double shows clubs. He is entitled to know EW's agreements which are that x shows clubs if 2♣ is artificial and that it shows majors if 2♣ is natural. Since he "thinks" (not using the UI from the alert of his 2♦ bid) that 2♣ was natural, he has to act as if the double showed majors.