[desireepta]

---

2NT was alerted as diamonds and hearts
result was -2 NS-300
North requested a ruling and subsequently an adjusted score was awarded Ave+ for NS and Ave- for EW
The reason given that it was unethical for East to double after knowing that NS was misinformed and should have bid 3NT which makes,i.e -600 for NS

[mr1303]

Ave+ and Ave- is clearly an illegal ruling based upon the reason given.

Firstly, we have to look at what the EW agreement actually was. If it was that 2NT showed a strong balanced hand, then NS have been misinformed, and as a result North might be able to persuade me he wouldn't have bid 3S. Although even over a hearts and clubs 2NT, I think 3S can be considered SEWoG.

There's also the UT issue. Although if 3H is natural, double looks automatic, and if 3H is a transfer, double is even more automatic.

I need more information before I rule.

[desireepta]

EW agreement is conventional Ghestem, but East , new to the system, bid 2NT, having forgotten the conventional bid, as strong balanced. 3 ♥ by West who is more versed in the agreed convention, was preference for ♥I think the 3♠bid could have been SEWoG but more an erroneous assumption that South most likely will have ♠

[campboy]

Ok, so there was no misinformation, since West correctly described their agreement. East has unauthorised information but double is obvious (there is no logical alternative). So no infraction; score stands.

The ruling given would be illegal even if the reasoning made some sort of sense; if you think East has broken some law by not bidding 3NT (he hasn't), then you must adjust to EW +600, not ave+/ave-.

[WellSpyder]

 campboy, on 2014-March-17, 04:49, said:

Ok, so there was no misinformation, since West correctly described their agreement. East has unauthorised information but double is obvious (there is no logical alternative). So no infraction; score stands.

The ruling given would be illegal even if the reasoning made some sort of sense; if you think East has broken some law by not bidding 3NT (he hasn't), then you must adjust to EW +600, not ave+/ave-.

Except that even when there is an infraction you only adjust if there is damage. Since the NOS scored -300 they were not damaged by any action that resulted in them not scoring -600.

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2014-March-17, 04:49, said:

Ok, so there was no misinformation, since West correctly described their agreement. East has unauthorised information but double is obvious (there is no logical alternative). So no infraction; score stands.

The ruling given would be illegal even if the reasoning made some sort of sense; if you think East has broken some law by not bidding 3NT (he hasn't), then you must adjust to EW +600, not ave+/ave-.

I want my downvotes back!

[gordontd]

 desireepta, on 2014-March-17, 03:20, said:

3NT which makes

Does it?

[Cyberyeti]

 gordontd, on 2014-March-17, 07:33, said:

Does it?

On all of sensible lines yes, spades must be 4-4 as N opened 1♣ and only has 4, so you win the Q♠ and table K♦, you then rack up a spade, a diamond, 3 hearts (overtaking) and 4 clubs via the finesse once you confirmed the 4-0 split.

S WILL lead a spade in response to the overcall, if N switches to a heart, he has to find 2 embarrassing pitches on the next 2 hearts after the A♣ is cashed, and whatever he discards it's easy. N must have all the missing high cards and more.

[helene_t]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-17, 07:54, said:

S WILL lead a spade

Probably, the question if if a weighted ruling should be based on 100% 3NT=. On a blue moon, North might find the switch to ♥T, or South might lead a heart, or declarer might make a mistake.

It probably doesn't add up to enough percents to be better for the NOS than the table result, though.

[hrothgar]

Question: Were N/S damaged by the infraction?
Answer: No. The field is playing 3N for +600

No damage, no adjustment.

Back to sleep

[helene_t]

West passing the double seems like fielding a misbid. 4♥ is clear if West still assumes East has 5-5 in the red suits.

[barmar]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-17, 08:41, said:

West passing the double seems like fielding a misbid. 4♥ is clear if West still assumes East has 5-5 in the red suits.

There's no law against fielding a misbid. West has no UI (unless East made some mannerisms when he heard the explanation that suggest that he misbid), so he can do whatever he wants.

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2014-March-17, 10:41, said:

West has no UI (unless East made some mannerisms when he heard the explanation that suggest that he misbid), so he can do whatever he wants.

I know that no UI was reported but that does not mean there was none.

Players capable of confusing strong/unusual 2NT do not have agreements about what a subsequent double of fourth suit shows. I would not be surprised if the manner of the double of 3♠ alone carried sufficient information to distinguish a strong NT from an unusual NT.

[barmar]

 RMB1, on 2014-March-17, 11:23, said:

I know that no UI was reported but that does not mean there was none.

True, but we can't rule against them unless we have some evidence that there was.

[campboy]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-March-17, 05:49, said:

Except that even when there is an infraction you only adjust if there is damage. Since the NOS scored -300 they were not damaged by any action that resulted in them not scoring -600.

Oops, yes, the table ruling made even less sense than I thought

[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-17, 08:41, said:

West passing the double seems like fielding a misbid. 4♥ is clear if West still assumes East has 5-5 in the red suits.

 barmar, on 2014-March-17, 10:41, said:

There's no law against fielding a misbid. West has no UI (unless East made some mannerisms when he heard the explanation that suggest that he misbid), so he can do whatever he wants.

True, but there is an EBU regulation against it. We need to know the jurisdiction to know what applies here.

[mycroft]

Well, in the UK, there is an argument based on the CPU law that if partner misbids, and you cater to the misbid, they evaluate if that is sufficient evidence that you have a CPU, and are therefore playing your agreement illegally (or playing an illegal agreement); at which point there is a standard traffic light set of rules as to what happens (analagous to psychic calls that were picked up by partner - again, it's investigated to see if it truly looks like it was as unexpected to partner as to opponents).

So, no, there is no law; but there is an arguable interpretation of the partnership understanding Law that allows regulations that will cause inappropriately fielded misbids to be illegal.

[desireepta]

Well, thank you to all you TD's for the logical and thorough discussion. It was extremely helpful and enlightening. Somewhat like barristers on a case.

[Cascade]

At the very least I would want to know why west passed the double. While it is allowed by law it seems to suggest that the explanation was either not complete or accurate. I mean it seems quite perverse to pass a double of 3♠ with a stiff trump when partner has at most three and more likely one or two and you have primary support for one of partner's suits.