[Chillwell1]

---

2 ♣ = Majors

2 ♥ = North thought it was transfer to spades. South bid it as natural.

Altough, no alert was giving on 2♣, therefore south bid 2♥ as natural because he thought 2♣ was natural. North thought 2♥ was transfer and accepted the transfer by bidding ♠.

2♠ by North went 3 down.
TD ruled it to 2♠ 1 down played by East.
Double dummy says 2♠ by EW is makable (8 tricks)

Is this the correct ruling? How should you rule when there are 2 mistakes of alert (one by North, one by West).
Should it be ruled 2S just made? Or the average score (2♠ down one)?.

[TylerE]

Not enough information. What is NSs *agreement*?

I would feel really hard done by if ruling against NS as without W's failure to alert there is no infraction (if there was one to begin with) was consequent to the failure to alert 2C.

With all that said, I don't think of ANY rational grounds for the table ruling. It just seems wrong no matter what.

[Chillwell1]

Well, NS didnt really have a agreement about 2H.
South thought after 2C ”Transfers was off” and bid 2H as natural. North thought after 2C ”transfers was ON”. So i don’t know.

[TylerE]

You can't fail to alert an agreement you don't have.

[pescetom]

TylerE, on 2019-October-24, 14:24, said:

You can't fail to alert an agreement you don't have.

No, but you also can't fail to alert an agreement you believe you have. And it's crappy bridge making bids based on agreements you know you don't really have, even if not necessarily an infraction.

At first sight it looks to me as if TD was right that given a correct explanation of the 2♣ bid NS would have allowed EW to play 2♠. As to how he decides the possible outcomes I think each RA has case history to abide by in terms of assigning precedence to the judgement of TD, peers of declarer, peers of defence, double-dummy analysis, results at other tables. FWIW 2♠ making looks quite likely to me.

[mycroft]

As mentioned, there is a lot of things missing from this. The TD has to determine both sides *correct* agreements about this auction; their agreements about the auction as described at the table (if that is different), who Alerted and when, and so on. Also, what is required for Full Disclosure in the relevant Regulation for the game and how well it was followed: CCs, Alerts or Announcements, and so on.

Given the assumptions:
- E-W are playing 2♣ Majors, West knows this, and that is Alertable, which West either didn't know or forgot.
- N-S are playing transfers with no interference, and haven't actually agreed about 2♣ calls (I've seen this a lot - they have an agreement over interference, but not 2♣, or one thinks "systems on if 2♣ doesn't show clubs" and the other thinks "systems on no matter what 2♣ is").
- There was no Alert of 2♣ if required, or it wasn't seen/heard by N-S.

Then:
N-S have "no agreement" about 2♥ in the auction 1NT-[2♣ natural]-2♥. Unsurprising, really. Bad, but not surprising. E-W were told it was a transfer, and East (who has shown spades) didn't have anything to say. West (who has spades, and knows East has spades) has decided not to double the known 5-card fit, probably because she's afraid South will run.

I guess that's the first question - I'm asking West why she didn't Alert 2♣ and why she didn't double 2♠. If it turns out she forgot and thought 2♣ was Natural, that's a different line we have to go down. But assuming West did know that the opponents have decided to play in E-W's fit, and decided not to double, then there's no damage to them from the issue N-S had. And N-S have to have an agreement about 2♣ interference, for next time. However.

West failed to Alert 2♣, and with the Alert and explanation, South is passing 2♣, guaranteed, with a bad 3-count and the "fit" in a known bad break behind the strength. West will bid 2♠, probably floated, so a score is assigned in 2♠ by West. That score is weighted in favour of the non-offenders (N-S are not offenders in this consideration, because their infraction would just not have happened without West's), and if it is expected that it's 70% or so likely that E-W are going down, it seems reasonable to give 100% of that score rather than some fraction of each. To give the double-dummy result would clearly be favouring the offenders; one would only do that if the line to 8 tricks was almost automatic. [Note I am not going to do the evaluation of 2♠W; that also requires knowledge of the players' skills and should be done in consultation.]

That is what the Director ruled [well, OP says it was 2♠-1 by East, which seems odd, but it could have been "by East-West"], and it's totally reasonable given the set of assumptions I made. But of course, that was a lot of assumptions. Without actual answers, the Director could have been right, could have been wrong, could have been from a different planet, and we can't tell here.


But let's look at some different situations, with different assumptions.

Say, for instance, West had forgotten they played 2♣ as Majors, which is why she didn't Alert the opponents. South (who is entitled to the correct agreement) will still pass, but now so will West; and North doesn't have any reason to disturb this. That may not make it to 7 tricks.

Or, say, West thought 2♣ was natural, and she was right. Now, East has misbid. South has the correct agreement so will still bid 2♥ and North will say it is spades. East won't double 2♠ as she's already told West she has 4 (double would clearly be suggested by the UI that West doesn't know this), South passes and West has a conundrum. He has a good spade suit, but a 9-card club fit and a stiff. What's the chance he bids 3♣? If he does, what does East do? That could lead to a different, weighted score: some fraction of the table score, some fraction of 3♣E, some fraction of higher contracts, maybe doubled.

As far as "both sides offended, why is one side getting a bad score and not the other one?", remember that N-S with the right information could not have gone wrong. Therefore E-W would have no chance to be damaged by N-S's lack of surety of their methods. It just happens sometimes. Now, if we believe that N-S, unrelated to E-W's infraction, did something so bad it is considered a Serious Error (2♠ was going to make before North revoked and gave up 2 tricks, say) then they can be held accountable for that error. But mixing up the auction in a non-trivial situation is not Serious Error territory, and anyway, it was clearly related to the infraction - if West had Alerted "Majors", South passes 100%.

[wank]

you would need to ask south what he would do if 2C was alerted. if we assume he'd pass, then west (not east) would play 2S. i'm reasonably confident west would make that, especially on 4 rounds of clubs, but i suppose a small percentage of -1, say 20% including a degree of generosity to the non-offenders, would be arguable.

[steve2005]

Chillwell1, on 2019-October-24, 10:40, said:

2♠ by North went 3 down.
TD ruled it to 2♠ 1 down played by East.
Double dummy says 2♠ by EW is makable (8 tricks)

EW made 2S on defence (-3)
I see no reason why EW shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt that they could repeat as a declarer.

[blackshoe]

I want the director to explain how he thinks EW are going to get to 2!S played by East.