[bd71]

Matchpoints. Specific hands not relevant. East holds AKTx in hearts and West holds QJ9. North/South collectively hold all other honors/points and have 12 top tricks.

The N/S unopposed auction (South dealing) is:

2N 3C
3D 3H
3N P

Opps agreements include Puppet Stayman here, but South forgets (so she thinks 3D is denying a 4-card major) and North neglects to alert 3D. Nothing in this auction is immediately alerted.

Before West leads, North points out his failure to alert 3D and notifies opps of partner's failure to alert 3H.

I (East) call Director and (away from the table) point out that had 3H been alerted as artificial, I would have doubled for the lead. Director counters that if South (who obviously did not hold a 4-card major) had remembered the convention, then I would not have had the chance to double 3H for a lead anyway. But he told us to play on and call him back if we think we need him.

As it turns out, West leads hearts anyway and we get our 4 tricks.

Questions:

1. Suppose partner had NOT led hearts, and opps run their 12 tricks. Are we damaged here and deserving of a correction? Or is there something to Director's assertion that had the auction/alerts played out "as it should have", we wouldn't have been able to double 3H, and thus a correction isn't justified?

(As an aside, one possible scenario where this might not be true is if South remembered their actual agreements just as North bids 3H, so we would get an alert on 3H and would have a chance to direct the lead...is this something that should be considered?)

2. Did I put my side at risk by calling the director and asking to talk to him away from the table to mention that I would have doubled for a heart lead? On one hand, it seems important to make sure the Director knows what I would have done before we learn the details of the full hand. However, it doesn't take a big jump for partner to figure out why I might want to talk to the director here. So am I risking giving UI and constraining partner by asking to talk to the Director away from the table? If so, is there an alternative approach I should have taken to protect my side?

[blackshoe]

1. Law 12 says: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred."

They made exactly 3NT. Had the infraction not occurred, the expectation would have been that you would get a worse result, so you weren't damaged. If you weren't damaged, there should be no score adjustment. Directing the lead would not have got you a better score, so again you weren't damaged.

2. When you call the director, you should give him the facts as to the infraction, and let him take it from there. If he thinks it advisable to speak to you away from the table, he'll do that. OTOH, if after you call and give him the facts, it seems like he's missed something pertinent, then you could ask to speak to him away from the table.

I don't think you put your side at risk in this case.

[Trinidad]

bd71, on 2014-June-25, 10:42, said:

1. Suppose partner had NOT led hearts, and opps run their 12 tricks. Are we damaged here and deserving of a correction? Or is there something to Director's assertion that had the auction/alerts played out "as it should have", we wouldn't have been able to double 3H, and thus a correction isn't justified?

The TD is wrong. You are entitled to the correct explanation, whether NS bid correctly or not. The fact that the opponents need to remember their system to explain it, and if they would have remembered they might have bid differently is irrelevant. They bid like they did (whatever the reason) and you are entitled to the correct explanation of their agreements (even if they have forgotten them).

bd71, on 2014-June-25, 10:42, said:

2. Did I put my side at risk by calling the director and asking to talk to him away from the table to mention that I would have doubled for a heart lead? On one hand, it seems important to make sure the Director knows what I would have done before we learn the details of the full hand. However, it doesn't take a big jump for partner to figure out why I might want to talk to the director here. So am I risking giving UI and constraining partner by asking to talk to the Director away from the table? If so, is there an alternative approach I should have taken to protect my side?

Yes and no. First of all, the TD should have been called (by your opponents) before the explanation was corrected. So, the mere fact that you wanted to see the TD doesn't do much. But you are not supposed to talk to the TD in private. The TD should simply rule:

- Your side's last pass may be changed. (I assume you don't want that.)
- Play continues.
- If you think you are damaged, please call me back.

If partner did not lead a heart, you think that you are damaged and you will call him again. He should adjust on the basis that you would have doubled 3♥ if you had known it was artificial. What happens after that is another question. I could even imagine that the TD considers it likely that your opponents, without a heart stop, would run to, say, 4♦ and will score +130 instead of +400/600.

If the TD doesn't adjust, either live with it or appeal.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Adjust to 3HX =

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2014-June-25, 11:22, said:

The TD is wrong. You are entitled to the correct explanation, whether NS bid correctly or not. The fact that the opponents need to remember their system to explain it, and if they would have remembered they might have bid differently is irrelevant. They bid like they did (whatever the reason) and you are entitled to the correct explanation of their agreements (even if they have forgotten them).

I agree. You could (or should be able to) get the correct information from their convention card anyway, regardless of alerts made or not made.

aguahombre, on 2014-June-25, 11:43, said:

Adjust to 3HX =

LOL, perhaps, but ruffs are not impossible.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-25, 11:11, said:

1. Law 12 says: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred."

They made exactly 3NT. Had the infraction not occurred, the expectation would have been that you would get a worse result, so you weren't damaged. If you weren't damaged, there should be no score adjustment. Directing the lead would not have got you a better score, so again you weren't damaged.

The question wasn't whether they were damaged in the actual result, but if they would have been damaged if partner did NOT lead a heart and they made 3 overtricks.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-June-25, 12:31, said:

The question wasn't whether they were damaged in the actual result, but if they would have been damaged if partner did NOT lead a heart and they made 3 overtricks.

Ah. Never mind then, I misread the OP.

The answer to this question is yes.