[zasanya]

I was officiating in a pairs tournament because the regular TDs were not available that day.I was also playing in this tournament.
On 1 table the dealer opened 1♣precision and the uncontested auction went 1♦-1NT-3♣.At this point dealers rho asked the meaning of the auction till then and it was explained to him that 1♣ was 16+;1NT was 16-18 and the dealer explained his Partners 1♦ and 3♣ as showing less than 8 points and 6 card ♣ suit .Now opener who had ♣Q 10 x bid 3NT and openers RHO doubled and openers P redoubled!The opening lead was a ♠ and dummy came down with 11 points and 2 rags of ♣.At this point the doubler called me and asked me to allow him to retract the double as the double was based on wrong info provided.Responder's contention was that he and his P were playing for the first time and a ♣ had got mixed with his ♠ and he thought that he had a 4-4-4-1 hand and he meant to show 8+ hand with ♣ singleton and realized his mistake only when he put down the dummy.I had played that hand earlier and knew that the doubler had only 2 Js and asked him why he doubled to which his reply was that he thought his 5 card ♣ J would stop the run of the presumed ♣ and the declarer may have a combied asset of only 23 points and cards in other suits would be badly placed for declarer and contract was likely to go down.
I gave the decision that the result stands 3NTxx and asked them to play and warned the declarer that there could be a procedural penalty against them.
Should the TD adjust the contract to 3NT?

[hrothgar]

This case raises three important points:

1. From the sounds of things, the 3♣ bidder's impossible negative was based on a 3=4=4=2 pattern rather than a 4=4=4=1.

Players are allowed to mis sort their hand. I don't think that this has any bearing on the case.

2. Things get ugly when players don't have firm agreements about different sequences.

The 1♣ opener thought that partner was showing a hand with a long club suit.
The 3♣ bidder believed that he was showing an impossible positive.

Its a fact of life that players won't have every auction defined. Even so, any experienced Precision partnership should know whether or not they are playing an impossible positive.

The most important issue is to determine whether the 3♣ bid was a misbid or (alternatively) whether the 1♣ opener provided mis-information. From what I can tell, the burden of proof presumes mis-information. (The partnership MUST be able able to provide a Convention Card or system notes that prove that are not playing an unusual negative). If there are unable to do so, this is a standard misinformation case.

3. I have some sympathy for the player who doubled 3NT. Opener is (apparently) trying to shot out 3N based on a running club suit. Holding 5 clubs to the Jack, its apparent that the club suit won't run. The double is risky, but I wouldn't consider this wild, irrational or gambling.

If you find that there was mis-information, an adjustment is warranted
If you find that 3♣ was a misbid, than no adjustment

In either case, a procedural penalty may be warranted.

[jdonn]

Richard, am I correct in assuming you think the doubler deserves no protection essentially because his double was ridiculous? But in that case, why do you have sympathy for im? Either his double was a reasonable shot based on misinformation and he does deserve protection, or it was ridiculous and he doesn't, one way or the other that seems to be the crux of this decision.

[jillybean]

Difficult decision
As far as I can tell it was only the rho who gave explanations of the bidding, even though self alerts/explanations are needed for online bridge.
If the explanation was given to the table then lho must correct the mis information before the end of the auction and the opps are permitted to change their bids.

I think I would adjust to 3n=

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on May 18 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

Richard, am I correct in assuming you think the doubler deserves no protection essentially because his double was ridiculous? But in that case, why do you have sympathy for im? Either his double was a reasonable shot based on misinformation and he does deserve protection, or it was ridiculous and he doesn't, one way or the other that seems to be the crux of this decision.

I made some substantial edits...

Hopefully things are more clear now

[skjaeran]

The pair didn't have an agreement regarding this sequence.
When an explanation doesn't fit the hand and they can't provide documentation that the explanation is according to agreement (here they obviously can't), you rule misinformation.

Here that means you adjust to 3NT for the offending (the declaring) side.
Whether you adjust for the defenders too depends upon how you judge the double. If you find it "wild, irrational and gambling" (or whatever your SO rules say), you let the opponents keep their bad result. Otherwise you adjust for them too.

Jillybean, this is in the Offline-Bridge forum. I guess that means this occured f2f.

[hotShot]

The doubler correctly analyzed, opponents bidding from their explanations. Opps don't have enough strength, if the ♣ suit does not run.

So double is not IWoG, so if I rule MI than it's 3NT=.

If the offenders did not hand their system notes to me, this MI.

[jtfanclub]

I don't know, it's close. Default is that 3♣ here is not an impossible negative*...responder just bids 2♣ Stayman and then takes it to the appropriate game without ever revealing his 11 count. But without documentation (a book they were using, for example) the rules say play as if the explanation is correct. So I would remove the X.

*at least, the way I learned Precision.

[jillybean]

skaeran, on May 18 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

Jillybean, this is in the Offline-Bridge forum. I guess that means this occured f2f.

Ah, I missed that small but vital gem of information

[barmar]

jillybean2, on May 18 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

skaeran, on May 18 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

Jillybean, this is in the Offline-Bridge forum. I guess that means this occured f2f.

Ah, I missed that small but vital gem of information

What about the part where he misbid because he had a ♣ in with his ♠? Have you recently seen an online bridge service make this mistake?

[jillybean]

barmar, on May 18 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

jillybean2, on May 18 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

skaeran, on May 18 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

Jillybean, this is in the Offline-Bridge forum. I guess that means this occured f2f.

Ah, I missed that small but vital gem of information

What about the part where he misbid because he had a ♣ in with his ♠? Have you recently seen an online bridge service make this mistake?

Ok, I missed that one too..."a ♣ had got mixed with his ♠ " can easily be iterpreted as "he had ♣ and ♠ mixed up" ..it happens to me all the time

[blackshoe]

It sounds to me like opener's RHO is vaguely familiar with Law 21, which would allow a player to change a call based on MI in certain circumstances - those being (1) before the opening lead is faced and (2) provided his partner has not subsequently called. In this case, both caveats apply, so no, he can't withdraw his double.

The TD can adjust the score, of course, under Laws 21B3, 40C, and 12C2. However, there is the little requirement that there be damage, which you can't determine until the hand has been played out. You cannot give a ruling on whether a result stands or not until after you have a result! Did the contract make?

I agree that the double does not seem to be IWoG or "failing to play bridge", so if the contract did make I would adjust to 3NT making for both sides.

[zasanya]

Thank you all for the replies.
To clarify certain points raised by some of the posters.
Blackshoe, the contract made with two overtricks.North south had 29 points and 4-4 ♥ fit.11 tricks were makable in 4 ♥ and 3 nt.3nt making 11 was already above average for declarer as some pairs played in 4♥ and 2 actually went dn in 6♥.
jtfanclub,as you have rightly pointed out responders method of impossible negative is different than the traditional method.This happens to be a home grown variety used by some in our club.Opener and responder had agreed to play 'impossible negative"Their definitions however differed.
skaeran,unfortunately i interpreted the double as irrational,wild and gambling.I have now an uncomfortable feeling that I may be biased.I know the 4 players well and the doubler has often in the past made bids which his admirers called bold and imaginative and I dubbed IWoG.I must keep a more open mind in future.
Fortunately,even after an adjustment and a procedural penalty the results would not change.