[CSGibson]

I'm going to float this situation to you: Opps open a 15-17 NT in first seat. The direct seat, looking at Kxx AJTxxxx xx x puts a 2♥ call onto the table, forgetting they are playing DONT. The call is not alerted, but the 2♥ overcaller remembers that they were playing DONT after LHO passes. Partner also passes, and the NT bidder makes a take-out double. The opps wind up in 3♦, making.

While it doesn't seem to matter in this case (3♦ was a good spot, the heart overcaller's partner has Kx of hearts & the first 7 tricks run in NT), it turns out that both ends of the partnership overcalling hearts forgot their agreements in a congruent manner (i.e., they did not explain their agreements properly, but in forgetting to do so, they were accurate in the nature of the hand that was overcalled).

Have you encountered similar situations? If so, what have been the nature of director rulings when less beneficial outcomes have occurred for the non-offending opps?

[helene_t]

This occurs quite frequently, especially at my Dutch club but also here in England.

I don't recall the TD has ever been called. I don't think there would be any reason to, either, unless opps are damaged by the confusion from reading DONT (or whatever) on the CC.

[JLOL]

Yeah in effect there was no mi, how could the opps claim to be damaged?

[kenrexford]

This is sort of weird.

If Advancer had a pass of a 2♥ call asking for a choice of major suit, then the failure to alert did not give misinformation as to the inferences to be drawn from Advancer's pass either, which is also a concern. So, if the opponents did not look at the CC, then perhaps no harm no foul from an equitable stance. There was still misinformation provided, technically, namely as to what overcaller is supposed to have.

I think I'd assess a procedural penalty, however.