[DWM]

Bidding goes from north in UK

1NT - 3D - X - P
3S - passed out

before doubling south asked if the 3D was preemptive or normal (there was no alert of the bid).

South is a beginner and said not sure. It was written on thier card that they played ASPTRO as a defence to 1NT.

At the end of the bidding South requested to reserve his rights.

The double was not alerted.

After the play (3♠-1) the TD was called. The hands were as shown. At the table the TD changed the score to (3♦-2). I am fairly certain this is wrong, but woudl like to know what if anything should have been done by the TD.

I would have given NS a word about tryign to have a double shot at this hand and let the score stand.

---

[Hanoi5]

I would have changed the score, too...but to 3♠-2.

Anyway remember there is now a special forum for laws and this kind of questions.

[Free]

Do you know why it was changed?
Is there a difference between "normal" and "preemptive"?
Why did North bid 3♠ and not 3♥?

[DWM]

It was changed because South claimed that he would not have bid if he knew east could have been that 'strong'

I have not got a clue about why the bid was 3♠ and not 3♥. Probably a similar reason to why you would want to compete at the 3 level with a 4-3-3-4 9 point hand oposite a weak NT.

Thinking about it more it stinks of south asking a question to try and get a double chance through misinformation as he knew the E-W point count to 2 points and the distribution of points between the two hands is of little importance. It is reasonable to assume that regardless of the strength of easts hand it must have at least 6 diamonds to suggest a new suit at the 3 level.

Did not realise the different place to post this, sorry

[ArtK78]

East can bid on anything that East wants to bid on. Can't imagine why North-South would be entitled to any kind of redress. I looked up ASPRTO and found that the 3♦ bid is not defined in ASPTRO, but 2♦ is two-suited. Presumably, a double shows a good hand, so 3♦ has to be natural and preemptive. North-South should use common sense to work that out.

By the way, I always compete at the three level with 4-3-3-4 distribution. I find that the 14th card is very useful. It almost always takes an extra trick, since the other hands run out of cards by trick 14.

[iviehoff]

You would get more expert comment if you posted this in the Simple Rulings branch of forum, near the bottom of the page.

The only law of interest is misinformation. In such cases we can also look for abuse of unauthorised information, or fielded misbid, but neither appear relevant.

The ruling looks odd. The TD ruled that differently informed S would not double. This is far from obvious, and we are not even told that S made representations to this effect, or that the TD enquired how NS might have bid if differently informed.

Since W is a beginner, it seems likely that EW have not made any explicit agreement as to the strength of 3D. South's question was not in proper form, offering W a choice of two options neither of which might in fact be a correct explanation, and appears likely to confuse a weak player. If south had called the director on receiving an unsatisfactory answer, W could have been sent away from the table and E given the actual agreement, if any. On balance, the absence of explanation that S got seems reasonable, given his unfair question. E's bid was most likely a misjudgment rather than in accordance with an undisclosed agreement.

North, who heard the same absence-of-explanation as South, thought South's double was for take-out, when South probably wanted it to be for penalties. It looks to me that NS had their own misunderstanding, and being subsequent to E's misjudged bid, the table score was the score NS deserved. No adjustment.

[Codo]

Souths claim sucks. It does not matter for his bid whether East or West has more of the missing HCPs.

Result stands, no returning of the fee at the AC.