[duschek]

Scoring: IMP

W N E S
-.-.P.P
1H.X.2D.P
4H.X.P.5C
P.P.X.P
P.P

---

The bidding requires a bit of explanation:

• 1♥ promises at least 5 cards.
  
• North's double shows an overcall in spades, with no upper limit on the strength.
  
• East correctly explained 2♦ as natural. However, West did not see South's alert of the double, and she explained it as a sound heart raise.
  
• Norths second double shows cards, takeout-oriented.

Obviously, South is to blame for West not noticing the alert of the transfer double. However, it turned out that West's explanation would be wrong even if the double were an ordinary takeout double! The correct explanation after a takeout double would have been a goodish hand with a 5-card suit (i.e., more or less the same as in the actual case).

How would you rule?
a. given the facts as stated.
b. if West did notice the alert.

[blackshoe]

Where did this take place? Were screens in use?

[mink]

If West did notice the alert for north's first double but nevertheless gave the wrong explanation that 2♦ is a sound ♥ raise, it is likely that South would not bid 5♣, because in case of a ♥ raise North is likely to be void in ♥ and 5♣ looks makable. Considering the situation with the correct explanation it is more likely that both 4♥ and 5♣ will be down. So I adjust to W:4Hx-2.

About the unseen alert, my first guess is that West would bid 4♥ even if knowing about the alert. However, I would like to know what West said if and why she would have bid something else.

Karl

[bluejak]

That's one heck of penalty pass on the South hand with no tricks whatever, and not a single honour in th two suits bid by the opposition. I cannot believe it is a 100% action!

Some sort of weighted adjustment looks fairly obvious to me. We do not know what would have happened without the infraction - the suggested auction is fairly improbable.

[mrdct]

Situation A (as has occurred at the table) is a case of South not properly alerting the 1st Dbl. Any damage that has resulted for NS is their own fault so no adjustment. As an aside, when I play with screens I am quite an overt alerter. For partner's bids I usually vigourously point at the artificial call and simulataneously make eye-contact with my screenmate to make sure he's seen the alert. For my own bids I usually hold my bid above the tray and wave it about to attract my screenmate's attention before placing it on the tray and pointing at it just to be sure. By a rough estimate of the number of tournaments that I've played with screens over the years, I'm sure that I've played well over a thousand hands with screens and I've never had a "failed to notice an alert" situation arise.

Situation B is West giving an incorrect explanation of the 2♦ bid which appears to have resulted in damage to NS as if South had been correctly informed that East has ♦ and has not shown ♥ support, she would be unlikely to bid over 4♥x. I tend to agree with mink's proposed adjustment to 4♥x-2, although if we are in a jurisdiction where weighted rulings can be given I might be inclined to give a modest percentage to 4♥x-1 as 9 tricks are easy on a non-trump lead which might occur and even on a trump lead NS could get it wrong and not find a way to South's hand for a 2nd round of trumps.

[campboy]

I don't see the connection between the two infractions, since West's explanation was just wrong in any case. I find it hard to believe that he is more likely to know his agreements after 1♥ (dbl) showing spades than after 1♥ (dbl) for takeout.

It is not obvious to me why either North or South would act differently with correct information, but that is what polling is for. I would expect to give some proportion of the table result though, if I adjusted at all.

[duschek]

Thanks for your comments.

blackshoe, on Nov 24 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

Where did this take place? Were screens in use?

"Denmark, screens" it said in the topic description

mink, on Nov 24 2009, 08:25 PM, said:

About the unseen alert, my first guess is that West would bid 4♥ even if knowing about the alert. However, I would like to know what West said if and why she would have bid something else.

Personally, I think that West would have bid 2♥ only. Spades are stacked behind you, partner made no indication of support.

bluejak, on Nov 24 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

That's one heck of penalty pass on the South hand with no tricks whatever, and not a single honour in th two suits bid by the opposition.  I cannot believe it is a 100% action!

Some sort of weighted adjustment looks fairly obvious to me.  We do not know what would have happened without the infraction - the suggested auction is fairly improbable.

The committee said that while it was not unlikely that South would have passed, given the correct explanation, they felt that passing would actually be less likely than in the actual case. Hence the damage did not result from the infraction. Score stands.

mrdct, on Nov 24 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

Situation A (as has occurred at the table) is a case of South not properly alerting the 1st Dbl.

I am unsure whether the committee considered this question. After all, West's explanation could never be right in their system. If they did play transfers over takeout doubles, there would obviously be no case.

mrdct, on Nov 24 2009, 09:10 PM, said:

For partner's bids I usually vigourously point at the artificial call and simulataneously make eye-contact with my screenmate to make sure he's seen the alert.

The committee asked South whether he had eye-contact with West when alerting, to which he said "no". Perhaps we should publish a "screens for dummies" to the players (does anyone have something simpler than boring regulations to give to the players?), because better information to the players might have prevented the case altogether.

[blackshoe]

duschek, on Nov 28 2009, 03:47 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 24 2009, 08:15 PM, said:

Where did this take place? Were screens in use?

"Denmark, screens" it said in the topic description

Yeah, I noticed that eventually. What's that saying? "I'm so broke, I can't even pay attention."

[bluejak]

duschek, on Nov 28 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 24 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

That's one heck of penalty pass on the South hand with no tricks whatever, and not a single honour in th two suits bid by the opposition.  I cannot believe it is a 100% action!

Some sort of weighted adjustment looks fairly obvious to me.  We do not know what would have happened without the infraction - the suggested auction is fairly improbable.

The committee said that while it was not unlikely that South would have passed, given the correct explanation, they felt that passing would actually be less likely than in the actual case. Hence the damage did not result from the infraction. Score stands.

I am not quite sure I understand this. Are they saying that South is more likely to pass when he is told that it shows a raise then when he is told it does not? If so, I think the Committee just wrong.

Surely with a correct explanation South is more likely to pass the double, and that is all that is needed for a weighted score adjustment. A large percentage of table result stands plus a small percentage of 4♥ doubled -1.

Incidentally I cannot find that you told us what the ruling was nor the result at the table, so I am assuming 5♣ went one off.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Nov 28 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Are they saying that South is more likely to pass when he is told that it shows a raise then when he is told it does not?  If so, I think th eCommittee just wrong.

That's what they said, or rather, that's what the TD said when communicating the AC's ruling to us. More precisely, I think he quoted them as saying "if anything, South is less likely, not more, to find the correct action if given the correct explanation".

bluejak, on Nov 28 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Surely with a correct explanation South is more likely to pass the double, and that is all that is needed for a weighted score adjustment.  A large percentage of table result stands plus a small percentage of 4♥ doubled -1.

I agree with you that if a correct explanation would make a pass by South more likely (and that West is held responsible even in light of South's failure to alert properly due to the special circumstances), an adjusted score is in order, probably a weighted score between the table result and one or two doubled undertricks at 4♥.

bluejak, on Nov 28 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

Incidentally I cannot find that you told us what the ruling was nor the result at the table, so I am assuming 5♣ went one off.

Sorry. It was two off (diamond led at trick one or two, getting a diamond ruff).

At first, the TD had no information that 2♦ could never be a transfer in E/W's methods, so obviously ruled result stands. The fact that the explanation was wrong regardless of the meaning of the double came about shortly before the right to appeal expired. For some reason, maybe due to the time schedule, the TD decided not to reconsider the case but instead encouraged N/S to file an appeal.

[FrancesHinden]

The fact that West didn't see South's alert seems completely irrelevant to me. It transpires that whatever the double meant, 2D was systemically natural and constructive. So I do not think EW are damaged or that this affected the auction.

The only relevant question is if South would bid differently with the correct information. Certainly he would if he knew that East meant 2D as natural and West thought it was a heart raise. But he's not entitled to know that. If he hears the auction 1H x (spades) 2d (nat) P 4H x (takeout) P ? he might think that partner has a heart void, spades and clubs. Give partner

KQxxx
-
Axxx
AQxx

and and 4H and 5C are likely to be making.

So I agree with a 3-way weighted score between the table result, 4Hx-1 and 4Hx-2