[Hanoi5]

---

At this table East opened 3♠ and South doubled for T.O. On the other side West alerted the real agreement: 3♠ was 'gambling' 3NT opening. West passed so that North (or East) reopened and so did North. East was happy to play 3♠x and go one down. What would you rule?

[gordontd]

You seem to be indicating that East & South were on the same side of the screen. Is that so?

[Hanoi5]

Yes, it is so.

[blackshoe]

I gather NS play double differently over a preemptive 3♠ than over the actual agreement?

[gordontd]

So the person who has been mis-informed as to the agreement is South, but it seems likely that he would double with the correct information anyway. (I'd need to check that point). Otherwise everyone has the information they are entitled to, so I'd expect the result to stand. Fixed by a misbid.

[dan_ehh]

If south had been given correct information, he would surely know something is wrong, because east cannot possibly have a true "gambling 3NT" bid looking at south's minor holdings.
South might choose to wait for west's (automatic?) 3NT bid and only THEN double. Maybe he would pass because X would show spades in their system? Maybe he would bid 3NT because he is afraid partner will bid spades?

In other words, south might be able to make a much more intelligent decision, and so I think I would not let the result stand. Not sure what I would adjust it to, however. That would depend on the NS agreements and also the EW agreements (if 3♠ forces partner to bid 3NT then passing first and doubling later looks rather clear).

[FrancesHinden]

South is the one who has been misinformed, so we need to know what he would do over a 3S opening showing a 'gambling 3NT'. I assume double would show spades, so South would either bid 3NT (making 11 on a minor suit lead), or pass then double later. He knows that West will probably bid 4m (pass or correct), and East will think that's a cue for spades (or whatever their methods are). After ...4C P 4D (cue) x P P 4S x I think West is entitled to wake up to what's happened.

So depending on the vulnerability, I assume either 3NT+2 or 4Sx-2

[bluejak]

dan_ehh, on Dec 6 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

If south had been given correct information, he would surely know something is wrong, because east cannot possibly have a true "gambling 3NT" bid looking at south's minor holdings.

Players are not always purists: during this week an opponent opened 3NT, alerted, and described by his partner as "Ay-col". I checked: yes he meant a solid minor and a pre-empt. I held Qxx in both minors. They just did not know what they were doing, and we duly gave them a top. I do not believe we were misinformed

[MFA]

To give a ruling we need to know about NS's agreements after a '3♠ gambling 3NT' opening.

[dan_ehh]

bluejak, on Dec 7 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

dan_ehh, on Dec 6 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

If south had been given correct information, he would surely know something is wrong, because east cannot possibly have a true "gambling 3NT" bid looking at south's minor holdings.

Players are not always purists: during this week an opponent opened 3NT, alerted, and described by his partner as "Ay-col". I checked: yes he meant a solid minor and a pre-empt. I held Qxx in both minors. They just did not know what they were doing, and we duly gave them a top. I do not believe we were misinformed

You are correct.

However, Qxx is not the same as QJxx. The chances of you holding QJxx in the opponent's "solid 7 card suit" are much lower than the chances of you holding Qxx in the opponent's "solid 7 card suit". So South might not "surely know" something is wrong, but it is likely that he he will.
Also, this was a screened event where, in my experience, the quality of the game is usually higher than standard, and players usually know what they are doing. Of course this point may be moot, considering the fact that East forgot the system he was playing.

Anyway, as noted before by myself and others, the ruling depends very much on the NS and EW agreements.