[plaur]

Scoring: IMP

p - p - 1NT - 2♠*1
3NT-4♥*2 - X - p
p - 5♦ - X - p
p - p *3

---

How would you rule on this?
Jurisdiction Denmark. Local clubgame, 32 board swiss teams match.

*1 East alerts and explains "2♠ is both majors, can be 4-4"
*2 After East has bid 4♥ East says "On no, 2♠ was both minors!" Director called. He says continue, I will rule after game if needed.
*3 Before lead West explains "2♠ is spades and a minor"

EW agreement is "2♠ is spades and a minor"
5♦ X made 10 for -100
Director ruled NS get to play 4♥ making 10 for 620

The board was played 14 times that night with results:
5♥ doubled making 10, once
4♥ making 9, twice
4♥ making 10, six times
5♦ doubled making 10, four times
6♦ doubled making 10, once

[blackshoe]

The results elsewhere are irrelevant.

Unless there is evidence not presented here that West in some way provided UI that might have awakened East, the 5♦ bid should have been allowed. Result stands.

[campboy]

Perhaps the director was ruling based on MI rather than UI? It seems likely that North will bid 3♥ rather than 3NT with correct info. However, East will probably still decide his partner has shown the minors and bid 5♦. So I agree that the table score should stand.

[plaur]

There was no UI. Director commented that NS was damaged by the wrong explanation and that with correct explanation NS would have found 4♥ and that EW might not have found 5♦.

[ggwhiz]

It looks like West did nothing to take advantage and was ethically prepared to go out on his shield when he passed the double of 4H. East woke up on his own (sort of) with a second mis-explanation?

Since N/S can't make anything above 5D, I can't see awarding anything but the table result but would make East buy the first round.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on Jan 19 2010, 03:28 AM, said:

Perhaps the director was ruling based on MI rather than UI? It seems likely that North will bid 3♥ rather than 3NT with correct info. However, East will probably still decide his partner has shown the minors and bid 5♦. So I agree that the table score should stand.

I agree that N will bid 3H correctly informed. But how do things proceed?

On the one hand, I don't think we can allow E to wake up to his error a round earlier than he actually did, so I don't think we can allow E to bid diamonds at this point. On the other hand, E is entitled to a correct explanation of N's likely call of 3H, and so I don't think we can require E to bid 4H at this point, as he might if he thought N's 3H was a conventional bid over W's "advertised" H suit. Double doesn't seem likely either. So I think we probably have to assume that a rather confused E passes at this point, wondering why there are at least 15 hearts in the deck.

But after S's 4H comes back to E, in real life he has now woken up to the idea of his partner having the minors. Would he wake up on this different auction? Was it being doubled in 4H that woke him up? Probably not, because he must always have expected to be doubled in 4H. So I think E simply woke up through the effluxion of time and will wake up in the revised auction. What is the likelihood that E will now bid 5D? I don't think it is as certain as him bidding it as in the actual auction - then he was pushed there after realising he was doubled in a stupid contract. And voluntarily sacrificing at the 5 level must be a bit less likely than voluntarily sacrificing at the 4 level, even at favourable vul.

So I think there should be a weighted score of 5DX-1 and 4H=, perhaps 33/67. If weighting is disenabled in Denmark, then I think the TD's decision is fair enough.

[bluejak]

Unlike under the previous Law book, I don't think weighting is disenabled anywhere except North America.

[mycroft]

If we are going to allow North to bid 3H (with a correct explanation), is East not going to double? Either it is penalty, or it is "I have heart support to go with your hearts" for when N-S find their real suit.

So N/S +730 or +930?

[lamford]

If 3H is non-forcing, I would agree that East might double it, but West is unlikely to stand that opposite a passed hand. Double should just be takeout anyway, asking West to bid spades with five, or his minor with only four.

It is quite difficult to weight, but I agree that some percentage of passing out 4H and bidding 5D seems appropriate, and iviehoff's 67/33 looks fine.

[campboy]

I had assumed when writing my previous post that 3♥ would be forcing, so no double. If it isn't then it it's not so obvious what North would bid.

[jdonn]

Since east (ultimately) believed 2♠ showed the minors he was always bidding 5♦. So N/S got the best result available to them. I don't believe any adjustment is warranted.

[iviehoff]

Actually it looks like the TD might have made a mistake. If he was called just after E's 4H bid, before S's call, then he should have offered N the opportunity to take back his 3N call.

If that had happened, and N had changed 3N to 3H, then E would have been in the position of bidding over 3H thinking that his partner has the minors and able to bid 4D. So it is not impossible there should be a split score (on the basis of director error), with EW retaining the table score. Though of course knowing that E has bid 4H over his 3N, N might well decide not to change 3N to 3H.

What happened at the table was taht E sacrificed at the 4 level over 3N, and then went to the 5 level to get out of a stupid contract. Is it really 100% certain that EW would sacrifice at the 5 level over 4H?

[campboy]

It looks much more attractive to sacrifice over 4♥ with a known 11-card fit than to sacrifice over 3NT with a possible 8-card fit.

[iviehoff]

Holding 4 trumps to Q10, probably well placed, an outside A and a void?