[wyman]

MPs, vul: E/W

N E S W
1N - X - XX - 2H
AP

1N 12-14
X business
XX bid your better minor
2H to play

No alerts. N understood the XX to be bid your better minor.

E/W had a balanced 18 with 3 hearts opposite 9 with 5 hearts. S had a minor suited bust.

Table result: 2H+2, +170.

After the play, W immediately asked S about the XX and was given the correct explanation. E/W calls the director and asks for a ruling. Your decision?

[hrothgar]

Just to be clear

1. South has a single suited hand with one long minor
2. South's XX was explained as a two suited hand with both minors

Let's ignore the whole misbid verus mistaken explanation angle...

I'd start by asking E/W to provide some plausible way that they were damaged by the misinformation...

[wyman]

hrothgar, on May 21 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

Just to be clear

1. South has a single suited hand with one long minor
2. South's XX was explained as a two suited hand with both minors

Let's ignore the whole misbid verus mistaken explanation angle...

I'd start by asking E/W to provide some plausible way that they were damaged by the misinformation...

No! Sorry if I misexplained:

South has exactly what he promised: a minor 2-suiter. He has no values, clearly.

The XX was not alerted, so W thought it was a business XX and bid 2H. E/W claim they might bid to 4H if XX is explained correctly.

[TylerE]

No adjustment. How can W possibly think the XX was to play? Is he thinking his partner made a penalty X of a strong NT on a 6 count? Also, I think a XX here has to be self alerting.

[kenrexford]

I think we need to know the hand. If the double showed what is described, and if Advancer has a clear 4♥ call, then Advnacer should have asked, or maybe even known.

[hrothgar]

wyman, on May 21 2010, 05:27 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 21 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

Just to be clear

1.  South has a single suited hand with one long minor
2.  South's XX was explained as a two suited hand with both minors

Let's ignore the whole misbid verus mistaken explanation angle...

I'd start by asking E/W to provide some plausible way that they were damaged by the misinformation...

No! Sorry if I misexplained:

South has exactly what he promised: a minor 2-suiter. He has no values, clearly.

The XX was not alerted, so W thought it was a business XX and bid 2H. E/W claim they might bid to 4H if XX is explained correctly.

Sorry about that

I'd need to see the E/W hands to see whether there is a plausible path to 4♥ given the correct information

[wyman]

Let's assume that without the XX, or with the appropriate alerts, there is a reasonable path to 4H. I don't have the hands.

My concern about the hand is essentially Ken and Tyler's.

[campboy]

TylerE, on May 21 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

No adjustment. How can W possibly think the XX was to play? Is he thinking his partner made a penalty X of a strong NT on a 6 count? Also, I think a XX here has to be self alerting.

Perhaps West didn't think the redouble was to play (after all, if he did he would surely have passed it). It is East who has the problem here. If redouble was to play, then his partner's bid does not show values and he wants to pass; if it was forcing then his partner's bid shows values. Unlike West, he has no reason to think redouble was anything other than to play.

The OP didn't say what country this occurred in, but if it was the EBU then the redouble should have been alerted. If it was the ACBL it is less clear; is this a "highly unusual or unexpected meaning"? I don't know, there are lots of reasonably common meanings for redouble here, and I doubt this specific one is in the top three (though "to play" probably is).

[wyman]

This was in ACBL-land. The XX is required to be alerted.

Regarding the previous post, penalizing N/S for W misleading E by bidding 2H seems inappropriate.

[aguahombre]

wyman, on May 21 2010, 08:46 AM, said:

My concern about the hand is essentially Ken and Tyler's.

As it should be. Focus on West. He stated he assumed XX was to play, and therefore --though not stated in the post -- must have concluded that the doubler was screwing around? Not necessarily.

All we know is what West thought, and what he bid. He didn't say that he (West) would have done something differently at that point. Yes, we need to see the e/w hands, and we need to know what East assumed. Perhaps West's 2H was a normal bid, non-invite which East chose to pass with a mountain because the redouble made West's call seem even weaker than it was.

If that is the case, I can see adjustment. If West grossly underbid at his first opportunity, then Tyler's conclusion of no adjustment is valid.

edit: Campboy covered the gist of this, while I was fumbling; so there is duplication.

[campboy]

Do you have an authoritive source for the claim that the redouble is alertable? The ACBL alert chart says that redoubles are only alertable if they have "highly unusual or unexpected meanings"; redouble being forcing is neither highly unusual nor unexpected here.

Anyway, if we assume that the redouble should have been alerted then I imagine that had it been alerted West would still have bid 2♥ but East would not have passed it (indeed, I would play it as forcing if redouble is artificial). That means that the failure to alert has damaged EW. If you think that EW contributed to their own bad score by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or wild or gambling action then you might deny them redress, but it is still correct to adjust for NS.

[wyman]

campboy, on May 21 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

I imagine that had it been alerted West would still have bid 2♥ but East would not have passed it (indeed, I would play it as forcing if redouble is artificial).

Hmm. I think that this is a highly nonstandard agreement, and that bidding by west shows a hand with hearts and no game interest.

[campboy]

With a hand with hearts and no game interest I would pass and then protect over 2m; I would have thought that was standard, though we should of course be asking EW what their agreements are.

[wyman]

campboy, on May 21 2010, 10:51 AM, said:

though we should of course be asking EW what their agreements are.

Of course.

Assume E/W have not discussed their defense to weak NT other than "Capp".

[blackshoe]

It's still not clear to me precisely what NS's agreement regarding the redouble is. Does it show a two suited hand? If so, of what strength? Or does it ask North to bid his better minor? Or does it do both? Or does it do or show something else (e.g. "SOS")?

[wyman]

blackshoe, on May 21 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

It's still not clear to me precisely what NS's agreement regarding the redouble is. Does it show a two suited hand? If so, of what strength? Or does it ask North to bid his better minor? Or does it do both? Or does it do or show something else (e.g. "SOS")?

NS only agreement is that XX asks N to bid his better minor. Could be a variety of hands.

[peachy]

wyman, on May 21 2010, 10:44 AM, said:

campboy, on May 21 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

I imagine that had it been alerted West would still have bid 2♥ but East would not have passed it (indeed, I would play it as forcing if redouble is artificial).

Hmm. I think that this is a highly nonstandard agreement, and that bidding by west shows a hand with hearts and no game interest.

"Nonstandard" does not readily translate into "alertable", the Dbl or Rdbl also has to be highly unexpected or unusual. And, first one needs to establish what Standard is. I think the ACBL Alert regs could use some tightening up but as they are, I don't think it is at all clear whether the XX should be alerted. I would lean toward non-alertable but could possibly be persuaded to change my mind with valid arguments.

[bluejak]

Ok, if it is not alertable then table result stands because there is no infraction and this hand is of no interest.

So let us assume that the redouble is alertable. Yet again there are a number of posters who seem to think that players who cheat, pardon me, do not follow the rules of the game should gain from their cheating, pardon me, from their failure to follow the rules of the game.

Why?

Simple: because there is a growing feeling that non-offenders should suffer because it must be their fault that they are victims.

Ok, now let us consider the Law, and forget this growing idea [which my American friends tell me is becoming a normal part of American life] that victims are responsible for being victims.

Might E/W have reached game if the redouble had been alerted? Yes? Then they were damaged, and we adjust for N/S to a score that reflects that.

Now we look at Law 12C1B and consider whether N/S should get full redress as well. If we consider their actions as SEWoG then they get less or no redress. But we still adjust for N/S.

[ahydra]

Quote

Now we look at Law 12C1B and consider whether N/S should get full redress as well. If we consider their actions as SEWoG then they get less or no redress.

Did you mean E/W? And I'd certainly consider bidding a non-forcing 2H with a nine count opposite a natural X of 1NT a serious error

ahydra

[TylerE]

bluejak, on May 21 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

Yet again there are a number of posters who seem to think that players who cheat, pardon me, do not follow the rules of the game should gain from their cheating, pardon me, from their failure to follow the rules of the game.

Because failure to at least investigate game feels an awful lot like a fielded psyche? The only reason for it would be that you're playing your partner to not have a penalty double of 1N.