[chrism]

Scoring: IMP (VPs)

---

1NT[1] 2H Dbl[2] 4NT[3]
Pass 5H Dbl 6C
Dbl 6H Dbl All pass

Down 4, NS -800

[1] Announced, 12-16
[2] Alerted, explained as transfer
[3] Keycard for hearts

The actual EW agreement is that the first double was penalty.
This occurred in a team game played at home; although a director was available to give telephone rulings, he was not called, and the players solicited a ruling by email after the match (a procedure condoned by the Conditions of Contest).

All players are sound intermediate level. A poll of players of comparable level found nobody who would call 4NT whether they were given the correct or the incorrect explanation.

How would you rule?

[bluejak]

Where did this happen? Which country?

[aguahombre]

I guess the question I would ask would be: How would it change if the dbl was a transfer to spades? With a void in the trump suit, it doesn't seem to matter who has the queen, ten and two more hearts. Actually, the contract would likely go down even more if the overcaller did not have such a nice side source in spades(XX AKJXXXX QTX X or somesuch)

Wild guess this was in ACBL territory because that is where the poster lives. Are there jurisdictions where N/S could show damage?

[dburn]

aguahombre, on Jun 14 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

I guess the question I would ask would be: How would it change if the dbl was a transfer to spades? With a void in the trump suit, it doesn't seem to matter who has the queen, ten and two more hearts. Actually, the contract would likely go down even more if the overcaller did not have such a nice side source in spades(XX AKJXXXX QTX X or somesuch)

Wild guess this was in ACBL territory because that is where the poster lives. Are there jurisdictions where N/S could show damage?

North -South could show damage in just about any jurisdiction in the world, because North would not bid 6♥ if he knew that he had been doubled for penalty in 2♥. Instead, he would pass out 6♣ doubled, where his partner would go down three, and that appears to me a sensible adjustment.

[aguahombre]

Oh, I guess I misread that 4NT was KCB for hearts, which certainly would not be done with a void in hearts. Maybe North believed his partner, and believed his own eyes when seeing the club void ---then decided 6C was a follow-up of some kind.

[Fluffy]

dburn, on Jun 15 2010, 06:34 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 14 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

I guess the question I would ask would be: How would it change if the dbl was a transfer to spades? With a void in the trump suit, it doesn't seem to matter who has the queen, ten and two more hearts. Actually, the contract would likely go down even more if the overcaller did not have such a nice side source in spades(XX AKJXXXX QTX X or somesuch)

Wild guess this was in ACBL territory because that is where the poster lives. Are there jurisdictions where N/S could show damage?

North -South could show damage in just about any jurisdiction in the world, because North would not bid 6♥ if he knew that he had been doubled for penalty in 2♥. Instead, he would pass out 6♣ doubled, where his partner would go down three, and that appears to me a sensible adjustment.

the lead against 6♣ is not so obvious IMO, I'd weight in some spade and heart leads into the picture for an average.

[bluejak]

Either it is Law 12C1C territory or it is not. If it is not then you cannot weight. If it is then you can weight but you do not average.

[jdonn]

dburn, on Jun 15 2010, 01:34 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jun 14 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

I guess the question I would ask would be: How would it change if the dbl was a transfer to spades? With a void in the trump suit, it doesn't seem to matter who has the queen, ten and two more hearts. Actually, the contract would likely go down even more if the overcaller did not have such a nice side source in spades(XX AKJXXXX QTX X or somesuch)

Wild guess this was in ACBL territory because that is where the poster lives. Are there jurisdictions where N/S could show damage?

North -South could show damage in just about any jurisdiction in the world, because North would not bid 6♥ if he knew that he had been doubled for penalty in 2♥. Instead, he would pass out 6♣ doubled, where his partner would go down three, and that appears to me a sensible adjustment.

You might want to give the west hand, with double explained as a transfer, as a lead problem to a few people before you decide 6♣ will go down 3. I don't know how close leading either major comes to ridiculous, but it's within the realm of what I could imagine some players doing. Otherwise I agree with you.

[Keeper1]

Quote

Where did this happen? Which country?

Quote

Either it is Law 12C1C territory or it is not. If it is not then you cannot weight. If it is then you can weight but you do not average.

I can confirm this is ACBL-land (OP showed me the hand last week).
Do you give the same result for both sides?

[jeremy69]

Anyone for South's actions to be wild or gambling unless the jurisdiction is the local asylum?

[bluejak]

Keeper1, on Jun 15 2010, 06:04 PM, said:

Quote

Where did this happen? Which country?

Quote

Either it is Law 12C1C territory or it is not. If it is not then you cannot weight. If it is then you can weight but you do not average.

I can confirm this is ACBL-land (OP showed me the hand last week).
Do you give the same result for both sides?

I have not really come to any conclusion as to how or whether to adjust. But if we take the view expressed by dburn and a few others of adjusting to 6♣ doubled, I would not have the first idea what to lead from the West hand, so I might feel that splitting the score because of the number of tricks is reasonable. One, two and three off all depend on the lead: declarer is the non-offending side: perhaps a spade lead is "at all probable" but not "likely", so how about:

For N/S:
6♣ doubled -2, NS -300

For E/W:
6♣ doubled -1, NS -100

[aguahombre]

awkard in a home team game.

[dburn]

jeremy69, on Jun 15 2010, 12:11 PM, said:

Anyone for South's actions to be wild or gambling unless the jurisdiction is the local asylum?

Not really. If East has a penalty double, maybe North has his values outside hearts.

[Bbradley62]

jeremy69, on Jun 15 2010, 01:11 PM, said:

Anyone for South's actions to be wild or gambling unless the jurisdiction is the local asylum?

Yes. But that just means that NS is stuck with their RKC auction, although they get to not correct from 6♣ to 6♥. And if West continues to think 2♥ was a transfer, he very well may lead a small spade. -100 for NS.

How about -470 for EW?

[MFA]

I agree that south is stuck with his RKC-bidding in spite of the wrong explanation, but that north should be allowed to "undo" his 6♥ and pass 6♣X.

South is stuck with 4NT because it is a solo effort unrelated to the explanation - meaning that there was no damage (yet, north is damaged later in the bidding). Therefore it is unnecessary to judge if south was "wild or gambling" with 4NT, and we can conclude that both sides should have the same score.

In 6♣ declarer will get 9, 10, or 11 tricks, depending on the lead. 9 is probably a bit more likely than the others. But if no weighted scores are allowed in the jurisdiction, I would rule 6♣X 11 for both sides - feeling I would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the nonoffending side (NS). If weighted scores are allowed I would rule 1/3 6♣X-3, 1/3 6♣X-2 and 1/3 6♣X-1, again for both sides.

[chrism]

This was indeed in the world of ACBL, so no weighted scores. Non-reciprocal scores were a possibility, since this was a VP-scored game as part of an extended round robin championship.

The eventual ruling was 6CX-1 for NS, 5CX making for EW, on the grounds that it was "at all probable" that South would have attained a degree of sanity after a correct explanation, but not, in view of his choice at the table "likely". The ruling may well be rather harsh on the offenders, but the auction 1NT-2H-Dbl-5C-Dbl seems to meet the criterion for the offending side, and a S lead to partner's presumed suit (West can't wake up to the misexplanation) or a heart lead both seem as likely as anything.

[mink]

I like this ruling.

Karl