[kgr]

Rem: I'm not sure about these actual hands:

Scoring: MP

---

1♣-(1NT)-Pass-(2♦) (*)
DBL-(Pass)-Pass-(2♥)
Pass-(Pass)-3♦-AP
(*): 2♦ was not alerted and I (Dealer) asked about the 2♦ bid and was told it was to play. I kind of thought it was transfer so I asked LHO if he was sure and he said Yes.
No convention cards.
3♦ did go -1.
What is the normal ruling for this?
Without convention cards you assume that the explanation was wrong (?) and with the correct explanation South would have passed, West also passes (because he only knows the wrong explanation) and North passes and they play 2♦?

[gordontd]

kgr, on Jul 21 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

with the correct explanation South would have passed, West also passes (because he only knows the wrong explanation) and North passes and they play 2♦?

This seems correct.

[bluejak]

kgr, on Jul 21 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

Without convention cards you assume that the explanation was wrong ...

Not automatically. You decide whether they have an agreement and what it was based on all available evidence, but the evidence is considerably weaker without SCs. But you do not make it an automatic conclusion.

For example, if you play somewhere where SCs are unknown [SABF Nationals, for example] you do not automatically assume that no-one knows their system. But they need stronger arguments.

[mich-b]

Why did North bid 3♦?
Did he hear West's explanation that 2♦ is natural , which makes South's double a t/o double with short ♦s?

Unless they were playing with screens (so that North did not get West's explanation) , I dont understand North's bid - am I missing something?

[kgr]

bluejak, on Jul 21 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

kgr, on Jul 21 2010, 11:02 AM, said:

Without convention cards you assume that the explanation was wrong ...

Not automatically. You decide whether they have an agreement and what it was based on all available evidence, but the evidence is considerably weaker without SCs. But you do not make it an automatic conclusion.

For example, if you play somewhere where SCs are unknown [SABF Nationals, for example] you do not automatically assume that no-one knows their system. But they need stronger arguments.

Yes, that what I meant.
LHO said that it was clearly no transfer because he already denied the Majors (?) and RHO said that it was transfer.

[barmar]

kgr, on Jul 21 2010, 08:44 AM, said:

LHO said that it was clearly no transfer because he already denied the Majors (?) and RHO said that it was transfer.

He denied the 4-card spade suit that he actually holds?

[CamHenry]

Without evidence to the contrary, we presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid. System cards are a convincing form of evidence, but are not the only form. Unless EW both say it's to play, and there's evidence that they've bid it to play in the past, I'm ruling MI.

Let's see what happens if it IS an MI case. South presumably passes, West passes (because HE still thinks it's to play), and North most likely passes as the evidence suggests that his double would be takeout. Contract is therefore 2D (E), which goes 2 or 3 off (maybe 4 on a bad day). I therefore sit and consider which result is most likely in 2D(E), and award both sides that score. If the jurisdiction permits, I may award a weighted score under Law 12D.

It's worth noting that, if N doubles 2D for penalties, E is entitled to pull to 2H - at which point we're back in the auction at the table, so I give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS.