[Free]

aguahombre, on Aug 6 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Free, on Aug 6 2010, 02:19 AM, said:

Edited the original post to make things clear

- it's not a misbid, North admitted he forgot the agreement
- West can't dbl because Dbl is takeout

You need to edit your second post, too ----which says just the opposite and is the reason for most of the replies.

In that one you state that the 2H bidder misbid in your case. Maybe there are two Free's.

Done.

[blackshoe]

Maybe we should just toss this thread and start over.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Aug 6 2010, 09:08 AM, said:

Maybe we should just toss this thread and start over.

Yeah, I'm coming to this thread late, and wondering what all the confusion is about when the original post seemed so clear.

[blackshoe]

By agreement, 2♥ is a transfer. This requires an alert (Alert Procedure). There was no alert. Failure to alert when required is considered MI (Law 21B1a). South is required to call the TD after the final pass, and before the opening lead is chosen, and explain that there was a failure to alert. Instead, EW told him to explain the problem, which he did. Now South wants to abandon the hand, but EW demur, and the hand is played out. Again the TD was not called, while Law 68D says he must be called. After the hand, EW call the TD and ask for redress. Given all the procedural errors here, I'm inclined to rule result stands (Law 10) and assess a PP to both sides for multiple failures to call the TD. If this was a club game and both sides were totally clueless as to their legal obligations, I'd make the PP a warning.

[ggwhiz]

I thought it was a pretty clear situation.

Mis-information is a punishable offence, mis-bidding (with no fielding) is not.

Failure to own a penalty double by the east-west pair is bad luck and they were accidentally fixed which happens to me all the time.

Fessing up before the opening lead gives e/w their best chance on defence and I've seen that done many times when not required too. It's the best the side that had the accident can do under the law isn't it?

[blackshoe]

Rectification is not punishment. Had the director been called when the MI came to light (before the opening lead), the legal rectification would have been that East would have been given the opportunity to change his last call. I doubt very much he would have done so. Law 21B3 would kick in, so that if, after the play, the TD judges that NS gained an advantage from the irregularity, he will adjust the score. No punishment, just rectification. But it didn't happen, and in part EW is responsible for that. Had it happened, the TD might have judged that NS didn't gain advantage, in which case no adjustment. Or he might have judged otherwise, in which case he would have adjusted to an assigned score using whichever part of Law 12C1 applies in the jurisdiction.

[ggwhiz]

I agree with all you stated but am not clear on the mis-information part. The information given seems to have been correct and conform to the obligations?

Therefore there was no MI, just a mis-bid.

[MBV53]

This is clearcut ruling of Law75.
LAW 75 - MISTAKEN EXPLANATION OR MISTAKEN CALL

After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example:

North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2{, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West’s inquiry, that South’s bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits.

A. Mistake Causing Unauthorized Information

Whether or not North’s explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North’s explanation, knows that his own 2{ bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is “unauthorised information” (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South’s responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values.

B. Mistaken Explanation

The actual partnership agreement is that 2{ is a natural signoff; the mistake was in North’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of Law, since East-West are entitled to an accurate description of the North-South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to
East-West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). If North subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the Director. South must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation while the auction continues; after the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the Director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation. If South becomes a defender, he calls the Director and corrects the explanation when play ends.

C. Mistaken Call
The partnership agreement is as explained — 2{ is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South’s call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North’s explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.
what system card supports that matters! That is the evidence. The TD should enquire for implicit understanding.
LAW40B1b:- Whether explicit or implicit an agreement between partners is a partnership understanding. A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.
MBVSubrahmanyam.
India

[blackshoe]

The first post in this thread has been revised. It now clearly states that 2♥ is a transfer, so it requires an alert. There was no alert. That's MI.

[Free]

Ok thanks for the answers so far. Now let me get this straight. North explains the 2♥ call as natural. West can't Dbl (Dbl = takeout) so he passes. North passes and so does East. Now South should explain that 2♥ was a transfer. What would happen if EW call the TD at this point?

[blackshoe]

If?! Attention was drawn to an irregularity. The TD should be called.

Law 75B said:

After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation.

The TD will apply Law 21, and give East the chance to change his last call, which he presumably will decline. The TD will tell them to play out the hand, and if EW then feel they were damaged, to call him back, at which time he will consider adjusting the score.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on Aug 9 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

If?! Attention was drawn to an irregularity. The TD should be called.

Law 75B said:

After the final pass, South, if he is to be declarer or dummy, should call the director and must volunteer a correction of the explanation.

The TD will apply Law 21, and give East the chance to change his last call, which he presumably will decline. The TD will tell them to play out the hand, and if EW then feel they were damaged, to call him back, at which time he will consider adjusting the score.

... to the same +300 they'd have got out of 4♠x or 5♦x ? Not convinced I'd go on to 5♥ which looks pretty sick if the trumps misbehave.

[Free]

Lets say EW call the TD, the auction is turned back. If it's explained as a transfer, West will definitely change his call to Dbl (which is penalty, 2♠ would be takeout). I suppose North can change his pass as well after this, and the deal continues like nothing happened. So basically, in this case where the players follow procedure, NS aren't rewarded nor punished for missing in their system, right?

[blackshoe]

No. The irregularity (correctly) didn't come to light until after both West and East had passed, so only East gets the chance to change his call. Now, if North had realized his error before East's final pass, and immediately called the TD (as he should) then West would have the opportunity to change his call.