[kruba]

Scoring: MP

---

East ----- South --- West ------ North
1NT (1) -- X (2) ---- XX (3) ----- P
2C -------- X (2) ---- 2D -------- X (2)
2S -------- X (2) ---- 2NT (4) --- X (2)
3H -------- X (2) ---- All Pass

1) 12-14
2) Penalty Doubles. 2nd & subsequent doubles were alerted.
3) Alerted - North asked. Spades & another.
4) After some thought.

South calls the Director at the end of the bidding. The Director at first thinks there is nothing wrong. N/S explain that West has UI, with which he agrees. Spades & another is E/W's agreement. West was never asked what he meant by the XX. When 9 tricks roll in, N/S recall the Director. The Director states that there has been damage, and after looking at the traveller, he adjusts the score to 3H tick. 78% for E/W, and 22% for N/S. No other E/W were in Hearts.

[jallerton]

Did the TD ask West why he bid 2NT? If so, what was the reply?

[gordontd]

We need to find out what West thinks is going on, but I'd be concerned about the 2NT bid, since West has the UI that East thinks West has shown spades.

[campboy]

What West thought the redouble meant may also be relevant to whether passing 2♠ is an LA. I'm struggling to see how East's bidding makes sense though -- in particular why did he not bid 2♠ immediately if he wanted to play there? Unless redouble = clubs or both reds, say, it does sound like there has been a misunderstanding.

I'd be interested to know who E/W were, as I play xx=spades and another in some partnerships, and thought it was original

[CamHenry]

If XX shows spades and another, Campboy, it's plausible that E bid 2C "in case we can get out safely". If it's undoubled, it's likely to be OK; if it's doubled, or it's not actually W's second suit, you can run away later.

[campboy]

Yes, that does make sense. It's evidently too early in the morning for me...

[bluejak]

Let us suppose that West thought redouble showed hearts and another. He has no reason to remove 2♠ doubled, since East presumably knows what he is doing, and it sounds like a five card suit, so I would adjust to 2♠ doubled making something other, weighted I expect. No, I am not saying I would adjust to that, because what West was up to is critical, but it does seem the most likely ruling.

As for the actual ruling, it is difficult to see where it came from. Why would the defence be adjudged not to have doubled 3♥? It seems a strange ruling.

Another thought concerns the 3♥ bid. It is a fair guess, in some ways, but you know what it looks to me like? It looks like someone who knows this partner and has seen this sort of thing before, in other words, a fielded misbid, Ave+/Ave-.

How about that double of 3♥? SEWoG? No, I do not think so. Many people have been trapped into the turkey routine over the years "Gobble gobble gobble ..", I mean "Double double double .." and while the double looks a little dubious - why not leave it to partner? - it is not bad enough to be SEWoG.

So I would ask the following:

West: Why did you redouble? Why did you bid 2NT?
East: Why did you bid 3♥? Has your partner got this redouble wrong before?
TD: What sequence led to the adjustment? Why are you so sure what would have happened that you did not weight the score?
South: Why did you double 3♥?
North: Why did you not appeal?

[kruba]

1) West was not asked about the XX. West said he bid 2NT, because East did not bid 2S immediately, and therefore can't have 4 Spades. This was where N/S said that West had used UI.
2) East said he bid 3H, because West had obviously got the system wrong.
3) The non-playing TD didn't seem to have any idea what to do. 3H tick decision was explained as being "equitable" to both sides.
4) Double by South of 3H? South wasn't sure what was going on. With 4 potential tricks and possible points from partner, South doubled.
5) North didn't appeal, because of a previous experience appealing at this club.

[RMB1]

1) Certainly NS have a case.
2) If West peers would "all" interpret 2NT as "a wheel has come off" then the UI does not suggest one three-level bid over another.
3) A TD who is "out of his depth" should consult, by telephone if necessary.
4) I am not surprised that someone doubled.
5) Unfortunate, especially given (3).

[jallerton]

kruba, on Sep 7 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

1) West was not asked about the XX.  West said he bid 2NT, because East did not bid 2S immediately, and therefore can't have 4 Spades.  This was where N/S said that West had used UI.

As it happens, it doesn't matter exactly what West thought the redouble of 1NTx showed; the TD can be fairly certain that he did not think it showed spades.

Therefore, the deduction that East could not have 4 spades was made using East's explanation in combination with the auction. Such a deduction could not be made based solely on the auction (on the contrary, the auction alone suggests that East has either 5 spades or 4 good ones). Hence there is fairly blatant use of UI and the TD should adjust the score to 2♠x by East making the requisite number of tricks. As Bluejak points out, the TD should weight the score if he is not certain how many tricks 2♠x would make, but 2 off looks about right to me on the obvious trump lead.

[Pict]

Sort of interesting - what has East shown, perhaps 4 clubs and 6 spades. Otherwise we would be playing in a red suit.
2S it is then, but in real time it's a bit tricky. I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions about the OS

[WellSpyder]

kruba, on Sep 7 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

5) North didn't appeal, because of a previous experience appealing at this club.

I know that feeling.... But curious, when the title implies that the ruling comes from an EBU Swiss Pairs competition, not a club event.

[kruba]

Had to give it a title. Should have said: England, Club, 10 table Swiss Pairs.

[Rossoneri]

kruba, on Sep 9 2010, 01:30 AM, said:

Had to give it a title. Should have said: England, Club, 10 table Swiss Pairs.

Was wondering as well, because Brighton was a month ago!

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 7 2010, 02:40 PM, said:

Hence there is fairly blatant use of UI and the TD should adjust the score to 2♠x by East making the requisite number of tricks.  As Bluejak points out, the TD should weight the score if he is not certain how many tricks 2♠x would make, but 2 off looks about right to me on the obvious trump lead.

Totally agree with the first sentence, and I am surprised that this opinion is not unanimous. However, it looks fairly trivial to get out for one off in 2SX - you are hardly going to get the minors wrong after all South's doubles. I would lead a trump as well on the South hand, but I fail to see how you make more than one diamond, one club, one heart and three trumps or an extra minor suit trick but one fewer trump.

Erring in favour of the non-offenders, I would be happy to give 20% of -2 and 80% of -1.