Posted 2010-November-24, 05:47
Oh dear, this sounds a bit of a mess, if the facts are as set out here! Is East really suggesting she can withdraw a bid that took place before the potential MI (ie the failure to alert the double of 2♠)? This is just nonsense, for several reasons:
1) was there MI? Well, if the double was for penalties then it should have been alerted (in England). But it doesn't sound like East was misinformed, since she herself seems to have realised it was for penalties.
2) partner has already bid over the "mis-explained" bid, so the there is no scope for East to change her bid, anyway. West's pass over the double may potentially be withdrawn if affected by MI, but any damage before that will have to wait for an adjustment after the hand.
3) but most bizarre of all, the 2♠ bid was BEFORE the potential MI, so cannot possibly have been affected by it.
So East is barking up completely the wrong tree if the issue is potential MI concerning the double of 2♠. Where there might potentially be a relevant issue of MI, though, is with the explanation of the redouble, and I wonder if that is what East was really trying to say. The explanation given was that North was asked to bid a 4-card suit, and East seems to have assumed that must have meant the hand was weak. It may be more normal to ask partner to rescue 1Nx when you are weak, but I don't see any indication that the explanation given was wrong, and I would be doubtful of ruling there was any MI here. In any case, following the logic of 2) above, even if there were MI then rectification would have to wait until after the hand rather than through allowing East to withdraw the 2♠ bid.
Finally, there is the tricky point that "East is the director". It really helps everyone if the TD can somehow make clear that they are not the TD with respect to rulings at their own table....
Help
