[mfa1010]

---

Screens are in use.

East's 2♦ was systemically an artificial club raise, limit+.

But west initially forgot, so he explained it to south as a weak jump shift. After his pass, west remembered (and then corrected his explanation), but since his pass had been released on the tray, west knew (correctly) that he could not change it under Danish regulations. So the tray was pushed and north passed also.

Lead: ♦ to the K, and declarer managed 12 tricks after two heart ruffs in hand.

After the hand south summoned the TD and explained that if he had been given the correct explanation he would have had a routine 2♥ overcall. Against a potential misfit it was much less attractive to bid. What would happen thereafter south didn't know, but he wanted the TD to examine if he had been damaged.

What should the TD do?

[campboy]

It sounds like South was informed of the correct meaning in time to change his call. Why did no-one call the director at the appropriate time? If South didn't change his call because he didn't want West to be able to change his, I think he is stuck with that.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 75B, paraphrased: … The mistake was in West’s explanation. This explanation is an infraction of law, since North-South are entitled to an accurate description of the East-West agreement. When this infraction results in damage to North-South, the director shall award an adjusted score. If West subsequently becomes aware of his mistake, he must immediately notify the director.

Quote

Law 11A: The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the director.

That this occurred behind screens suggests that the players involved are sufficiently experienced that they should know the law, at least to the extent that the TD should have been called.

I would rule under Law 11A that by South's failure to call the TD, he forfeited his right to rectification per Law 11A, so that the table result stands (that's without looking at whether in fact there was damage; had there been none — because EW might have ended up in a game somewhere, for example — then I would rule that Law 12 was not satisfied as to damage, and again result stands. I would in the latter case explain to South that he wouldn't have got an adjustment anyway, because of Law 11A. IAC, I would issue a PP to West for failure to comply with Law 75B, since it says he "must" notify the TD.

[bluejak]

Please could the opening poster quote the Danish regulation that supersedes Law 21B1A. There is no such regulation in EBL or EBU Screen Regulations and it seems an unlikely regulation. Despite the OP's statement it was a correct statement of the regulation not only am I doubtful, but my sympathy does not lie with a player who does not call the TD because he believes he knows the regulations to the extent that there is no point in calling the TD.

[mfa1010]

bluejak, on 2010-December-09, 17:07, said:

Please could the opening poster quote the Danish regulation that supersedes Law 21B1A. There is no such regulation in EBL or EBU Screen Regulations and it seems an unlikely regulation. Despite the OP's statement it was a correct statement of the regulation not only am I doubtful, but my sympathy does not lie with a player who does not call the TD because he believes he knows the regulations to the extent that there is no point in calling the TD.

No, that was not what I wrote. Or meant, at least, if I was unclear.

It was west who couldn't change his pass because it had been released on the tray before he realized his memory lapse. So he didn't bother to ask the TD for permission to change his call when he knew it wouldn't be allowed anyway.

I don't know why the TD wasn't called underway by south. He just didn't. I think we can assume that south (erroneously, surely) thought that the TD could do nothing about it anyway, apart from ordering the play to continue and then look into it afterwards.

An interesting part of this situation is that both west and south were required to call the TD, but neither did. What does that mean for the decision.

[bluejak]

Both sides are offending?

South was in time for a ruling under Law 21B1A, thus Law 21B3 does not apply "When it is too late ...". This was the basis for the famous Parry case at Brighton.

However, the EBU has weakened its position and would now allow a Law 21B3 adjustment in some cases where there seems a good reason. Since South seems to be experienced I suggest:

For N/S:
.. 2♦ +4/E, NS -150

For E/W:
.. 40% of 2♥ =/S, NS +110
+ 20% of 3♥ -1/S, NS -50
+ 40% of 2♦ +4/E, NS -150

You may deduce that I am not entirely convinced by the word 'routine'.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2010-December-09, 20:29, said:

For E/W:
.. 40% of 2♥ =/S, NS +110
+ 20% of 3♥ -1/S, NS -50
+ 40% of 2♦ +4/E, NS -150

I can't imagine that any East who had made a limit+ raise of clubs would pass out 2♥ - indeed I wouldn't expect it to be systemically possible.

[mycroft]

Well, 2H deserves to go for 800, but as we all know, bridge is a game for optimists.

West, given a 2H overcall, is likely going to bid 3D when partner has shown a weak one-suiter in his best suit; if not, East isn't passing 2H. Yeah, East has UI, but I agree with Gordon that 2H is unpassable systemically (check, of course). Would double of 2H by west been artificial? Then East will make a protective double, which should clue in West. I think almost all roads lead to some number of a minor by E-W, with (to be nice to the NOS) a piece of 3H-1.

[FrancesHinden]

East has no UI as this was played with screens

[bluejak]

Yes, I seem to have forgotten E/W's further action.