[hokum]

You're directing a tournament. After this hand, North, an experienced player, calls you over and says:
"I was told LHO's 2♥ bid was gameforcing, so I passed 2♠".

2♠ drifted off one. It was an incorrect explanation of the bid - the opponents have no specific agreement. What's your ruling? (Australia)
All four hands:

---

[nige1]

 hokum, on 2015-December-26, 04:01, said:

You're directing a tournament. After this hand, North, an experienced player, calls you over and says:
"I was told LHO's 2♥ bid was gameforcing, so I passed 2♠".
2♠ drifted off one. It was an incorrect explanation of the bid - the opponents have no specific agreement. What's your ruling? (Australia)
All four hands:

---

If West explained East's 2♥ as GF, when they have no agreement, then he's guilty of misinformation.
IMO North was damaged, not so much from West's misexplanation, but more as a result of ridiculous and unnecessary rules.

• Some might argue that the laws require North to "protect himself", by asking further questions -- although that would be of doubtful benefit, if the explanation turns out to be systemically correct but the UI form North's questions restrict the actions of an ethical South.
• Other's might argue that North's pass was a "double-shot", according to the law: If the pass didn't result in an immediate good score, North could call the director, in an attempt to obtain belated redress.
• Poor North might reasonably counter that a director could construe as "wild and gambling" the wanton re-opening of opponents' game-forcing auction, so that if such action resulted in a poor score, he would still lose his chance of redress.

Unfortunately, oversophisticated (and often completely unnecessary) laws cast a dark pall over players' enjoyment of our wonderful game and result in inconsistent and controversial rulings even in simple basic cases The silver lining is that they provide fodder for the feeding frenzy in laws fora like this

[barmar]

Did North forget what was in his hand? There's absolutely no way East can have a GF hand, unless opener psyched (but psychers don't usually bid again). Yes, he was given misinformation, but that was hardly the cause of the damage. Nor were the ridiculous rules at fault. He did it to himself.

It's also not clear what he could have done differently if he were given correct information. Double wouldn't be penalty. NS can make 3NT, but are they going to get there if he reopens?

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2015-December-26, 09:47, said:

Did North forget what was in his hand? There's absolutely no way East can have a GF hand, unless opener psyched (but psychers don't usually bid again). Yes, he was given misinformation, but that was hardly the cause of the damage. Nor were the ridiculous rules at fault. He did it to himself.

It's also not clear what he could have done differently if he were given correct information. Double wouldn't be penalty. NS can make 3NT, but are they going to get there if he reopens?

There is just about enough room depending on W's opening habits (give W a 6016 9 and E a ?8?? 10 and they might consider this a GF)

I agree it's not clear what he could do next, 3♦ or 2N are not ridiculous, but I don't think S raises either

[hokum]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-December-27, 10:44, said:

There is just about enough room depending on W's opening habits (give W a 6016 9 and E a ?8?? 10 and they might consider this a GF)

I agree it's not clear what he could do next, 3♦ or 2N are not ridiculous, but I don't think S raises either

That's what I was wondering about - West can be just about certain that the opps don't have gameforcing hands. By passing 2♥ and playing the hand out, North has a two-way shot: take a plus score, with the backup option of calling the director if you missed a game.

[mink]

North has 21 HCP, and West should have at least 11. So if East has the remaining 8 HCP and a void, this could be a gameforcing hand. And there is no law that forbids a player who psyched to issue another bid. North was perfectly entitled to trust the information he had been provided with and pass knowing the the game-forcing auction cannot be over at this point. It cannot be a double shot, because if North suspects that something is wrong he still cannot know that there was an infraction - apart from the possible psyche by West another scenario is that the bid is indeed game-forcing according to their documented methods, but East forgot and was under the impression of bidding non-forcing.

I would adjust to South 3nt+1, assuming that with the correct information North might cuebid 3♠ instead of his pass.

Additionally I would inquire about what exactly the 2♥ did show, and what the maximum strength and minimum length for this bid is. Maybe it turns out that 3♥ was a LA for East.

Karl

[Trinidad]

If North would get "Natural, strength not discussed" as an explanation he would double 2♠ or bid 3♦. The double would lead to a contract of 2♠X by West and the 3♦ would lead to 3♦ by North. Both lead to better results for NS than they achieved at the table.

Rik

[lamford]

With correct information, North might well bid 2NT, showing a hand too strong to overcall 1NT. South might well raise that to game.

It does not matter that North should have bid anyway. What we are concerned with is what would have happened without an infraction.