[jillybean]

2♦ P* P (2♠)
X (3♦) 4♥ AP

North opens 1st seat, East queries 2♦ bid , South answers 'weak'
East Pass, South Pass, West bids 2♠, North doubles and South wakes up, calls td and explains 2♦ is indeed 18-19.
East bids 3♦, south bids 4♥ and plays there making 6

What happens now?

[blackshoe]

Now East or West calls the TD back to the table. Or, if you're of the "let things slide" school, you go on to the next board.

[mrdct]

jillybean, on 2011-November-12, 01:35, said:

What happens now?

We have a look at North's hand and the decide whether or not his double was demonstrably suggested by the UI that South thinks he is weak and whether or not passing-out 2♠ (or some other less successful action) was a logical alternative. North really ought to be bidding as if South has 0-5hcp with long ♦.

I await the hand.

[RMB1]

If Pass is a logical alternative for North and Double looks like an attempt to wake up partner then I think we should issue a procedural penalty to North, regardless of any Law 12C1 adjustment.

[alphatango]

West, of course, should have been offered a chance to change their 2♠ call (21B1a)...

[Bbradley62]

mrdct, on 2011-November-12, 02:42, said:

North really ought to be bidding as if South has 0-5hcp with long ♦.

Sorry, but I don't understand this at all.

[Bbradley62]

sorry, misread Alpha's response...

[jillybean]

---

[jillybean]

mrdct, on 2011-November-12, 02:42, said:

We have a look at North's hand and the decide whether or not his double was demonstrably suggested by the UI that South thinks he is weak and whether or not passing-out 2♠ (or some other less successful action) was a logical alternative. North really ought to be bidding as if South has 0-5hcp with long ♦.

I await the hand.

N/S have the agreement that 2♦ is artificial, forcing, South forgot.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on 2011-November-12, 02:42, said:

North really ought to be bidding as if South has 0-5hcp with long ♦.
I await the hand.

RMB1, on 2011-November-12, 03:16, said:

If Pass is a logical alternative for North and Double looks like an attempt to wake up partner then I think we should issue a procedural penalty to North, regardless of any Law 12C1 adjustment.

I fully agree with RMB1's post made before he saw the hand. Mrdct was very careful in his wording. Now that we see the hand, it would seem that Pass would be a L.A., but that 3D or more would also be L.A's which might well be chosen by a majority.

This doesn't change the fact that Double was an action based on UI; but, I wonder where we would go from there --legal-wize or auction-wize) if South somehow woke up after a diamond "raise". He would still not have been given any new information (other than partner is luny for preempting in diamonds then bidding again).

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-12, 10:38

[ggwhiz]

I don't think North did anything wrong by doubling with a max full of prime cards and reasonable take out shape which I assume would be the common agreement but would certainly ask.

However as alphatango suggests I would let West change their call and adjust to a final contract of 2♦ (plus 1).

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2011-November-12, 10:55, said:

I don't think North did anything wrong by doubling with a max full of prime cards and reasonable take out shape which I assume would be the common agreement but would certainly ask.

I can't imagine Double being a common agreement call on the North hand when his Authorized information is that partner has a bust with long diamonds and that they have about 11 diamonds between them.

[RMB1]

ggwhiz, on 2011-November-12, 10:55, said:

I don't think North did anything wrong by doubling with a max full of prime cards and reasonable take out shape which I assume would be the common agreement but would certainly ask.

Partner has already defined their hand, so why is double take-out?

[blackshoe]

The failure of the TD to allow West the option to change his 2♠ call to something else is TD error, so I would adjust under Law 82C. Presumably West would pass, resulting, as ggwhiz suggests, in a contract of 2♦ by North. I haven't analyzed the hand, but say it makes 3. Question: if we award the score for this contract to both sides (+110 NS, -110 EW), have we met the legal requirement to treat both sides as non-offending? I think we have, since West is in the passout seat; I'm just checking.

Having done this, do we still need to deal with the question whether North's X violates Law 73C or Law 16B? IOW, should we consider a PP?

[alphatango]

EDIT: Misapprehended the temporal ordering. Post revised.

blackshoe, on 2011-November-12, 11:52, said:

Question: if we award the score for this contract to both sides (+110 NS, -110 EW), have we met the legal requirement to treat both sides as non-offending? I think we have, since West is in the passout seat; I'm just checking.

Do we believe that West would always choose to change 2♠ to pass? He wasn't offered the option at the table. Maybe we should consider giving NS some percentage of West balancing 2♠, possibly leading to 4♥+2 depending on what we find out about NS's system.

blackshoe said:

Having done this, do we still need to deal with the question whether North's X violates Law 73C or Law 16B? IOW, should we consider a PP?

jillybean, on 2011-November-12, 10:06, said:

N/S have the agreement that 2♦ is artificial, forcing, South forgot.

Am surprised that they have the agreement that 2♦ is forcing (even on a weak hand with diamonds)...but if that's really their agreement, then perhaps pass is not an LA any more. It would certainly not warrant a PP.

EDIT: Even if 2♦ is not forcing on a weak hand with diamonds, I still don't think pass is an LA when holding Kxxxx in partner's apparent suit. 3NT doesn't look that far away (even Txx-xxx-Qxxxx-xx has chances on a spade lead). However, I think 3♦ is an LA, and the UI suggests all other sensible actions (X, 2NT, 3NT) over it.

Where the auction goes from there (i.e. whether South "wakes up" after a 3D rebid) is not clear, of course.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-12, 11:04, said:

I can't imagine Double being a common agreement call on the North hand when his Authorized information is that partner has a bust with long diamonds and that they have about 11 diamonds between them.

My bad. I went on the basis that South may have a few points and shape for competition and entirely overlooked the fact that he showed ♦ by passing an artificial bid.

Should a pp be in play if the 2♠ bid, and therefore the double are cancelled? In the heat of battle North may have simply made a mistake. I did.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2011-November-12, 12:23, said:

Should a pp be in play if the 2♠ bid, and therefore the double are cancelled? In the heat of battle North may have simply made a mistake. I did.

If X is deemed by the TD to have been an infraction of Law 73C or Law 16B3, then a PP might be considered, even if the X is cancelled because of a different infraction. Generally, of course, we only award PPs in "points" when the offense is egregious or is repetitive (particularly after a warning). OTOH, "may not" is the second strongest prohibition, so perhaps we should be awarding PPs more often in these cases. OTGH, the player's experience level counts, and so does (albeit perhaps not a lot) the "heat of battle" argument. In a club game, in particular, I'd probably just give a warning, probably closer to "you shouldn't do that" than to "… and if you do it again, you will get a PP in MPs or IMPs".

[jillybean]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-12, 11:04, said:

I can't imagine Double being a common agreement call on the North hand when his Authorized information is that partner has a bust with long diamonds and that they have about 11 diamonds between them.

North has no such information. The UI North has is that South has forgotten their agreement that 2♦ shows a strong hand 18-19 and has instead misread the bid as a weak 2 in diamonds.

[jillybean]

alphatango, on 2011-November-12, 12:02, said:

Am surprised that they have the agreement that 2♦ is forcing (even on a weak hand with diamonds)...but if that's really their agreement, then perhaps pass is not an LA any more. It would certainly not warrant a PP.

I don't like it but it's true.
http://www.bridgebas.../48059-2d-18-19

[aguahombre]

Your link says it shows 18-19 per your own OP. Doesn't say it is forcing. So, we can continue with the premise that the pass would be made with long diamonds and out even if South was aware of what 2D showed.