[gombo121]

---

expert-level IMP pairs, no screens.
South asked about 4♦ bid and got explanation that it is strong and natural. The explanation was incorrect - the actual agreement was that it was a two-suiter, diamonds and unknown major. South passed. West bid 4♥ meaning it as natural suggestion of contract (he held six to KQ), but East obviously interpreted it as pass-or-correct and bid his major. West, holding three spades and one diamond, passed. Before the opening lead East corrected the explanation. Contract went down three and South called TD claiming that with correct explanations he would double both 4♦ and 4♠. He also claimed that he did not think that 4♠ was natural (according to local regulations no bids above 3NT are alerted without screens) and did not ask because of fear of producing UI, since he did not want to double cue-bid.
TD ruled 4♠* -3
Do you agree?

P.S.: There is no allegation UI in the deal.

[ahydra]

Assuming the TD believes South would double, and unless there's any evidence that the contract might go down more/fewer with the double (e.g. if declarer guesses trumps better), I agree the TD has it right.

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2013-August-27, 05:53, said:

Assuming the TD believes South would double, and unless there's any evidence that the contract might go down more/fewer with the double (e.g. if declarer guesses trumps better), I agree the TD has it right.

ahydra

My guess is that declarer could not guess trumps better, as East would have AKTxx and AJTxx(x) in the pointed suits. Agree with the TD's ruling. I presume North did not want his last call back, after he was offered that option.

[blackshoe]

It is indeed a simple case, so I'm moving it to "Simple Rulings".

[mgoetze]

gombo121, on 2013-August-27, 05:16, said:

He also claimed that he did not think that 4♠ was natural (according to local regulations no bids above 3NT are alerted without screens) and did not ask because of fear of producing UI, since he did not want to double cue-bid.

How convenient. But really, how much more UI was he going to produce after he had already asked about 4♦? It is not clear at all to me what 4♠ should be a cuebid for, and South's approach reeks of taking a double shot to me, or conveniently avoiding a possible runout to 5♥.

[trevahound]

gombo121, on 2013-August-27, 05:16, said:

---

expert-level IMP pairs, no screens.
South asked about 4♦ bid and got explanation that it is strong and natural. The explanation was incorrect - the actual agreement was that it was a two-suiter, diamonds and unknown major. South passed. West bid 4♥ meaning it as natural suggestion of contract (he held six to KQ), but East obviously interpreted it as pass-or-correct and bid his major. West, holding three spades and one diamond, passed. Before the opening lead East corrected the explanation. Contract went down three and South called TD claiming that with correct explanations he would double both 4♦ and 4♠. He also claimed that he did not think that 4♠ was natural (according to local regulations no bids above 3NT are alerted without screens) and did not ask because of fear of producing UI, since he did not want to double cue-bid.
TD ruled 4♠* -3
Do you agree?

P.S.: There is no allegation UI in the deal.

I am usually informed when I make this claim after the hand (after I see contract went down three) that I should have called the director when I first became aware of the irregularity. Maybe the director was called prior to the play of the hand and that part was just assumed in the explanation above?

If S didn't call the director until after the hand, I am not inclined to credit that he would have doubled 4♦ and 4♠ given the correct explanations, assuming he's experienced enough to know to call prior to the play. If he did call prior to the play of the hand, and tells me he'd have acted differently with the correct information prior to the play, I'm inclined to credit he would double both.

Is that wrong? Thanks!

Brian Zaugg

[fbuijsen]

trevahound, on 2013-August-27, 12:06, said:

I am usually informed when I make this claim after the hand (after I see contract went down three) that I should have called the director when I first became aware of the irregularity. Maybe the director was called prior to the play of the hand and that part was just assumed in the explanation above?

If S didn't call the director until after the hand, I am not inclined to credit that he would have doubled 4♦ and 4♠ given the correct explanations, assuming he's experienced enough to know to call prior to the play. If he did call prior to the play of the hand, and tells me he'd have acted differently with the correct information prior to the play, I'm inclined to credit he would double both.

Is that wrong? Thanks!

Correct procedure is to call the director immediately when the irregularity comes to light. That is, when east corrects the explanation. The TD wold then allow North to change his final pass (but not south). If this doesn't happen, nothing else happens at this point. Certainly south doesn't have to give these arguments to the TD at this point, since this will give UI to his partner, and free information to the opponents.


I also strongly disagree with mgoetze's "double shot" argument. NS are the non-offenders here, and none of their actions are at all unreasonable or gambling. There is clear damage from the MI, since with correct information the doubles south claimed he would make are very plausible bids, and he has missed the chance to make them because of the MI.

[TylerE]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-28, 01:54, said:

I also strongly disagree with mgoetze's "double shot" argument. NS are the non-offenders here, and none of their actions are at all unreasonable or gambling

Not sure I totally agree here. Failure to X 4♠ is really flirting with it. Certainly close enough that it bears further contemplation.

[barmar]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-28, 01:54, said:

Correct procedure is to call the director immediately when the irregularity comes to light. That is, when east corrects the explanation. The TD wold then allow North to change his final pass (but not south). If this doesn't happen, nothing else happens at this point. Certainly south doesn't have to give these arguments to the TD at this point, since this will give UI to his partner, and free information to the opponents.


I also strongly disagree with mgoetze's "double shot" argument. NS are the non-offenders here, and none of their actions are at all unreasonable or gambling. There is clear damage from the MI, since with correct information the doubles south claimed he would make are very plausible bids, and he has missed the chance to make them because of the MI.

I think his point is that the director should find out from South what he claims he would have done BEFORE South has a chance to see the whole hand. He shouldn't be allowed to wait until the hand is over, see that they went down several, and then say "I would have doubled". This is the kind of thing that could be included in Law 11A:

Quote

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.

[blackshoe]

fbuijsen, on 2013-August-28, 01:54, said:

Correct procedure is to call the director immediately when the irregularity comes to light. That is, when east corrects the explanation.

Correct procedure is for East to call the director before correcting the explanation, so that the correcting is done in the director's presence.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-August-28, 10:13, said:

I think his point is that the director should find out from South what he claims he would have done BEFORE South has a chance to see the whole hand. He shouldn't be allowed to wait until the hand is over, see that they went down several, and then say "I would have doubled".

That procedure isn't universal. In fact, I don't know of anywhere outside North America where this is done.

Anyway, I think this approach places the non-offenders in an unreasonable position. If South calls the director only on the deals where he thinks he might have taken other action, he conveys UI to his partner, and gives the opponents informatiom to which they're not entitled. If, instead, South calls the director on every occasion that the opponents correct an explanation, and every time he does this the director takes him away from the table, he wastes a lot of time

And, as Blackshoe points out, this situation arises only if the offenders have offended twice: once by misexplaining, and once by not calling the director before correcting the explanation.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-August-28, 11:39

[gombo121]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-28, 11:18, said:

Correct procedure is for East to call the director before correcting the explanation, so that the correcting is done in the director's presence.

Good point, but I've never seen that in practice.
I doubt players are aware about it.

[blackshoe]

I suspect it depends what you mean by "aware". Certainly there are players here who have been told — repeatedly — what the proper procedure is, and who still fail to call the TD before correcting a misexplanation. In one ear and out the other, I guess.

[mycroft]

I will admit I don't always - even often - do it.

I will also state that if, in my belief, the information is such that they aren't going to say "yeah, we guessed" and different enough from the real explanation that someone might have wanted to do something else, I *do* in fact call the TD before correcting the misexplanation.

I will also state that I haven't seen anyone else do that.

[gnasher]

I don't think I've ever called the director in this situation, certainly not before correcting the explanation. I sometimes correct it and then suggest that we might need the director. Or if I think the opponents don't know the rules, I might explain why they might need the director.

[Trinidad]

It depends...

Misexplanations come in all forms. My previous partner forgot agreements, but he would also be sloppy in his explanation ("aces" in stead of "keycards") or simply misspeak. (I remember the auction: 1NT-Pass-2♠ "Alert", "?", "Transfer to spades!". At that point the opponents take a quick glance at the CC and I need to keep a pokerface. After the auction, I will have to say that there was a misexplanation, eventhough I know that I am not telling the opponents anything new.)

When there is a true misexplanation, I will often offer to call the TD myself. Sometimes, you are pretty sure that a correction is only needed to help them defending, and getting into the auction is not part of it. (2♦ (Multi)-2♥; 2NT-3NT, all pass. Before leading they ask for the range for 2NT, partner gives the wrong answer.) In these cases, I will merely correct.

On the other hand, if I see that things could potentially get messy, I will call the TD myself, even if the opponents don't seem to be interested. When they object and ask me why I am calling the TD, I simply say that the rules say that I have to.

Whenever I call the TD "on myself" (for whatever reason) I will tell the opponents why I am calling. Otherwise they will think that I call the TD "on them" and I want to avoid that.

Rik

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2013-August-29, 10:23, said:

I don't think I've ever called the director in this situation, certainly not before correcting the explanation. I sometimes correct it and then suggest that we might need the director. Or if I think the opponents don't know the rules, I might explain why they might need the director.

Yeh, seems on the surface to be good practice. On further reflection, your (my) offer to summon the TD doesn't really get it done. Their acceptance/decline creates the same problems as if they had just been the side which called the TD.

In the future, I think I will state they might have been given misinformation and call the TD myself ---discouraging further communication until he arrives. They can stop me, if they want to, or just let things happen.

[axman]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-29, 11:21, said:

Yeh, seems on the surface to be good practice. On further reflection, your (my) offer to summon the TD doesn't really get it done. Their acceptance/decline creates the same problems as if they had just been the side which called the TD.

In the future, I think I will state they might have been given misinformation and call the TD myself ---discouraging further communication until he arrives. They can stop me, if they want to, or just let things happen.

The way to 'discourage communication' is to first call the TD and then wait until he arrives to tell everyone why he is there.

[aguahombre]

axman, on 2013-August-29, 12:35, said:

The way to 'discourage communication' is to first call the TD and then wait until he arrives to tell everyone why he is there.

This doesn't necessarily discourage communication, but it might create consternation.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't see why South has been damaged.
He's asked for a ruling based on MI, but I don't see why he is more likely to double given the correct explanation of the partnership agreement.

The hand that described 4D as 'strong and natural' also thought 4S was natural, so he passed it.
This gave South a bit of a surprise, because he assumed that 4S wasn't natural but was a cue bid. But that was his own problem - I don't see how he can claim that was affected by the MI. If he'd asked about 4S he would have been told it was natural and non-forcing. I also don't see why South was worried about asking about 4S: what UI did he think he was creating? Why would he not want partner to lead a spade rather than a club anyway?

The actual basis for South's claim for an adjustment seems to be nothing about the MI, but that he assumed 4S was a cue bid and didn't ask, and then found it had ended the auction.