[drater]

---

1NT = 12-14
X of 2S = takeout
2D = diamonds and a major

Before East doubled 2S he asked for an explanation of 2D. North explained 2D as spades and another (Asptro).

Before the opening lead was faced, South corrected the explanation of 2D to showing diamonds and a major (Meckwell).

E-W called the Director and were told to play the hand out and to call him back at the end if they felt they'd been damaged.

N-S agreement in defending a 12-14 1NT was Asptro by non-passed hand and Meckwell by passed hand.

Result at the table was 2SX making 8 tricks.

E-W claim if they had been given the correct explanation then East would not have doubled 2S for takeout.

I would be interested in views on whether there was any damage to E-W and what the ruling should be in this case.

Hope I've provided sufficient information but if not then please let me know.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd need to see the defence, it appears to me that you should defeat 2♠ fairly trivially single dummy, so has anybody made a serious error there ?

Was E allowed to change his lead after the new explanation (if this was given with the lead face down)?

I can see that E may not want to double with the right explanation, did he say whether he was going to pass or bid 3♣ ?

[TylerE]

Defense - maybe E lead the Ace of ♣ and they're playing UDCA, so the suit was continued, generating a ♥ pitch? That's about the onyl way I can see t let it through.

[iviehoff]

I'm not convinced by EW's claim that E wouldn't double for takeout, it doesn't look much different in its attraction with the correct explanation. I suspect E wants to choose not to make a takeout double on the basis that NS are having a misunderstanding, but he wouldn't know that at any point at which he can be given correct information.

As a technical point, was W allowed to change his final pass? He should have been so allowed to. Had he been allowed to, I wonder if he would have bid 3H? If that went off, as I expect it will, he'd probably then be claiming an adjustment on the grounds that 2S would have gone off...

[campboy]

Would double still be takeout if 2♦ does not guarantee spades? It may well not be in which case we can be sure East wouldn't have doubled. If double is still takeout it is a bit less attractive with the correct explanation but still a good idea at MP IMO, at there is a good chance partner can pass it. So in that case a weighted score might be right.

[mink]

OP did not say anything about the defense, so I assume there was no serious error.

The takeout double is less attractive if ♠ is not South's suit for sure. If East says he would not double with the correct information there is no evidence to mistrust him. If East passes, in case ♠ is not South's major, South has a problem and will maybe make the wrong decision: either pass while North has only 4 ♠ cards, or bid something while North has 6 ♠ cards. If the false explanation was true, however, South has no problem, and the takeout double is a good idea for sure.

I would adjust to 2 ♠ made without double.

Karl

[BillHiggin]

mink, on 2013-October-07, 03:38, said:

OP did not say anything about the defense, so I assume there was no serious error.

The takeout double is less attractive if ♠ is not South's suit for sure. If East says he would not double with the correct information there is no evidence to mistrust him. If East passes, in case ♠ is not South's major, South has a problem and will maybe make the wrong decision: either pass while North has only 4 ♠ cards, or bid something while North has 6 ♠ cards. If the false explanation was true, however, South has no problem, and the takeout double is a good idea for sure.

I would adjust to 2 ♠ made without double.

Karl

Strangely, the explanation was false in that it did not describe the partnership agreement, but it still did match the hand. So, was the double such a good idea?
I see an infraction, but do not see how it damaged the nos.

[blackshoe]

BillHiggin, on 2013-October-07, 06:17, said:

Strangely, the explanation was false in that it did not describe the partnership agreement, but it still did match the hand. So, was the double such a good idea?
I see an infraction, but do not see how it damaged the nos.

Quote

From Law 12: Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred…If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

The double may not have been a good idea, but that doesn't make it SEWoG. So the question is whether the NOS might have achieved a better result had there been no MI. You seem to be suggesting the answer to this question is no, that the result would have been the same (or worse) for the NOS. That may or may not be true, but IAC I don't think it follows from "the explanation matched the hand". So what?

[drater]

Thanks for the replies. To try and clarify a couple of points (or admit not knowing the answers):

- I don't know if the director offered to allow a change to the opening lead or the bidding
- E-W had no issue with the lead or wanting to change it (I think it was a trump but certainly was not AC)
- the defence to 2SX was not optimum, as you have inferred
- East was claiming that he might pass if he had been given the correct information
- X was still for takeout if 2D did not guarantee spades

It felt to me, although I didn't state it in my original post, that E-W were seeking redress based purely on them having got a bad board through bad luck and/or bad judgement and/or bad defence as opposed to anything to do with the incorrect explanation. However, I am very interested in views for my own interest and learning.

[Zelandakh]

iviehoff, on 2013-October-07, 01:41, said:

I suspect E wants to choose not to make a takeout double on the basis that NS made it

FYP. East was the player at the table with the best idea of what was going on and I think those who believe they would not have doubled in the alternative auction (where presumably the spades are divided something along the lines 6-1-2-4 instead of 4-1-4-4) knowing that his side had the majority of the points are being very gullible. Obviously it is easier if you are there but rulings like this are precisely the reason many club players will automatically say "I would have done *" whenever there is a ruling coming up, regardless of what they would really have done in practise. I am all for "protecting the innocent party", "not blaming the victim" and so on but at some point you have to draw the line and get back into the real world.

[CSGibson]

Unless E can come up with a significant and convincing reason why he would NOT have doubled with a correct explanation, when he did double with the incorrect explanation, then I am ruling table result stands.

[ANDREX]

I was North on this hand and the idiot that gave the wrong explanation rather than asking the ops to look at the card!

The option to change last the call by West was not provided, but I don't believe he would want to make that change as they had beaten par playing in 2Sx.

After the trump lead and econd trump, East pitched the C7 (oops) & C5 after a third trump was played. The D8 was run to the Q and West found the CQ! switch (oops), to the K and A.

Now East having thrown the C7 played West for the CJ and return a small club allowing the C9 to win. This allowed the heart pitch to be made on the CJ.

It was unfortunate and perhaps unlucky but the C7 discard and CQ switch both contributed to letting the contract through.

[ggwhiz]

I don't know enough about the laws but the notion that south may have hearts instead of spades with the correct explanation is ludicrous with east looking at a stiff. Result stands.

East knew full well the opps have an 8+ card fit with similar values and shape in either case.