[Tramticket]

---

North, who is playing a weak no-trump and four-card majors, elects to open one club. I overcall two diamonds with the East cards - I have correctly shown the stop card, but South takes little notice of the stop procedure when he doubles almost immediately. Partner passes and North bids two clubs.

My partner is the first to react and says "you can't do that", to which north retorts "its not your turn, you shouldn't say anything". I reply: "Any player can draw attention to an irregularity" and then raise my hand and call for the director. As I am calling for the director, north places a 2NT bid on the table.

The director arrives, sees the auction and gives the table a lecture about the need to call the director immediately. The director replaces North's 2NT bid into the bidding box and says "lets assume that you called the director before making that bid". The director gives me the option to accept the bid and explains to North that he can bid 3♣ without penalty, but any other bid will silence his partner. North bids 3♣.

The director states that there is lots of unauthorised information and south must avoid using the UI. After I pass, South bids 3NT. After a pause South then says, in the presence of the director, "this is what I want to bid, but it does use unauthorised information"! Director: "Well you can't bid that then can you?". South puts the 3NT bid back into the box and the director follows up with: "there is even more unauthorised information" and walks away in despair. South pulls out a 5♣ bid, which ends the auction.

After 5♣ makes (we score our two aces), North makes the comment: "you shouldn't have called the director, 3NT would have gone off". We walk away in despair.

How many errors?

[sfi]

I count 9 significant errors , but I may have missed a couple.

[pran]

sfi, on 2020-February-21, 04:00, said:

I count 9 significant errors , but I may have missed a couple.

10?
as the Director I would have remained at the table as long as necessary to overlook the activity (rather than "leaving the table in despair").

(And I would quite likely have adjusted the final result to 3♣ making 5)

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2020-February-21, 04:39, said:

10?
as the Director I would have remained at the table as long as necessary to overlook the activity (rather than "leaving the table in despair").

(And I would quite likely have adjusted the final result to 3♣ making 5)

Why ? S is never staying out of game with 13 points and a 5 card fit for partner's known 5+ card suit.

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-February-21, 05:00, said:

Why ? S is never staying out of game with 13 points and a 5 card fit for partner's known 5+ card suit.

No, but the irregularities enables TD to apply Laws 9, 12 and 23C and adjust the contract to 3♣

(N/S may of course appeal.)

[sfi]

pran, on 2020-February-21, 04:39, said:

10?
as the Director I would have remained at the table as long as necessary to overlook the activity (rather than "leaving the table in despair").

I got that one. 😀

I'm not sure what the final result would have been, but my actions as director would have been ... different.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2020-February-21, 05:16, said:

No, but the irregularities enables TD to apply Laws 9, 12 and 23C and adjust the contract to 3♣

(N/S may of course appeal.)

I don't see why, 3♣ says nothing 2♣ doesn't (other than ruling out a 4-4 heart fit, my normal bid here would be 3♥ but that would silence partner), it's a minimum hand with clubs, as soon as you know partner has an opening bid and 5 clubs which you know from either, you're bidding game so I don't see why you would adjust in that way.

YOu might find a reason to adjust to 3N going off, but to adjust to 3♣ seems absurd, you're bidding game as soon as partner opens 1♣.

[jhenrikj]

pran, on 2020-February-21, 05:16, said:

No, but the irregularities enables TD to apply Laws 9, 12 and 23C and adjust the contract to 3♣

(N/S may of course appeal.)

Eh, what? 2♣ was insufficient, it was prematurely replaced by 2NT, 2NT is not a comparable call, nor does 27B1(a) apply so South is barred for the rest of the auction (when east decided not to accept 2♣).

So 2NT down one.

[sanst]

Somewhere about eleven irregularities, I think. And a lot of despairing people
What the TD should have done, is what jhenrikj wrote: since the IB was prematurely replaced with 2NT, that should have been N’s bid, which would have silenced S. N would have had to play that and go off least one trick. In this case both sides should be considered not offending and this calls for a split score: 2NT-1 for EW and I’m tempted to allow S to bid 3NT, resulting in -2. But that’s probably not exactly what the Laws mean by “non offending”. So I would let the 5♣= stand.

[pescetom]

jhenrikj, on 2020-February-21, 06:14, said:

Eh, what? 2♣ was insufficient, it was prematurely replaced by 2NT, 2NT is not a comparable call, nor does 27B1(a) apply so South is barred for the rest of the auction (when east decided not to accept 2♣).
So 2NT down one.

I think so too, FWIW.

Does opening vulnerable with North's hand count as an additional error, or is he always this lucky with partner's hand?

[pran]

pescetom, on 2020-February-21, 11:03, said:

I think so too, FWIW.

Does opening vulnerable with North's hand count as an additional error, or is he always this lucky with partner's hand?

The answer is NO, there is no law against violating partnership agreements.

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2020-February-21, 11:03, said:

I think so too, FWIW.

Does opening vulnerable with North's hand count as an additional error, or is he always this lucky with partner's hand?

Not an irregularity, there are already more than enough of these. An error, a lucky deviation of the system or just a mistake, who will tell? Not punishable by law, anyway.

[blackshoe]

Tramticket, on 2020-February-21, 03:34, said:

ow many errors?

More than enough. Where's my shotgun?

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2020-February-21, 11:03, said:

I think so too, FWIW.

Does opening vulnerable with North's hand count as an additional error, or is he always this lucky with partner's hand?

Last night on BBO an opponent doubled partners 1♥ opening with ♠x ♥xxxx ♦AKxx ♣AKx, and caught partner with ♠AQJTxx and a heart void. They competed to 3♠ and made 4 (could have made 5 double dummy).

But we still got 61% on the board because many pairs in our seats went down for -200 or -500, and some pairs bid 4♠ their way. So I guess bad bidding is usually its own punishment. But I have a feeling he knows that his partner doubles like that -- I probably would have jumped straight to 4♠ with his hand.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2020-February-23, 16:51, said:

Last night on BBO an opponent doubled partners 1♥ opening with ♠x ♥xxxx ♦AKxx ♣AKx, and caught partner with ♠AQJTxx and a heart void. They competed to 3♠ and made 4 (could have made 5 double dummy).

But we still got 61% on the board because many pairs in our seats went down for -200 or -500, and some pairs bid 4♠ their way. So I guess bad bidding is usually its own punishment. But I have a feeling he knows that his partner doubles like that -- I probably would have jumped straight to 4♠ with his hand.

I have an occasional partner who likes to pull this stunt sometimes. I alert his takeout doubles to make it clear that I do know.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2020-February-24, 07:46, said:

I have an occasional partner who likes to pull this stunt sometimes. I alert his takeout doubles to make it clear that I do know.

In my experience, most of the pairs who bid like this don't even know they're doing anything unusual that needs to be alerted. When asked why they double they usually say "I had an opening hand so I couldn't pass, and I didn't have a 5-card suit to bid." It's just their catch-all bid, and they don't think ahead about the rest of the auction.

ACBL used to have an "off-shape minimum T/O" checkbox in the doubles section of the CC. They got rid of it, probably because the pairs who needed to check it didn't really understand what it means to be "off-shape".

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2020-February-24, 10:10, said:

ACBL used to have an "off-shape minimum T/O" checkbox in the doubles section of the CC. They got rid of it, probably because the pairs who needed to check it didn't really understand what it means to be "off-shape".

It is or would be useful to have explanation of T/O shape inferences in the CC, especially as such inferences represent a murky area in our alert rules: you're not supposed to alert any double unless it shows length or shortness in one or more specific suits, which is arguably almost every T/O double these days.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2020-February-24, 10:10, said:

ACBL used to have an "off-shape minimum T/O" checkbox in the doubles section of the CC. They got rid of it, probably because the pairs who needed to check it didn't really understand what it means to be "off-shape".

It's still on the card at the ACBL website.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-24, 11:23, said:

It's still on the card at the ACBL website.

Our card just asks what double means. Should be sufficient all the same of course, two and a half lines available but all I ever see is "Standard".

[blackshoe]

The answer to "what does double mean" is "it depends."