[Rossoneri]

---

3NT went off 2.

2♥ was not alerted. East doubled to show 4 cards in ♠. At the end of the auction, North led the K♠, now West asked if 2♥ was 2-suited, North replied yes, and South said "Oh *****". The correct NS agreement for 2♥ was showing ♥+♠. East said she would have passed if 2♥ was alerted and correctly explained.

If you're wondering, 2♥ is alertable under Singapore regulations.

How would you rule?

[Cascade]

It looks to me that EW had some sort of misunderstanding of their own so they maybe responsible for some of the damage.

I would need more information in order to make a final ruling.

1. What did double show?

2. Why did opener jump to 3NT? (possibly related to what double showed)

3. An aside but why did north answer about his own bid?

If double showed invitational values then a considerable part of the damage has been caused by the decision to double.

If double does not show invitational values then a considerable part of the damage has been caused by the decision to jump to 3NT.

[bluejak]

I am not sure a considerable part is the correct consideration. For the offending side do we believe that East would have doubled to show four spades if North's bid had been described as hearts and spades? If not - and it seems pretty unlikely - then we appear to have damage so should adjust.

Having decided that we can then consider Law 12C1B and decide whether to adjust for the non-offenders as well.

[Rossoneri]

bluejak, on 2010-December-11, 23:24, said:

I am not sure a considerable part is the correct consideration. For the offending side do we believe that East would have doubled to show four spades if North's bid had been described as hearts and spades? If not - and it seems pretty unlikely - then we appear to have damage so should adjust.

Having decided that we can then consider Law 12C1B and decide whether to adjust for the non-offenders as well.

The correct agreement would have East not doubling if North's bid was correctly described.

I've adjusted to 50% 2♥-2 and 50%2♥-3. (Feel free to disagree.) My main concern is what you've both mentioned - if I should let EW keep 3NT-1.

[Rossoneri]

Another addendum: Agreement of X was 6-8 points, showing 4 card spades. Thus I agree that EW should keep the table result.

The good thing: Even after letting EW keep their 3NT-2, there is no change to the VP score.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2010-December-11, 23:24, said:

I am not sure a considerable part is the correct consideration. For the offending side do we believe that East would have doubled to show four spades if North's bid had been described as hearts and spades? If not - and it seems pretty unlikely - then we appear to have damage so should adjust.

Having decided that we can then consider Law 12C1B and decide whether to adjust for the non-offenders as well.

"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 wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the
adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted."

My intention was that jumping to 3NT opposite merely a competitive partner with an ordinary 16 hcp is a serious error as would be doubling with a six count if the expectation was that it showed some game interest.

Therefore the non-offenders have contributed to their own demise. To that extent they are not entitled to redress.

If double was non-systemic and showed extra then the entire bad result could have been avoided by a more normal action and I would give them no redress.

If double was merely competitive then the jump to 3NT is reckless and we need to consider what contract would be played with a less reckless action and if necessary calculate the difference in score between 3NT and that more normal action and then adjust to 2H-2 or -3 with an appropriate adjustment for the self infliction damage.

[mfa1010]

I don't think that 3NT qualifies as a "serious error". So I would adjust to 2♥ with some number of tricks for both sides.

[mycroft]

This is an interesting hand, and I am not sure whether 3NT qualifies as a "serious error" or just a "if I'm confident, I might make it" bid.

But assume it does. The new law says "such part of the damage that is self-inflicted". Let me see if I work it out properly.

With the Alert, that crappy 6 count turns into a *really* crappy 6 count. I very much believe that East, trying to compete for the part-score, might double a heart overcall and pass without blinking a majors overcall. So, N/S get 2H-whatever (say -2).

For E/W, we believe (arguendo) that 3NT opposite a "competitive-only" X is insane. Strangely enough, a more reasonable call is pass, but let's assume that West thinks partner has a stiff/void, and that 2Hx might make. So, 2NT seems reasonable. Unless that's scrambling, it will probably be passed. It will make 7 or 8 tricks (do we know the play? Do we know if it was all-out to make 9, and they would have played differently for 8?).

If we assume that 2NT is -1, then the "part self-inflicted" is -100; if 2NT=, then it's -220. We don't know the other table's result, say it's also 2H-2. So, is that "-3 (2NT-1) or -6 (2NT=) IMPs" (i.e. did I get the calculation right, not is it 3 or 6)?

[Edit: my final question was ambiguous; tried to clarify]

[Cascade]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-12, 04:57, said:

I don't think that 3NT qualifies as a "serious error". So I would adjust to 2♥ with some number of tricks for both sides.

Maybe not but if not then I would consider it wild and gambling on the assumption that the double did not show invitational values.

The hand is an ordinary 4432 16 count. If partner is not trying for game then there is no reason why we should be.

[bluejak]

How about a misunderstanding as to how they play double? Is that SEWoG?

I have had such a misunderstanding with partners where rulings were not involved, one of us thinking double is competitive, the other that it shows game try values.

[bluejak]

mycroft, on 2010-December-13, 11:54, said:

This is an interesting hand, and I am not sure whether 3NT qualifies as a "serious error" or just a "if I'm confident, I might make it" bid.

But assume it does. The new law says "such part of the damage that is self-inflicted". Let me see if I work it out properly.

With the Alert, that crappy 6 count turns into a *really* crappy 6 count. I very much believe that East, trying to compete for the part-score, might double a heart overcall and pass without blinking a majors overcall. So, N/S get 2H-whatever (say -2).

For E/W, we believe (arguendo) that 3NT opposite a "competitive-only" X is insane. Strangely enough, a more reasonable call is pass, but let's assume that West thinks partner has a stiff/void, and that 2Hx might make. So, 2NT seems reasonable. Unless that's scrambling, it will probably be passed. It will make 7 or 8 tricks (do we know the play? Do we know if it was all-out to make 9, and they would have played differently for 8?).

If we assume that 2NT is -1, then the "part self-inflicted" is -100; if 2NT=, then it's -220. We don't know the other table's result, say it's also 2H-2. So, is that "-3 (2NT-1) or -6 (2NT=) IMPs" (i.e. did I get the calculation right, not is it 3 or 6)?

[Edit: my final question was ambiguous; tried to clarify]

I am afraid what you have written here I find confusing, so rather than say Yes or No, let me work it out with your figures. We are assuming the other table result was 2♥ -2, NS -100.

For N/S we are adjusting to 2♥ -2, NS -100, ie 0 imps.

• For E/W we are assuming that the SEWoG cost the difference between 2NT -1, NS +100, -5 imps and 3NT -2, NS +200, -7 imps, ie the SEWoG cost 2 imps. So we adjust to -2 imps [0 imps per ruling -2 imps for SEWoG].
  
• Or, for E/W we are assuming that the SEWoG cost the difference between 2NT =, NS -120, +1 imp and 3NT -2, NS +200, -7 imps, ie the SEWoG cost 8 imps. So we adjust to -8 imps [0 imps per ruling -8 imps for SEWoG] - no, we do not! E/W got -7 imps: they cannot do worse by an adjustment, since we then say no damage. So, no damage, -7 imps.

Why is it I can hear heavy breathing and the thunder of hooves behind me?

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2010-December-13, 15:36, said:

How about a misunderstanding as to how they play double? Is that SEWoG?

I have had such a misunderstanding with partners where rulings were not involved, one of us thinking double is competitive, the other that it shows game try values.

If you open and the opponents interfere and you don't know what your side's double means that is a serious error.

[jallerton]

Cascade, on 2010-December-12, 02:47, said:

"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 wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the
adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted."

My intention was that jumping to 3NT opposite merely a competitive partner with an ordinary 16 hcp is a serious error as would be doubling with a six count if the expectation was that it showed some game interest.

Therefore the non-offenders have contributed to their own demise. To that extent they are not entitled to redress.

If double was non-systemic and showed extra then the entire bad result could have been avoided by a more normal action and I would give them no redress.

If double was merely competitive then the jump to 3NT is reckless and we need to consider what contract would be played with a less reckless action and if necessary calculate the difference in score between 3NT and that more normal action and then adjust to 2H-2 or -3 with an appropriate adjustment for the self infliction damage.

My contention is that the E/W bidding is clearly not "unrelated to the infraction" so whether it constitutes a "serious error" is quite irrelevant.

To have a bidding misunderstanding is not "wild", nor is it "gambling", nor for that matter is it a "serious error".

Quote

Therefore the non-offenders have contributed to their own demise. To that extent they are not entitled to redress

No, that does not follow. The Law does not require the non-offending side to have played perfect brdge subsequent to the irregualrity before they are permitted redress.

[nige1]

Directors disagree as to whether or not the victims' actions are "wild and gambling"/"serious error".
Those that do decide it is one or other of these cannot agree on how much redress the victims forfeit.
Fascinating and sophisticated problems for directors
Meanwhile, victims wonder why law-makers want to heap insult and injury on them
Many players (like me) find the process unfair, unnecessary, and capricious

[Cascade]

I don't follow this argument at all.

The decision to bid 3NT (or double) was subsequent to not consequent on the infraction.

For now lets assume that the double was just competitive.

The infraction enticed EW to double and thus get to a contract of 2NT or maybe 3minor (or maybe some other contract like 2HX). It seems reasonable that EW get redress for that damage (if any).

EW's own bridge error meant that they compounded the damage. It does not seem reasonable to give them redress for this part of the damage.

It is my understanding that this is how the law reads.

The law uses the terms "serious error" and "wild and gambling" as the threshold for the damage to be not subject to redress.

To me knowing one's methods is fundamental to playing bridge and to get to the wrong contract by not knowing those methods is a serious error. There would be some unusual situations where I would be willing to accept that the error was not serious. I might also not consider this error serious for beginners or very inexperienced players. However for most partnerships not knowing what a double means at the two-level after a simple overcall is a big enough mistake that I would classify it as a serious error. As would be any bid where you mistate your values or jump to game when partner was simply inviting.

The infraction here caused the opponents to get to 2NT or 3minor. Them getting to 3NT was unrelated to the infraction. It was caused by their own poor judgement or lack of knowledge of their own methods. The scoring system used punishes poor judgement and being unprepared (at least in the long run). To that end I cannot see why they should not be responsible for that part of their bad score that they themselves caused.

[bluejak]

You clearly have not played enough medium bridge. It is not only novices and beginners who have valuation problems in this type of case.

But certainly whether it is bad enough to deny part of the redress is a judgement to be made. It is not based on whether you think they should lose redress: the basis is the basis laid down by the law-makers, not the personal views of one person or another.

One player doubled to show four spades, which he would not have done if he had been told it showed both majors. Thus the double, whether a serious error or not, is clearly related to the infraction. So the question is whether the 3NT bid is wild, or whether it is gambling, or both. Actually, I do not think so, but this is a matter that might be better polled.

Or, to approach it in the old-fashioned [and no longer correct] way of earlier Law books:

Quote

The decision to bid 3NT (or double) was subsequent to not consequent on the infraction.

Wrong: the double was consequent on the infraction since he will not double to show four spades if he is told 2♥ shows four spades: if he does not double his partner will not bid 3NT: so both are consequent on not subsequent to the infraction.

[Cascade]

We weren't told the partnership agreement about the double other than west doubled to show four spades. If for this partnership the double also showed invitational values justifying the jump to 3NT then choosing to stretch to double and thus mistake the strength of the hand is not consequent on the misexplanation. It is an error in its own right.

On similar auctions I don't think I have ever jumped to game or even been tempted to jump to game opposite a purely competitive double. The jump only seems to be justifiable if double showed more than a four count (or whatever your minimum is for a competitive takeout double).

[bluejak]

I am not suggesting you make such mistakes, but lots of people do, and that does not make such an error SEWoG of itself. While it is true we are not told that a double of a bid showing hearts and spades does not show four spades, I am willing to bet it does not.

[mycroft]

bluejak, on 2010-December-13, 15:52, said:

I am afraid what you have written here I find confusing, so rather than say Yes or No, let me work it out with your figures. We are assuming the other table result was 2♥ -2, NS -100.

For N/S we are adjusting to 2♥ -2, NS -100, ie 0 imps.

That part I was clear on.

Quote

• For E/W we are assuming that the SEWoG cost the difference between 2NT -1, NS +100, -5 imps and 3NT -2, NS +200, -7 imps, ie the SEWoG cost 2 imps. So we adjust to -2 imps [0 imps per ruling -2 imps for SEWoG].
  
• Or, for E/W we are assuming that the SEWoG cost the difference between 2NT =, NS -120, +1 imp and 3NT -2, NS +200, -7 imps, ie the SEWoG cost 8 imps. So we adjust to -8 imps [0 imps per ruling -8 imps for SEWoG] - no, we do not! E/W got -7 imps: they cannot do worse by an adjustment, since we then say no damage. So, no damage, -7 imps.

Right, that was the part I didn't get. I knew I knew how to do it, but I couldn't get it straight in my head. Thanks.

[mfa1010]

Cascade, on 2010-December-13, 18:26, said:

To me knowing one's methods is fundamental to playing bridge and to get to the wrong contract by not knowing those methods is a serious error. There would be some unusual situations where I would be willing to accept that the error was not serious. I might also not consider this error serious for beginners or very inexperienced players.

I think you are way too harsh here. It may be a "serious error" to go wrong about if ghestem applies or not when there is an agreement about it. But thinking that partner's minimum for some competitive double is 8 and not 6 is not a "serious error". For anybody I would say.

Quote

However for most partnerships not knowing what a double means at the two-level after a simple overcall is a big enough mistake that I would classify it as a serious error.

I strongly believe that the term "serious error" is unrelated to the depth of the partnership's agreements, if that is what you are saying. It could never be a "serous error" not to have discussed the meaning of some bid.