[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

1♦..2♣(1)...P...3♣
.P....3♠......P.....P
.P

---

(1) Thinking he was bidding Landy (both majors) over a 1NT opening

Lead: ♦5. West won and led clubs, expecting partner to ruff.

Result: 3♠ (N) +1, NS +170 (87.6%)

EW called the TD to query the 2♣ overcall on a doubleton. How would you rule?

[campboy]

What would (1NT) 2C - 3C mean?

[dburn]

VixTD, on Jul 7 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

EW called the TD to query the 2♣ overcall on a doubleton. How would you rule?

That if the overcall on a doubleton could be made as a matter of partnership agreement, it required an alert.

Did it not occur to East-West to wonder why South had passed three spades?

[nige1]

VixTD, on Jul 7 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♦..2♣(1)...P...3♣
.P....3♠......P.....P
.P(1) Thinking he was bidding Landy (both majors) over a 1NT opening
Lead: ♦5. West won and led clubs, expecting partner to ruff.
Result: 3♠ (N) +1, NS +170 (87.6%)
EW called the TD to query the 2♣ overcall on a doubleton. How would you rule?

---

The director should worry about a possible concealed partnership understanding or the use of unauthorised information. Even if EW noticed nothing remarkable, the director should still ask South why he passed 3♠, because, on the surface, it appears that South fielded North's misbid.
There is also the suspicion that North may have been woken up to his mistake by the failure of South to alert his "Landy" 2♣. That unauthorised information could suggest a 3♠ bid rather than a pass of 3♣. Quite a lot for the director to investigate

[blackshoe]

How would I rule? By investigating first, as others have said.

[RMB1]

I do not think there is misinformation from failure to alert. I do not think the NS agreement is (1♦)-2♣ = both majors.

I would try to determine whether there are logical alternatives to 3♠: calls that might be considered are Pass, 3♦ (equal length in M?), 3♥ (better M), 4♣ (raise of natural, constructive 3♣).

The UI from the failure to alert 2♣ suggests trying to play in a major and not playing in clubs; so it suggests 3M over 3♦, 3♦ over Pass, and Pass over 4♣.

I suspect Pass is a logical alternative and adjustment to 6 or 7 tricks in 3♣.

[jallerton]

nige1, on Jul 7 2010, 06:58 PM, said:

VixTD, on Jul 7 2010, 12:23 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♦..2♣(1)...P...3♣
.P....3♠......P.....P
.P(1) Thinking he was bidding Landy (both majors) over a 1NT opening
Lead: ♦5. West won and led clubs, expecting partner to ruff.
Result: 3♠ (N) +1, NS +170 (87.6%)
EW called the TD to query the 2♣ overcall on a doubleton. How would you rule?

---

The director should worry about a possible concealed partnership understanding or the use of unauthorised information. Even if EW noticed nothing remarkable, the director should still ask South why he passed 3♠, because, on the surface, it appears that South fielded North's misbid.
There is also the suspicion that North may have been woken up to his mistake by the failure of South to alert his "Landy" 2♣. That unauthorised information could suggest a 3♠ bid rather than a pass of 3♣. Quite a lot for the director to investigate

I agree with these comments. However, the TD must press South to get to the bottom of why he really did pass 3♠ on this massive hand. I can only think of one logical explanation for South's pass: North must have shown surprise from the lack of alert, suddenly noticing that West had actually bid 1♦ and/or seeing the unexpected 3♣ bid. Surely South had UI from North's mannerisms else he would have (at the very least) bid 5♣. West has a fairly obvious double, so I'll adjust to 5♣x off several.

In theory the number of tricks in 5♣x should be weighted, but I'll consult with Bluejak whether this is really necessary when N/S rate to get 0% of the matchpoints anyway.

[mycroft]

More investigation - as Campboy suggested, what is (1NT)-2C-3C? Why 3S instead of 3H? Why did South pass 3S?

Yet more reason for the TD to investigate everything, not just what the NOS complains about - because what the NOS complained about is the one thing that they have no potential recompense over - North is entitled to mis-hear or mis-see the opening.

[mink]

jallerton, on Jul 7 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

... North must have shown surprise from the lack of alert, ...

Yes, it sounds plausible that North showed surprise in the moment when he discovered that he had misbid. However, maybe these signs of surprise are not noticed by anybody. Is it correct now for the TD to simply assume that it happened?

Karl

[mjj29]

mink, on Jul 8 2010, 03:51 AM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 7 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

... North must have shown surprise from the lack of alert,  ...

Yes, it sounds plausible that North showed surprise in the moment when he discovered that he had misbid. However, maybe these signs of surprise are not noticed by anybody. Is it correct now for the TD to simply assume that it happened?

In the EBU at least you don't have to worry about that - you just rule 'fielded misbid' if the misbid has been catered for by partner. I don't know if this also applies in the WBU

[bluejak]

The WBU follows EBU regulations in the Orange book and the White book unless it specifies otherwise. Apart from an odd system permitted in Wales which is probably covered by the Orange book anyway, I do not know of any exceptions.

[campboy]

mjj29, on Jul 8 2010, 11:56 AM, said:

mink, on Jul 8 2010, 03:51 AM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 7 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

... North must have shown surprise from the lack of alert,  ...

Yes, it sounds plausible that North showed surprise in the moment when he discovered that he had misbid. However, maybe these signs of surprise are not noticed by anybody. Is it correct now for the TD to simply assume that it happened?

In the EBU at least you don't have to worry about that - you just rule 'fielded misbid' if the misbid has been catered for by partner. I don't know if this also applies in the WBU

I think you do have to worry about that, as the ruling based on South having UI from a reaction of North is likely to be much more favourable for the NOS than the fielded misbid ruling (average+).

[VixTD]

dburn, on Jul 7 2010, 12:42 PM, said:

Did it not occur to East-West to wonder why South had passed three spades?

More worryingly, it didn't occur to the director to query why South had passed three spades.

I was so occupied with trying to work out what logical alternatives were for North over 3♣ that I totally missed this point.

It's pointless to ask what NS's agreement is about a 3♣ raise of a Landy 2♣ overcall - they don't have one. I polled five players who play Landy from the middle to the bottom of the field and they were all rather puzzled by the fact that partner had bid 3♣, but they all found bids of 3♥, 3♠ or 4♥, and were adamant that they would never pass.

Even at the end of play North was still convinced that West had opened 1NT. He was so oblivious to what was going on around him that I don't think he would have noticed the lack of an alert.

I let the score stand, but I should have adjusted to 60/40 for a fielded misbid.

[campboy]

VixTD, on Jul 8 2010, 02:36 PM, said:

It's pointless to ask what NS's agreement is about a 3♣ raise of a Landy 2♣ overcall - they don't have one. I polled five players who play Landy from the middle to the bottom of the field and they were all rather puzzled by the fact that partner had bid 3♣, but they all found bids of 3♥, 3♠ or 4♥, and were adamant that they would never pass.

It's not pointless to ask; you find out that they don't have an agreement, which is useful information! Now you know that your poll is meaningful.

[Bbradley62]

VixTD, on Jul 8 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

I let the score stand, but I should have adjusted to 60/40 for a fielded misbid.

Suppose South expects partner to hold AJTx, Kx, xx, AQxxx. Raising to 4♠, and scoring +420 (100%), gets no penalty, but passing and getting +170 deserves one?