[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-19, 14:36, said:

which part of "acbl club" in the subtitle warranted the stock jurisdiction lecture?

The part that I didn't see.

[blackshoe]

CSGibson, on 2013-July-19, 14:19, said:

On a heart lead there are at most 8 tricks, assuming OP does not go after clubs, and gets the spades and diamonds right - if he goes after clubs, there are 7 tricks. The tempo is vital for the defense.

Ah, so I see, now. Okay, fair enough.

gnasher, on 2013-July-19, 15:03, said:

Surely the preponderance is the evidence is their agreement is (d)? One of them obviously thought it was natural, and the other obviously thought it showed a two-suiter. Nobody said "Oh yes, he's right - I forgot", and nobody said "He's wrong - we discussed it last week." The gap on South's convention card also suggests that they hadn't discussed it.

Anyway, the obvious thing to do is to ask each of them whether he thinks there is actually an agreement, what that agreement is, and when this agreement was formed.

It's obvious from South's bidding that he thought 2NT was natural, and this is supported by his explanation. Hence his non-alert probably means only that he doesn't know the alerting rules.

I'm very leery of that word "obvious", especially here on the forum. I agree the TD should ask questions - assuming he's called. He should be called, but apparently he wasn't. See below.

DuaneC, on 2013-July-19, 15:16, said:

East asked South after checking his card and seeing it blank. South said natural, 2NT opening strength.
East then looked at North's convention card, and seeing "2 Lower Unbid", asked North, "I see your card
shows 2 Lower Unbid, is that right?" North said yes. Hand was played out, and director not summoned
until after the hand completed.

So questions were asked, the explanations don't match up, and no one called the director? Also, it seems East did not ask North about his bid, but only whether the information on North's system card correctly described NS's agreement. There's nothing wrong with that, but at some point now the director should be explaining in no uncertain terms to North that he is obligated to call the director at the appropriate time (and what that time is) when he disagrees with his partner's explanation, and to East that when this kind of disagreement comes to light, if the opponents don't call the director, he should do so.

rwbarton, on 2013-July-19, 15:55, said:

Thanks.

While I'd be the last person to subscribe to the notion of "convention disruption", for this flagrant three-way disagreement between South's explanation, North's explanation, and North's actual hand, I'd give N/S a PP for not having two identically filled-out convention cards regardless of the level of play, even though it feels a bit like getting the mob boss for tax evasion.

I did allude to the possibility of a PP in my earlier post, though not for anything like "convention disruption". Investigation as to the reasons for the discrepancies may lead to the judgment than an immediate PP is warranted, or it may not. I don't think it's clear from what we know at this point.

Revised answer to OP's question 1 ("Adjust, or no?"):

It appears there may have been damage. Was there an infraction? Well, we have a bit of additional information now: North said that what was on the card was the correct explanation. Now I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that whatever the actual agreement was, it was not "natural". Therefore South's explanation was MI. I would apply Law 47E2{b} if called to the table after the play. This would lead to a score adjustment to 3NT down 2 for both sides under Law 12C1{e}. If I'm called to the table when I'm supposed to be called, i.e., before the opening lead is faced, the misinformation will be cleared up, and East will be allowed to retract his unfaced opening lead, if any, and substitute another (Law 47E2{a}). In that case, there will be no score adjustment.