[leao]

WAS THERE DAMAGE?


In a recent team of four contest with screens the hand below had the following bidding in one of the tables:

East South West North
Pass 1NT Pass 2♣
Double 2♥ Pass 3♣
Pass 3NT Pass 6♣
Pass 6♦ Pass 6NT
All pass
South’s opening was 12-14. North bid 2♣, Stayman till further notice, and East doubled. North asked his screen mate if the double meant ♣, to which the answer was “no, just general take-out”. North then asked again “does it ask for a ♣ lead?”, to which the answer was again “no”. As the tray went to the other side, South’s screen mate, when asked about the 2♣ double said it was “natural”, showing a ♣ suit. South bid his ♥ suit and North bid 3♣, alerted and explained as second Stayman. South then bid 3NT which he intended as stopper showing, because he thought that if East had ♣, as it was explained to him, there was no point showing ♣. North was befuddled by the 3NT bid, as it would show a 1-4-4-4 hand by South (South’s answers should have been, as per system, 2♦ - one unspecified 4 suit minor -, 2♥ - no minor -, 2♠ - ♠), but with his monster hand he wanted to play in a slam, so he bid the cheapest slam, “knowing”, as per the explanation given to him, that his partner would interpret it as to play. South, alas, imagined differently: picturing a long ♣ suit on his right he “corrected” to 6♦ which North, in turn, corrected to 6NT. Down 1.

The question is, were N-S damaged by the different explanations on either side of the screen? If so, should the score be adjusted?

---

[blackshoe]

The auction in your hand viewer does not match the auction in the text.

Quote

Law 12B1, in part: 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 – but see C1{b} below.

Quote

Law 12C1{b}: 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.

If NS could have expected a better result with no MI, then they were damaged.

Was the explanation of 3♣ correct? "Second Stayman" sounds like a hobbit's "second breakfast".

[mycroft]

Note: as well as the diagram bidding flaw (missed pass before 6♣), there seems to be a typo in the responses to 3♣ (3♦=4cm, 3♥=No m, 3♠=♠ (and hearts), not 2 throughout).

So, the first question, as always, is "what was the agreement in fact?" I'm sure there are a fair number more questions about agreements (on both sides) after that.

Who was misinformed will almost certainly determine what the damage was, if any. If East is correct and South was misinformed, then it should be an easy rollback to 6♣; even though it can't possibly be anything but an offer to play, even with the bad break. If West is correct, and North was misinformed (and East misbid), then North would never have tried to play in clubs with the right explanation, would probably have understood what South was trying (maybe? How experienced are all the players?), and sat for 3NT "knowing" that all slams were doomed to the bad breaks. There were no bad breaks, but N/S are entitled to the agreements, not the hand. Is it likely? Is there a weighted score? Is there any adjustment? That depends on the answers to those questions and the polling of the peers.

What if we find out that their agreement is "we don't have one" or "we have two conflicting ones, and can't resolve which one applies in this auction" or "we just guessed, we're new partnership and our weak NT defence isn't too nailed down"? Well, there's a law for that as well.

Certainly, the SEWoG regulation quoted above may come into effect, depending on how good N/S are (and how likely they think E/W are to know their agreements).

Short answer: call the TD. Explain. Let the TD ask the right questions, go off and consult, and come back with a ruling. Appeal (or query the DIC about it before potentially appealing) if it seems clearly wrong, or accept it if it's only "merely" wrong (or "right"). As usual.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-21, 09:27, said:

If NS could have expected a better result with no MI, then they were damaged. Was the explanation of 3♣ correct? "Second Stayman" sounds like a hobbit's "second breakfast".

IMO, It doesn't matter which explanation of the EW agreement is correct. NS would have an easier auction without misinformation, so the director should adjust to 6♣=. I see no SEWOG. Hobbit (aka extended Stayman) is on my system-card

[GrahamJson]

Whilst I suspect a revised score would be given due to the misexplanation I can't say that I have much sympathy for N/S, particularly S who made a non systematic bid (3NT). It seems to me that S trusted his oppo's bidding more than his partner's. Never a good thing to do.

[masonbarge]

I'd say pretty much "definitely yes" and award 6♣ to NS. You're obligated to know your system, especially by the time you're playing at that level, and it's impossible to say that NS were not damaged.