sanst

At most? How can it be less? You seem to use a rather different definition of gross than most of us.

he To me, it's obvious that NS don't have an agreement over this situation, so there is a misexplanation. Are EW damaged with "only" +200? I don't think so. But if you want to make sure, you have to organise a poll and not start speculating about possible LA's.

Why is nobody discussing the action of S? Self directing and, at the end of the evening, asking for an opinoin, is not done, not n my book anyway. Either you call a director at the appropriate time, or you accept whatever happens. If no (other) director is available and you still want to play by the book, join club where there is one.

Here you see what happens if the director directs at his own table. The TD should have checked wether the 5♥ could be changed under 25A. If not, and S should have passed, I don't see any option for W but to bid slam, since E had by his 4NT bid with its possible 5♠ answer already closed the door on ending in 5♥ were this answer given.

The question in the heading is easily answered: EW are offending. NS might not have played the best bridge in the world, but their actions most certainly can not be qualified as a serious error. You must do something really stupid to earn that mark. What S could have done differently? Asking about the 2♦ bid and passing, beacause it's explained as a transfer, gives UI to N, wich would lead to trouble when N leads a ♦, not to mention the AI it gives to EW. As others have writen: the director made more than one mistake here. S should have been given the opportunity to change his last pass, although I fail to see to what. And the problem of adjusting is clearly explained by helene_t. The 2NT-3 seems to me a too easy way out by the director. That W's behaviour is beyond contempt, is clear to all. A serious PP is in order.

I think that is a crucial point. We don't know the hands, but N might have a decent hand for his 5♥ bid. If you decide on 4♠= for both sides, because N's bid might have been inspired by the remark, you give NS a lousy score for a fault which is not theirs. IMHO you should award both sides a score which could have been obtained without the EI, that's either Avg+ for both or 4♠= for EW and 5♥x-1 for NS. Wether the obtained result (5♠x-1) is due to some unwise action on E's part, is also dependent on the actual hands and might also been taken into account when adjusting the score. If the remark was indeed about another board, I would let the result stand. We always get information on boards, if only for the declarer asking rather loudly for a certain card from the dummy, the dummy being slightly deaf.

Maybe he could, but certainly should not have corrected it before your second pass. The auction was still in full swing, so nothing should be volunteered but obligatory announcements and questions answered about the partership agreements. The only moment a declarer (or dummy) has an obligation to correct, is after the bidding has finished when there was a misexplanation. There's certainly no law that forces you to tell the opponents that you made a mistake. So you want S to bid 5♥, but that is not exploring slam? And you think S was splintering without a know trump suit? I just don't believe that without any proof. The misbid is by far the best explanation of the 3♠ bid. And if you wanted to know what N showed, you could, or rather should have asked. Yes, ***** happens. It's totaly unclear, at least to me, what infractions NS have made. I think the title of your post actually implies that there was some kind of foul play, even though the director decided there was nothing wrong with NS's auction. BTW: I've been playing over fifteen years with my partner - and we've been living together even longer - and our agreement for a jump answer over a 1NT opening is "strong, long suit, slam going". Sadly, it almost never happens. Either your suit is not good enough or your RHO doesn't pass.