spw99

I agree that West is a nutter (both on the evidence at hand and other experience with this player), but I don't see why you form that opinion of East. What did he do that was nutty, other than agree to partner West? Given West's nuttiness and his stated "reasoning" (in my Mar 22 post), I'm surprised you don't attach any weight to his statement that he might have passed 2H if given a correct explanation. Maybe you had to be there, but that looks "at all probable" to me. Anyway, I'm encouraged that my view of the proper ruling is sane, even if not absolutely correct. Thanks to everyone for your responses.

I don't see anything in L12C1d that restricts it to cases involving L12C1c. Given the makeup of the WBFLC (concentration of ACBL representatives), my guess is that 12C1d was added specifically to legalize the too-frequent award of artificial scores in the ACBL. Legal or not, giving an artificial score when a deal has been played is a terrible idea.

Thanks for all the comments. That is incorrect and illegal, so we shall not include this one. Of course we can decide what would have happened, and we do not give Average scores because we are not going to assign correctly. Actually I don't believe this is illegal any more, but I agree it's a terrible idea. The actual TD ruling was as my item 5: score stands for both sides. EW appealed. The AC ruling was score stands for EW, avg(!) for NS. The AC didn't explain their ruling, but I'm guessing the reasoning was as items 3 and 5 in my earlier post. My ruling would have been +110 (as item 1a) for NS, -150 (as 4b) to EW. I'd like to give EW more but can't get the combined chances of -100 (3D-2) and -110 (2H=) to add up to "likely." If allowed to give a weighted score, I'd include some weighting for both of those. Oddly, the AC score is not that far in actual matchpoints from what my ruling would have given. Further comments welcome, especially related to the title of this thread.

Maybe this thread is losing interest, but let me try posting a list of possible rulings. Th list includes the actual TD and AC rulings, what I think the ruling ought to be, and maybe a few others to confuse you. ;) There could well be a split score, so if replying, please mention rulings both for NS and for EW. 1. With correct information, West might have passed 2H, which just makes. NS +110. 1a: for NS, it would have to be "at all probable" for West to pass. 1b: for EW, it would have to be "likely" for West to pass. 2. The 2S bid was legal, but with correct information neither E nor W would have doubled it. NS +140. 3. The 2S bid was illegal, but we can't tell what would have happened if there had been neither MI nor UI. Normally we'd give EW avg+, NS avg-, but EW bid badly, and most outcomes are favorable to NS. Avg. 4. West would have doubled 2H even with correct informatin, but North's 2S was illegal, and East would have bid 3D over the takeout double. 4a: 3D-2, NS +100. 4b: 3D-3, NS +150. 5. EW caused their own problems, nothing to do with MI or UI. Score stands, NS +570. I'll give the actual result and my own opinion in a couple more days.

Thanks for responses so far. Sorry, what was unclear? EW understood their own agreements (though you can certainly dispute their judgment in using them!) but had no idea North's 2H showed anything but hearts until too late. North knew 2H showed both majors but didn't realize West's double was takeout. Believing the double to be penalty was North's justification for the 2S bid. (Neither takeout nor penalty is alertable in the ACBL.) South forgot the NS agreement about 2H and didn't care about double; South was always passing no matter what. One mistake in my posting was that the EW range for 1NT was 11-13 and announced as such. This was my mistake in posting; there was no confusion on this at the table. Sorry if that makes a difference, but I haven't seen a clear answer to the overall question yet. West's explanation was that if 2H shows both majors, NS might have landed in the wrong one. In contrast, if 2H is just hearts, and opener cannot pass for penalty, NS probably have a heart fit, and EW likely have a fit in another suit, perhaps even spades. You can, of course, believe this or not, but it's what West said. If EW have correct information that 2H shows majors, and West doubles anyway, showing minors, East's potential double of 2S would be takeout. East might do that or might pass, but it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that East would bid 3D. Your judgment may, of course, differ.

ACBL sectional open pairs (no screens, of course): [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sak543hqjt3d32c86&w=sjt9h952daq4cqj93&e=s872ha87dkt76ca72&s=sq6hk64dj985ckt54]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] W - N - E - S P - P - 1NT- P ; 1NT = 12-14 announced (East upgraded his hand) P -2H - P - P ; 2H showed both majors but was not alerted x -2S - x - AP; x(W)=takeout, x(E)=penalty (given that West has shown some spades) 2Sx made 9 tricks. North did not ask about the first double and assumed it was penalty, therefore corrected 2Hx to his longer suit. The MI about 2H came to light after it was too late to change West's final pass, but of course he wouldn't have changed that call anyway. EW claim that if 2H were alerted, West's double would be less attractive (though West admits he might have doubled anyway), but in any case it would be takeout of both majors (i.e., showing minors, nothing about spades), and East would have an automatic 3D bid. What should the ruling be? This is ACBL, so weighted scores are not possible, but feel free to comment on what might happen in other jurisdictions. And for amusement, can you guess the actual ruling? (No, not avg+/avg-; that would be too easy!)