Wrong explanation?

[OleBerg]

Unfortunately the distribution is unavaiable to me for the moment, and may not surface, hope you don't mind.

 

 

With all white, North dealt and opened:

 

North  East  South  West

 

  2♦  -  2NT  -  4♥  -  Double

All pass.

 

2♦ was both majors, at least 4-4.

2NT was natural.

4♥ to play.

 

After the blind lead, South inquires about the double, and is told it is penalty. The contract is -1. After play, it turns out, that the doubler is 4-2-3-4 with two small hearts and scattered values. 2NT overcaller has Kxx of hearts.

 

I was called to the table after the hand.

 

South claims that there might have been misinformation. South claims, that if the double was meant as take-out, and had been explained as such, he might have made the contract.

 

EW both claims that the double is penalty. There is no written documentation on this or similar sequences. EW are good players, they play an intricate strong-club system with a lot of gadgets, and generally know what they are doing.

 

Is there any grounds for adjusting? (How to adjust is relatively uninteresting for the moment.)

 

If you have the energy, please elaborate on your thoughts.

 

And I'd be interested in considerations in whatever jurisdiction you are in.

[jdonn]

I don't think there are any grounds to adjust. Penalty is just a way to say "I think you are down and want to score higher for the undertricks". It doesn't mean "trump stack", I can just as easily think you are down because I have strength or top tricks.

[dburn]

Hard to imagine what evidence South had for suggesting that he had been misinformed - did he really believe that West had doubled in the hope that East would take it out into something that might make facing 4=2=3=4 and scattered values, especially given that North was supposed to have spades?

[peachy]

South thought there might have been MI and appropriately called the TD. His statement what he would have done if the Dbl was Takeout, has no bearing on the case, because it was a Penalty and all the evidence supports that it was Penalty. "Penalty" particularly at the 4-level does not mean "I have the trumps wrapped up". No adjustment.

[PeterE]

Nothing to add :)

 

Peter

Germany

[cherdanno]

As an aside, maybe declarer would benefit from learning that a 2NT bid tends to show stoppers in both majors?

[Pict]

I've sometimes posted where I thought a double at game level was penalty.

 

I was corrected! Doubles are pretty much takeout/values to game level +. With a penalty you pass.

 

So this is very different?

 

That's handy.

[PeterE]

Maybe it depends whether partner passed (or did not even was at turn) or whether partner showed a strong (balanced) hand already ????