SEWoG ?

[nigel_k]

I'm skeptical about the immediate double of 2NT but, as Bluejak says, we can adjust based on some percentage chance South would do this.

 

But even if South would always pass 2NT with the correct explanation, I think there is still damage to N/S. South's second double would take on a different meaning if he had originally failed to double an unusual 2NT opening. The second round double would then be weaker and clearly balancing and the case for North to pull would be more compelling. Instead, the misexplanation means that South's second round double might now contain stronger hands that would be a clearcut double of an unusual 2NT opening, but not of a strong 2NT opening.

[pran]

Since the original post contains the datum that:

 

"2NT was (on request by South at his first turn to call) explained by West as natural"

 

one might be more inclined than one would otherwise be to accept the statement that South would not have passed over it had it been described as unnatural.

Precisely!

 

At least one commentator who has grasped a very essential point.

[gnasher]

I don't understand the scepticism about South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT. Nor do I understand the suggestion that it's unsound to do so.

 

To me it seems playable to use a double of 2NT to show a balanced hand with opening values. It's unlikely that the opponents will be able to judge to play in 2NTx or 2NTxx when it's right. In fact, I suspect that few pairs would even be able to play in 2NT after this start. Doubling 2NT is certainly much safer than passing 2NT and then doubling 3m.

 

The main disadvantage is that with a stronger balanced hand you'd have to act twice, by doubling 2NT and then acting again on the next round. That is, you take more risk with a strong hand, but less with a more common weaker hand. That seems a reasonable tradeoff.

 

Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether NS's methods were rock solid or barking mad. All that matters is what their methods actually were. We have four pieces of evidence that South's hand is a first-round double in this partnership:

- South said it was.

- The director believed him.

- South was apparently interested in acting on the first round.

- Having been deprived of a chance to act on the first round, South thought his hand merited action on the second.

 

Against that, all we have is some people, from a different country, who tell us that in their style this hand would be too weak for a first-round double.

[campboy]

But even if South would always pass 2NT with the correct explanation, I think there is still damage to N/S. South's second double would take on a different meaning if he had originally failed to double an unusual 2NT opening. The second round double would then be weaker and clearly balancing and the case for North to pull would be more compelling. Instead, the misexplanation means that South's second round double might now contain stronger hands that would be a clearcut double of an unusual 2NT opening, but not of a strong 2NT opening.

I disagree. N/S were clearly told that they could get an adjustment if damaged by South's inability to act on the first round, so North shouldn't be playing him for a hand which would have done so. In fact, isn't it illegal to play him for such a hand, given that North has UI telling him that South was interested in acting on the first round?

[lamford]

To me it seems playable to use a double of 2NT to show a balanced hand with opening values. It's unlikely that the opponents will be able to judge to play in 2NTx or 2NTxx when it's right. In fact, I suspect that few pairs would even be able to play in 2NT after this start. Doubling 2NT is certainly much safer than passing 2NT and then doubling 3m.

I would agree that those methods seem very sensible, and could well have been the ones of this pair. But what I cannot agree is that North is less likely to double 3C if his partner shows a minimum balanced hand than he is to pass out a (presumed) takeout double of 3C which, at matchpoints, could be some 4-4-4-1 ten-count. Do you think the delayed double shows a better hand?

[lamford]

Precisely!

 

At least one commentator who has grasped a very essential point.

And not commented on the fact that South asked at all when 2NT was not alerted; why did he not think it was a balanced hand of some larger range than his moth-eaten collection? Did North alert the question followed by a pass as showing a weak NT in standard methods?

[gnasher]

I would agree that those methods seem very sensible, and could well have been the ones of this pair. But what I cannot agree is that North is less likely to double 3C if his partner shows a minimum balanced hand than he is to pass out a (presumed) takeout double of 3C which, at matchpoints, could be some 4-4-4-1 ten-count. Do you think the delayed double shows a better hand?

I don't know, because I wasn't there when NS discussed this sequence, if they did. (If you're asking me what I would have for this double, I would have some hand with short clubs consistent with my previous inaction. But you knew that.)

 

Anyway, I wasn't discussing anyone's second-round action - my point was only that it seemed unreasonable to dismiss South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT.

[gnasher]

And not commented on the fact that South asked at all when 2NT was not alerted; why did he not think it was a balanced hand of some larger range than his moth-eaten collection? Did North alert the question followed by a pass as showing a weak NT in standard methods?

 

If RHO has a balanced 20-count and you have a balanced 13-count, it's inadvisable to tell everyone. Partner will already have noticed that he doesn't have many high cards, but the information may well be of interest to the opponents.

[nige1]

The arguments of Gnasher and DBurn convince me.

[dburn]

And not commented on the fact that South asked at all when 2NT was not alerted; why did he not think it was a balanced hand of some larger range than his moth-eaten collection? Did North alert the question followed by a pass as showing a weak NT in standard methods?

Maybe a 2NT opening is more often conventional in Norway than one might expect in England. In that case, South (who played this hand in Norway) might be in the habit of asking whenever 2NT is opened, just in case. After all, he doesn't live in England, where we have a stupid regulation to the effect that... but you all know about it by now.

[pran]

I disagree. N/S were clearly told that they could get an adjustment if damaged by South's inability to act on the first round, so North shouldn't be playing him for a hand which would have done so. In fact, isn't it illegal to play him for such a hand, given that North has UI telling him that South was interested in acting on the first round?

What UI?

TD rulings are generally AI to all players unless (some of) the information is specifically UI to OS.

 

The players (both NOS and OS) are supposed to continue playing bridge as good as possible also after an irregularity. NOS failing to play bridge and instead rely upon a subsequent adjustment may result in some redress being denied.

[pran]

Maybe a 2NT opening is more often conventional in Norway than one might expect in England. In that case, South (who played this hand in Norway) might be in the habit of asking whenever 2NT is opened, just in case. After all, he doesn't live in England, where we have a stupid regulation to the effect that... but you all know about it by now.

Artificial 2NT opening bids are definitely not uncommon in Norway (except among beginners). I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation of the ratio between artificial and traditionally strong 2NT opening bids should reveal about equal ratio (50% - 50%).

[dburn]

What UI?

Did South ask about 2NT behind a screen? If so, there is no UI, but if not...

[pran]

Did South ask about 2NT behind a screen? If so, there is no UI, but if not...

No screens used.

 

South had every reason to suspect an irregularity and call TD when dummy was faced, and all "information" North received in this situation was a direct consequence of this irregularity (mainly through TD rulings). Such information is AI (at least) to NOS, but might be a factor when ruling on an adjustment. I saw no reason to let this have any impact on the question of adjustment here.

[gordontd]

South had every reason to suspect an irregularity and call TD when dummy was faced,

Your original post said he asked at his first turn to call.

[pran]

Your original post said he asked at his first turn to call.

Yes, and was told that the 2NT opening bid was natural (and strong).

[campboy]

Yes, and was told that the 2NT opening bid was natural (and strong).

The fact that he asked about the opening is UI to partner. The answer he got being wrong doesn't change this.

[bluejak]

Anyway, I wasn't discussing anyone's second-round action - my point was only that it seemed unreasonable to dismiss South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT.

I don't think anyone has suggested dismissing it.

 

Too many posts seem to me to be based on black or white premises. Why?

 

The correct approach for TDs and ACs is to gather and assess evidence, including what people say about their actions. As a general policy, some evidence is stronger than other evidence. Written evidence tends to be strong: self-serving statements considerably less so.

 

In this case a player made a self-serving statement about what he would have done if he had been told what 2NT showed correctly. I objected to the presumption that we take this as 100% true without question, but at the other end of the scale no-one should dismiss it either.

 

Burn pointed out what pran had apparently missed, that asking in the first place strengthened the likelihood that he would have doubled. True enough: it is another piece of evidence to be considered.

[dburn]

Burn pointed out what pran had apparently missed, that asking in the first place strengthened the likelihood that he would have doubled. True enough: it is another piece of evidence to be considered.

Burn pointed out only what pran knew to be true: that South asked about 2NT before being told that it "was natural" (which it wasn't). Pran certainly hadn't missed it; indeed, it was a crucial point in the ruling that pran gave.

 

I am not entirely sure what campboy is on about. Sure, North would have had some UI from South's original question, but what has that got to do with anything? West misexplained 2NT, so South passed it - if West hadn't misexplained 2NT, South would not have passed it (or at least, the preponderance of evidence is that South would not have passed it). So, one rules on the basis that the auction proceeded 2NT - (non-pass) - whatever - whatever.

 

To rule North-South's subsequent actions in the actual position "serious errors unrelated to the infraction", or "wild or gambling", seems to me absurd. South was doubtless trying to place his side in the same position as it would have been in if West had explained East's opening correctly. North was doubtless just as confused by the whole business as everybody else was (and as everybody else still is, if campboy and bluejak are considered a representative sample of "everybody"), so nothing he did could possibly be construed as serious, let alone an error.

[pran]

The fact that he asked about the opening is UI to partner. The answer he got being wrong doesn't change this.

Correct, but irrelevant:

South's first question and the (incorrect) answer to this was UI to North when he made his first pass, but (together with all the other available information) AI at the time he was offered to withdraw this pass (after the irregularity was revealed).

[gnasher]

I don't think anyone has suggested dismissing it.

 

Sorry, in attempting to paraphrase my earlier post I inadventently changed the meaning. What I meant was that it was unreasonable for you, and to a greater extent others, to be so sceptical of South's statement that he would have doubled 2NT.

 

Having said that, these comments seem fairly dismissive:

 

nigel_k: "Pass of 2NT by South looks normal to me after a correct explanation... I would also adjust to 3H-2, but not because South would have doubled 2NT. If the explanation had been correct from the start, I would expect the same auction but with North bidding 3♥ at the end..."

 

Lamford: "a high percentage of the (unlucky) table result should stand, perhaps all of it. I don't think South would be taking immediate action ..."

 

campboy: "As others have said, it is not at all clear that the player really would have acted differently with correct information. It is completely safe to say, after you've already been deprived of your chance to double initially, that you would have done so"

 

Poky: "Would he bid something else on 2NT (with the right information) what would prevent him even to come in situation od doubling 3?? - No, he wouldn't."

[hotShot]

If West thought that 2NT is natural and strong, than 3♣ would usually be some kind of Stayman and not some the preference for one of Easts minors.

 

Once North gets the correct information that East is at least 5-5 in the minors, he knows that EW do not necessarily have a fit, and that East has at most 3 cards in the majors, and at least one of them is split 4-1 or 5-0.

 

I think it's AI for North that South dbl was made under pressure.

Given that:

opps might have no fit,

the double does not necessarily promise both majors and a fit is not guaranteed and

at least one major splits badly.

 

I see no reason to judge North pass was SEWoG, not that it matters as it is obviously related to the MI.

 

Actually I think that " 2NT shows a weak hand with (at least) 5-5 in minors" should not include an 11 HCP monster with a void.

South is under a lot of pressure and given that an average 2NT both minor opening will be weaker than this one, South has to assume that NS has the majority of points and he has to submit that information to North. Dbl seems the only reasonable way to do that with the given hand.

 

So I don't think that South dbl was SEWoG, not that it matters as it is obviously related to the MI.

 

Given the correct information the probable results are 3♥-2 and 3♣=. North still knows that East has only 3 cards in the majors and that one major will split 4-1 or 5-0, so 3♣= should have some weight in a mixed score.

[lamford]

If RHO has a balanced 20-count and you have a balanced 13-count, it's inadvisable to tell everyone. Partner will already have noticed that he doesn't have many high cards, but the information may well be of interest to the opponents.

I agree, it is only partner that we should tell. Then he will be able to double with a 7 count when it goes 2NT-Pass-Pass and pass with a 7 count when you don't ask. And as far as telling the opponents is concerned, giving them benefit in the play, I don't expect the opponents to draw any inferences - after all you might be the sort that always asks about unalerted bids.

 

In practice, of course, the person does not think whether the UI is likely to be useful to partner. But asking with this hand over an unalerted 2NT, if one does not always ask, can raise suspicions.

[campboy]

I am not entirely sure what campboy is on about. Sure, North would have had some UI from South's original question, but what has that got to do with anything? West misexplained 2NT, so South passed it - if West hadn't misexplained 2NT, South would not have passed it (or at least, the preponderance of evidence is that South would not have passed it). So, one rules on the basis that the auction proceeded 2NT - (non-pass) - whatever - whatever.

I was responding to Nigel's suggestion that North might have passed 3♣x at the table because he was playing South for a hand strong enough to do something over the initial 2NT. North should not do this, firstly because he was told by the TD that they could get an adjusted score on the basis of South acting initially if this was likely the case and secondly because it is suggested by UI.

 

I agree that if we adjust the score we do so on the basis that the auction would -- some proportion of the time -- have proceded 2NT - (non-pass) - whatever. That is why I have previously asked for a plausible auction with that start ending in 3♥ undoubled -- but I haven't been given one.

[campboy]

I see no reason to judge North pass was SEWoG, not that it matters as it is obviously related to the MI.

As a side point, it could matter. The "unrelated to the infraction" clause only comes in if we consider it a "serious error", rather than "wild or gambling". I don't think it's either, but I think you could make a better argument for WoG than for SE.