Mistaken Explanation

[Chris3875]

After the 3C bid by West was passed out, West realised he had made the wrong explanation. South called the director who told the players to play the hand and that it would be looked at later.

 

The hand made 10 tricks.

 

The director ruled that the score should be adjusted to 3H/S making 7 tricks ! East says he will never allow N/S to play in 3H, but will always bid one more time.

 

This was passed on to me for my comment - my thoughts were that according to Law 75B the director shall award an adjusted score following a mistaken explanation infraction when this infraction results in damage to the opponents. I am not a good player but feel that N/S can only make 8 tricks in spades or hearts, while E/W have 10 tricks in either clubs or diamonds, so cannot see that N/S were damaged.[hv=pc=n&s=st975hak9752d3ct4&w=sq62hjt83dk86ca97&n=sak84hq64dq74cqj8&e=sj3hdajt952ck6532&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2np3cppp]399|300|2NT alerted and described as strong, balanced 20-22[/hv]

[mycroft]

I'm not looking at this as carefully as I would (friday evenings being what they are), but:

 

With the right explanation I assume the director thought the auction would go 2NT-p-3♣-X;p-3♥-AP. I can't really see a 3♥ call from South directly over a preemptive 2NT opener.

 

East's comment is pure resulting, unless the real agreement was 5-5 in the minors or better, 2-6. They *always* would bid one more, when it turns out it's not going to get chopped off for 800-into-partscore, especially when they know partner doesn't know what they have. However!

 

West, who is not entitled to the correct explanation, will never let N-S play undoubled unless the auction can wake him up (and remember, the auction won't go 2NT-p-3♣-p; p). With 30 high, he is doing *something*. I would be awarding 3♥X= if it made, so I can't give any percentage of 3♥ undoubled unless we can envision an auction where N-S get to 3♥ and East's legitimate auction is impossible with the balanced 20 count.

 

3♥X off however many is possible, but there are other alternatives. We can take East at his word that he would bid one more, even if partner hit it (I would pretty much guarantee that at the table East would, using the UI to do so) leading to 5♣ unless the pollees all believe that the pull would wake them up. Or West might bid 3NT instead of doubling, thinking that 500 is too chancy; that will lead to 4♣ by East and probably a wakeup.

 

I also don't think we have to assume that East will get the diamonds right on the correct auction just because West did in the one at the table. I might get overruled on that.

 

So I think I'm awarding some collection of 5♣E-2. 4♣E-1 (or 5♣E-1, why not?) and 3♥XS-1 (I can't really see not making 8 tricks in hearts. 7 in spades, but I don't think I can get them to spades).

 

I think they'll actually prefer the ruling your director gave :-).

[blackshoe]

I'm wondering, also without thinking much about it, whether East's pass of 3♣ might not have taken advantage of UI.

[barmar]

I'm wondering, also without thinking much about it, whether East's pass of 3♣ might not have taken advantage of UI.

How so? His bid shows minors, partner is supposed to bid whichever minor he prefers, and East normally passes. Doing anything else seems like taking advantage of the UI (which suggests that West doesn't actually have a club preference). Although I'm not sure what else East might do.

[blackshoe]

How so? His bid shows minors, partner is supposed to bid whichever minor he prefers, and East normally passes. Doing anything else seems like taking advantage of the UI (which suggests that West doesn't actually have a club preference). Although I'm not sure what else East might do.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Like I said, I didn't put much thought into my last post. :-)