Mistaken explanation
Hello ,
Please kindly help.
S opens 1sp and W overcalls with 3Cl.(H+D ) E alerts and when asked it is explained as long weak Cl.
after 3 passes auction ends
The layout is attached.
The partnership agreement is 5H + 5D
Questions :
1) Before the opening lead faced, W doesn't call TD and no correction is made . ( Law 21B)
3cl is played by W and goes down 8 or more.
At the end of the play the TD is summoned . N-S complains about the wrong explanation and missing 6 Cl contract .
They also claim that if they had known they would have doubled 3Cl to receive much better score than 6Cl.
(The other team played 6cl and made) What do you think of 3cl dbld. ?
2) İf W , before the opening lead faced , called the TD and corrected the wrong explanation given by his partner
who could have changed their bid ? N or S or both ? İf either of them had changed could W also have been allowed to change his bid ? for exmp to H or D
May I have your thoughts please ?
Thank you for your comments in advance.
Regards.
Secaaddin Özdeniz
Comments
One thing that confuses me: why did East alert? A weak 3-of-a-suit overcall isn't normally alertable.
I don't think 3!cX is a likely result – if South doubles, West would be very likely to pull even if East had explained correctly (I might try to make West stick there if holding two clubs, but a singleton small club is less support than East may have been hoping for, and passing an artificial two-suited bid is often an "in case this doesn't get doubled" sort of thing).
Instead, to adjust, we need to work out what would probably have happened if E had alerted correctly. This depends a lot on the N/S system; for example, does N have an artificial bid to show clubs available after the 3!c(=!d+!h) overcall? Some pairs will artificially use 3!d or 3!h to show clubs in this situation. Regardless of what N does, E is likely to bid 4!h after alerting correctly, so I think the plausible results in the absence of misinformation are 4!h-1, 4!hX-1, 5!c+1, and 6!c=. We'd need to look at N/S's system and bidding style to work out how to weight these results (if N doesn't have a way to cheaply show clubs over the overcall, they probably won't find clubs and will defend a heart contract instead). Note that 4!h-1 and 4!hX-1 are worse for N/S than the table result, so we may end up finding that (even though there's been an infraction) no damage has occurred – the E/W misunderstanding was more damaging to E/W than it was to N/S, so no adjustment is possible.
Your question 2) has a book answer: members of the non-offending side can change their call after misinformation if their partner has not bid since. So in this case, S can change the pass-out call. Calls prior to that can't be changed, so W, N, and E are stuck with their bids – as such, we'd need to adjust for misinformation if the result reached after the change is worse than the result that would have been expected if N knew the opponents' system at the time of their bid. Most likely, this adjustment would end up producing a similar result to that in scenario 1 (although it's more likely that N/S will reach a club contract; if S doubles clubs for penalty, then although W will run, N may decide to compete in clubs).
I suspect I've made a mistake somewhere in the above analysis, though, because it has the potential to give a better result for N/S if E/W admit their mistake and call the Director than if they're silent about it, and that shouldn't be possible. So I've probably missed something, and I'd recommend waiting for a second opinion before acting on this information.
Thank you very much for your analysis. I am still hoping to receive some others.
Regards.
Secaaddin Ozdeniz
OK, my 2 cents;
1) ais523 is quite correct as to who might get their call back if W corrects the explanation before the lead is faced. Here South would have the option to change their call. If South opts to call rather than pass that would reopen the auction here, and West could bid. Although I would note that East's explanation of 3C would be Unauthorized Information to them, so Law 16 may apply.
2) If, as West, my partner were to pass my 3C bid after properly alerting it I would assume they had some kind of classical club preempt and no fit for my suits. Since those suits are nothing to write home about, I see 3Cx as possible here.
3) The anlaysis above assumes that both sides get the correct information, hence that East would bid some level of hearts. I think we should be looking at the situation where North / South get the correct explanation, but EW continue in their respective beliefs.
So it seems likely to me (with my limited bridge judgement), North (I don't see that North has an immediate bid over 3C) and east (believing W has clubs) pass, then South, with a correct explanation, probably bids 4C and the slam seems likely to be reached.
South might double 3C, and 3Cx seems possible so might be included in a weighted score. This is an area where the TD just has to use their judgement about what might have happened which can be less than obvious.
Edit - it occurs to me that if I was in the South seat I might even pass with the correct information and take the easy 800.
With correct information, I think that North might well be able to double the 3C bid to show clubs and suggest penalties, and that 3CX-8 should form some of the weighting. Maybe you think it is reasonable for East to run to 3H with his hand, in which case we need to weigh in some of what may happen then.
Certainly passing 3CX would be an LA for West if North doubles and it is passed round to him.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Thank you very much for your comments.
Regards.
Secaaddin Ozdeniz