Mis-informed
And another one! (see adjacent discussion!)
Mostly club nights run without too many calls for the TD.
Not last night!
S opens 1NT (12-14), W overcalls 2C, alerted and described as 'single suited'
(Not clear whether it was made explicit that it could be any single suit.)
East bids 2D. Not alerted, but it should be as it is pass or correct.
W corrects to 2H, and now N Doubles.
South thinks this is 'values for 2N', and holding AJx of H, passes.
2HX makes. NS claim they were damaged by the inadequate description and lack of alert.
Although EW have not been perfect, TD ruled that NS have not actually been misled and let the result stand.
Do NS have a case?
Comments
It seems to me that it was crucial for the director to ascertain more precisely what explanation E gave. Experienced players would probably assume that the explanation "single-suited" implied "unspecified suit" (otherwise why alert?), but less experienced players might not (the assessment of this may well depend on how common Pottage/Cappelletti is in your club). Be that as it may, E should be careful to make it clear that it is an unspecified single-suiter, and it appears that he may well not have done so.
N/S appear to have been hampered by lack of methods (it is not clear to me, for example, why S interpreted a second-round double as "values for 2NT" when N could perhaps have doubled 2 !c to send that message), so may bear some responsibility for their misfortune.
However, there was certainly an infraction by E/W (W's failure to alert the P/C 2 !d bid), and there may have been another (E's possibly incomplete explanation of 2 !c) . With a full and accurate explanation and proper alerting N/S may well not have defended 2 !h X. It seems very harsh to deny redress altogether (see my reference to the "could well have been" standard in my response in the other thread).
Surely this cries out for a weighted adjustment, which may of course include some element of the table result.
NS were a very experienced pair.
And there are a number of pairs who list Pottage on their cards.
Joking with S afterwards we decided an immediate Dbl of 2C would have shown values for 2N.
And thus the delayed Dbl (of 2H) showed 'nearly the values!'
2H was a popular contract which deep finesse defeats, but this only happened a few times.
It might have been harsh, but N didn't really have his bid!
If it were clear to NS that East held a single-suiter in hearts, would South have done other than double and would North have left it in had he doubled? It seems that NS have been damaged by misinformation.
Edit: On further consideration, NS could, and should, have protected themselves by asking what 2H meant in light of already having shown a single-suiter in clubs. I think they then would know that it's a hand full of hearts and the damage is self-inflicted.