Misinformation
Playing yesterday at a club game:
My partner, North, opens a 15-17 1NT, East overcalls 2C, alerted by West and explained as both majors.
Sitting South, with 10 HCP including Queen to five hearts and AQ to three spades I doubled, to show ability to penalise at least one major.
West passed as did North.
East looked distinctly uncomfortable and looked questioningly at his partner. Both are weak players, decent guys.
I advised East that if he had a problem and his call had been wrongly explained he should provide a correction before the opening lead is made. He said that his 2C call was natural, not majors.
I told my partner that she could take back her last Pass if she wanted, which she did and bid 2NT which I raised to three, making for 600.
When entering the result in the Bridgemate we found we had a bottom score as all other N/S had bid and made 4H for 620.
My partner and I don't have a system for finding our 5-3 heart fit after such a sequence. Lebensohl would have done it with a correct explanation of the 2C bid when it was made.
My question is, would we be entitled to an adjusted score after having taken the opportunity to change North's call?
There is nothing in Law 21that says so. White Book 8.21.1 says "The TD may adjust the score if damage has occurred, regardless of when they were called." Adjust under which Law?
Comments
First, as a note, Law 20F5b actually requires the Director to be called at the time that a player corrects their partner's misinformation (end of play for a defender, pre-opening-lead for declarer/dummy). So you were an offending side here too (unless you were the Director).
However, law 21B1 is fairly clear on how the adjustments work:
So any damage to your score that's attributable to North's pass/2NT bid can't be adjusted for, but any damage that's attributable to your double can be. What would the Lebensohl bidding sequence look like? If it doesn't start with a double by South, it's a clear 21B3 adjustment.
If it does start with a double by South, though, but the double has a different meaning depending on the meaning of 2!c, it's a pretty interesting situation: the problem is that the opponents' misinformation has affected the meaning of your bid, but you would have bid the same thing either way, so the damage to your partnership stems from North not knowing that you would have bid the same thing either way, and thus technically affects North's next bid, the one for which the only rectification is the ability to change the bid. So it seems that by the letter of the Laws, you don't get any redress. This seems like something of a potential bug in the Laws here that could do with fixing. (That said, the situation can't be all that common; I've been trying to find a position where it could happen using common methods, to make for a clearer example, and am drawing a blank so far. There almost certainly is one, I just can't think of one right now.)
Alan
It's unusual to play Lebesohl after a club bid, even is that was determined to be their agreement, which is far from clear from the description.
It's always dangerous to state an agreement is 'unusual'. When I learnt lebensohl, it still applied after a natural 2C overcall (an immediate 2-level bid natural non-forcing, 2NT...3 suit is invitational; a jump to 3 suit natural and forcing, 2NT...3NT shows doubt about a club stop).
Alternatively, some people play 'system on' with double as Stayman and everything else as after 1NT P.
Apart from the odd description where you were giving a ruling at your own table (even if you were the TD for the evening, I think it's normal to ask someone else to rule when there's a problem at your table), you certainly could still get an adjusted score, as long as:
Really? I can't say that I've ever excluded Lebensohl after a 2 !c overcall and can't recall anyone suggesting in a system discussion that we should. In one sense the more suits there are available to bid at the 2-level the more efficiently Lebensohl works, as there are sign-off, invitational and forcing bids available in all higher-ranking suits not shown by the overcall.
It's a slight paradox that the way I generally play, the hands shown by a double of a natural 2 !c overcall and a double of a "majors" 2 !c overcall have a considerable overlap (takeout of clubs, and values with some length/strength in the majors, respectively). But the alerting status varies with the meaning of the opponents' overcall: if they don't alert, they have clubs, so neither do I; if they do, and it turns out that they have majors, then I have to alert too.
Reverting to the OP, if the agreement is that 2 !c shows clubs, then an adjusted score is in order because SDN would presumably have been able to show his hearts and reach 4 !h had he known that 2 !c was natural. If the agreement was majors, then he has been damaged not by any infraction but by E's (un)timely misbid, so no adjustment. Players are, of course entitled to know what their opponents' agreed methods are, not what is in their opponents' hands.
Sounds like I need to withdraw this assertion! Or at least qualify it with "in my partnerships"!
OK, so here's an attempt at making a clear example. It turns out that this is actually a really specific situation, but here's a situation where it could come up that's at least plausible:
E/W vulnerable, dealer E.
East opens with 1!c, which West (thinking that they're playing a strong club system) alerts and explains as 16+ any, forcing.
South doubles, which in their defence to strong club systems shows 5-5 majors, weak to intermediate.
West passes, intended to show 8+ HCP, forcing. (East does not alert, but North is not aware that anything is wrong here; playing a pass as weak in this situation is hardly unreasonable.)
North realises that their hand is probably a total misfit with partner's, and with lots of clubs and a weak hand decides that pass is the safest option.
East is actually playing Acol with a 12-14 NT range (and West has forgotten which partner they're playing with), but is aware that West could have a strong hand. Passing is clearly a logical alternative with a "weak" partner and all those clubs, and it's counter-suggested by the UI, so East passes, ending the auction.
East now calls the director, saying that West has given misinformation as to the meaning of the opening 1!c. The director offers North a chance to change their final pass. But North has no reason to think South is anything but weak, and bidding could easily be a disaster here (North is actually right about this: East can make 3NT). So North chooses not to change their pass. The contract is played out, and East makes 8 tricks on the lead of the Queen of Hearts, scoring 340 points.
South calls the director back at the end of the hand, explaining that the partnership was damaged by the misinformation. If North/South had been informed correctly, then South would have doubled for takeout (N/S's partnership does not play Michaels, and this is confirmed by inspecting the system card (which lists a cue bid as strong takeout), so there's no doubt about what South would have done). West (who, as I understand it, isn't allowed to be woken up to his own error in this hypothetical situation) would still have passed. North would then continue with 1!d. East isn't short in diamonds, and this isn't a pre-balancing situation, so (believing West is weak) is likely to pass; even if East continues with 1NT, it's far from certain that E/W will make game. It's not completely clear what the final contract will be, but 1!d/2!d for North/South, 2!c for East/West, and 1NT/2NT for East/West are all better-scoring for North/South than 1!c X would be, so the director decides that the probability of 3NT for East/West is low enough that North/South have been damaged.
However, the director tries to look for a law under which the score can be adjusted, and fails to find one! Although there's unauthorised information here, East hasn't taken any actions demonstrably suggested by it (quite the opposite). So that's not a valid adjustment. As for misinformation, South wouldn't change anything about their bidding as a result of the misinformation (they double at their first turn to call either way, and didn't get a second call), so there's no 21B3 adjustment; whereas North was given a chance to change their bid and chose not to, which was the entire rectification available under Law 21B1! So the director has no choice but to rule "North/South were damaged by the misinformation, but no law allows me to change the result, so table result stands".
Assuming that much of the rest of the room either failed to find 3NT, or found the sacrifice in 4D-2 by South (which is entirely reasonable on tables where E/W are playing a strong NT: partnerships are more likely to have a bid to show 5:5 minors over NT than 5:5 majors), E/W's result of +340 is likely to be very good. It seems like something is wrong here. Perhaps the Laws need to be changed to add the possibility of an adjusted score in this situation?
Admittedly, the situation is unlikely to come up. (I had to stretch a bit when designing N/S's strong club defence in order to get this result; double of 1!c showing 5:5 is not implausible as strong club defences go, but there are several reasons why you wouldn't want the majors to be the suits shown; in fact, this hand is a good reason why you'd want clubs to be one of the suits shown!) As far as I can tell, it requires all the following factors:
That's a lot of conditions to meet, so I wouldn't be surprised if this had never actually happened in practice.
I had to give a ruling at my table because there was no other TD and nobody else who could have handled it, other than simple errors like bid out of rotation.
My question remains unanswered: assuming that we can establish that the actual agreement was 2C is natural or there was 'no agreement', and that I could explain how my system would get us to the heart fit with the correct explanation, with a different action than the double of 2C, under which law would the adjustment be granted? What would a TD have done if called to my table and asked for a ruling?
To me it seems that there is a lacuna in law 21 inasmuch as it does not cater to such situations. There are other laws which have sub-sections which effectively say that 'notwithstanding what has been stated above, if the TD determines that the NOS has been damaged the Director will award an adjusted score (based on the likely outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred)'. Law 21 does not have one.
The absence of such a provision in law 21 appears to deny justice to the non-offending side.
What's wrong with 21B3?
21B3 applies 'when it is too late to change a call'. In this case it was not too late to change a call, the call was changed but it did not result in restoring equity and indeed could not reasonably have restored equity; how reasonable would it be to expect players to have a system to find the right contract under these circumstances?
Other laws have a provision to restore equity through an adjusted score if the non-offending side is damaged even after the prescribed rectification has been applied, 23C being an example. Law 21 does not have such a provision. It would be interesting to know whether this was deliberate or an oversight.
I may come back to this when I have more time, but for a lot of partnerships the S hand is not a double of a natural 1 !c opening (even with no bid available to show specifically 5-5 majors), so there is the basis for adjustment. Of course you still have to project a likely result after, say, a 1 !s overcall.
Might not Law 12A1 assist?
If the case doesn't come under the laws surely we simply apply law 12A1
committed.
It seems that the case is that although the overcaller would make the same call, it would have a different meaning. This inability to communicate the meaning of the call is certainly 'damage'. The player is entitled to know that partner would make the same call in the corerct circumstances.
It was too late to change a call. It was too late to change your double of 2C (assuming that is what would have led to you reaching 4H). 21B3 covers this case.
Aha, I get it! It was not too late for my partner to change her call because she had the opportunity to change it under law 21B1a. However it was too late for ME to change MY call under 21B1a so that would entitle us to relief under 21B3.
Thank you.
Thinking further about it, would this not give the NOS a second bite of the cherry? In our case, if 3NT makes while 4H would have gone down we stay with our score and if, as actually happened, 3NT was a bad score with 4H making we could seek redress through an adjusted score under law 21B3?
Yes, and a good thing it is too.
If your opponents' misexplanation gets you a better score than you would otherwise have got, you don't need any adjustment, because you haven't been damaged. It's only when you've been disadvantaged by the misexplanation that you deserve, and have a right to, an adjusted score. See law 12B.
Unless, of course, you suspect the MI and take a gambling action that goes wrong. Obviously this is less likely than in a UI situation - but can happen.