Do Lead penalties apply?
N: 1NT (announced as 16-18)
E: Pass
S: Pass; North now states "It should be 12-14)
W; Director Please
East intimates that he wishes to change his call. I explain that if he does so there is no further rectification for his side and that South can then change his call if he so wishes. (Law 21). I also explain to South that he must bid on the asusmption that partner has a strong NT and the fact that East passed over the strong NT is not available to him. (probably missed telling North that he must bid on the assumption that partner thinks he has 12-14 points). I also tell EW to call me back if they feel damaged by the UI.
East doubles and South bids 2S. West bids 3H passed out. (South had QXXXX in Spades and KQ9 of diamonds). It made 4 for a good score - the 'top' was by a pair where opponents bid 2H as a transfer after the double and their partner thought it was natural!
Do lead penalties apply? Law 26 states in part.
"When an offending player’s call is withdrawn and it is not replaced by a comparable call, then if
he becomes a defender declarer may, at the offender’s partner’s first turn to lead (which may be
the opening lead) either"
I assume that South is an offending player (even though his partner caused all the problems). (Oh - and is the pass showing a pass of 16-18 (announced range) or a pass of 12-14 (partnership agreement?)
But what about the "no further rectification for his side" in Law 21?
Comments
Did South understand the instruction to bid on the assumption that partner had a strong NT? 2S doesn't seem consistent with that to me.
I hope he did - but he may have hoped 1NT would make (+1), the double probably encouraged the escape. (East could be doubling mainly on a running club suit for instance) I didn't think he had enough to invite, through whether a XX should have been considered is a serious option (mind you at our club level most players go years or decades without pulling out that card).
The "without other rectification for his side" applies to East's change of call. Nevertheless, his withdrawn call is UI to N/S.
As far as South's withdrawn call is concerned:
Law 21B2 states that 16C applies, but it does not mention law 26.
The negative inference is that lead penalties do not apply.
Seems like a poll is in order: With c. 7 HCP and 5 spades to the Queen, would you make a weak take-out following a double by RHO, if...
(a) partner has a strong NT
(b) partner has a weak NT?
If sufficient pollees reply 'No' to (a), then passing is an LA.
But if the answer to the two questions are identical, then the LA has probably not been suggested by the UI.
My instinct is that I would answer "No" and "Yes", making an adjustment appropriate. However, you should poll people who aren't aware of what the issue is.
There are a couple of other issues arising from the OP:
1. the fact that North corrected the misexplanation prematurely, and
2. whether East's change of call was influenced by the MI
(I would be inclined to believe East in this regard, but it may be worth investigating)
East had a 15 point hand - and a promising lead. A poll of two people (myself as director and my RHO when we played the hand) gave 100% backing for the double! (Yes I agree about the polling, but tricky in a club where everyone will have played the same hand.)
A4
AQ98
T6
AJT63
The polling suggestion was with regard to South's action.
As far as East is concerned, you have to make an on-the-spot decision as to whether to allow the change of call, so you have no chance to poll (& this is partly why I would generally err in their favour).
It's not just a question of whether doubling is "100%", but whether the failure to double originally was influenced by the MI. Undoubtedly so, in this particular case - I just raised the point as a matter of principle.
(ps - even after editing, a couple of typos in my last post, somewhat rushed)
Hasn't North committed an infraction here by explaining their own bid before West passed out the auction? Misexplanations by yourself have to be corrected as soon as you realise them, but misexplanations by your partner aren't corrected until the auction is over (or until play is over if you end up as a defender). In this case, the incorrect announcement was by South, so North can't correct it until the auction is passed out. North's correction is a further infraction (in addition to South's misexplanation, which can't be rectified beyond East's change in bid), so rectification is available for any misuse of the resulting unauthorised information. (North also has unauthorised information from South's incorrect explanation, so misuse of that UI would also be rectifiable.) What the "no further rectification" in Law 21 is saying is that we can't rectify this situation any further for MI (which should not be surprising; both East and West have a full understanding of the N/S auction to this point, so the misinformation will have no further effect).
I would check East's system card to see what it said about defences to strong notrumps and weak notrumps. If double is given the same meaning for both (e.g. "15+ balanced"), I'd disallow the change of call. If it has a different meaning in the two cases, I'd be highly inclined to allow it unless it's clear that East's hand fits both meanings or neither meaning. (Some partnerships will play double as penalty over a weak notrump and artificial over a strong notrump, which would be a very good reason to allow the change of call!)
Anyway, given that E/W apparently got a near-top out of this, I'd be inclined to rule no damage, and thus not adjust even if North or South made use of the UI.
EW didn't call me back - and I do agree with what you say about North's infractions. However if a judgement ruling results in a pair going from 20 to 22 matchpoints then it still has to be made. 2 Matchpoints is 2 matchpoints.
I think the argument
"Law 21B2 states that 16C applies, but it does not mention law 26.
The negative inference is that lead penalties do not apply."
per se is incomplete, since in various locations in the lawbook, there are statements that law 26 does not apply. (correction by a comparable call of course - there are others and I don't want to get into a 'No one expects the Spanish Inquisition' listing as we go through the lawbook with a fine toothcomb.)
Maybe we should assume that the "with no further rectification' does mean that Law 26 does not apply.
Isn't Law 26 a stand-alone law that always applies where it is supposed to, unless it is specifically mentioned in another law that it does not apply?
If the phrase 'no further rectification' is to be taken to mean that Law 26B does not apply why is it specifically mentioned in, e.g. law 30B 1 b i (and in many others besides) '....there is no further rectification . Law 26B does not apply...'
Withdrawing my post.
I don't think you need a different systemic structure against strong and weak no trumps as a pre-requisite for allowing a change of call by E. Even if E/W play penalty doubles against both ranges, it is perfectly plausible to think that a 15-count is a routine double of a weak no trump and a sub-minimum double of a strong no trump. OK (to disallow the change) if the system card actually says "15+" in both cases, but it would be more common for it to say "penalties" in both cases, thus bringing into play the sensible proposition that you need a bit more to double a strong no trump for penalties than a weak one. Besides, I agree with Mitch that you want to give the NOS the benefit of the doubt, especially as you have to give an instant ruling to allow play to continue.
Penalty of a notrump bid is normally considered to show a stronger hand than that bid showed (depending on the partnership, it might be slightly stronger or much stronger, but either way, your strength depends on theirs).
So "penalty over weak 1NT" and "penalty over strong 1NT", despite the similar descriptions, are actually fairly different bids, and have different meanings.
They are not the same meaning, to be sure, but I would argue that they are sufficiently similar to come within the meaning of a comparable call under Law 23A1.
Ton Kooijman's paper on Law 23 says:
Strength
To be considered comparable the two calls need to have a common strength (overlap each
other). If the difference in strength can be a king or more the calls are not comparable and if the
difference in strength can be bigger than the overlap in strength, the calls are not comparable
either. A 15–18 NT replacing a 13–15 NT OOT is not comparable. A 1♠ overcall of a 1♥
opening replacing a 1♠ opening in first or second seat OOT is not comparable. Let us look at
the first example in more detail. The difference in strength is 2 points (13-14), the overlap is
one point (15). Had a 13–15 NT replaced a 15–18 NT the difference in strength would have
been 3 points (16–18).
So if we thought a penalty double of a weak NT was 15+ if balanced and 17+ for a strong NT, they would certainly qualify. Many would require quite a good 15 against a weak NT, which would strengthen the argument for allowing it.
I am a bit concerned that the strength for replacing a 13-15 with 15-18 is 2 points but the strength for replacing a 15-18 with 13-15 (the reverse) is actually 3! the commentary does not adequately explain the difference in the arguments,.
Looks like a typo to me.
Actually.. it may be correct. If the 1NT is 13-15, that can only be a maximum of 2 points away from 15-18. But a 15-18 point initial 1NT can be 18, 3 points away from the other range. It's asymmetrical that way - he's addressing the difference in strength as the minimum error in the initial bid. Whether that's entirely correct is a slightly abstract point, I'd be inclined to average the difference between minimum and maximum and call it 2.5 myself.
It looks like the number of points before reaching the overlap. In the first case yoiu slide UP to the overlap (13.14) because you are replacing with a stronger bid: in the second case you slide DOWN to the overlap 18.17.16 because you are replacing it with a weaker bid.(Still not clearly explained IMHO)
An easy way to think about this is that there's no issue in replacing a 10-15 1NT opening with a 14-15 1NT overcall, despite the huge difference in range, because the new call doesn't extend out of the old range at all. Go the other way round and there are, of course, huge issues. So we should be more lenient on replacing a wide range with a small one than vice versa.