Reopening the auction and UI
Hand as attached. N opened 1c and S 2d.
N alerted and when asked said 2d was strong, natural, GF. N now 3d and South passed much to N's surprised, and passed out. South dutifully admitted that a wheel had come off and called the director (me). Not sure I got it right.
As per 21B I allowed W to take her bid back an offered her a new bid in light of the misinformation. She decided on 3s despite only holding 4, but a reasonable hand).
N asked whether he could bid again. I ruled yes, but he could not take advantage of any UI due to the infraction (16C). He now punted 5D passed out making 11 for a middle which I have not changed.
Auction:
1c - p - 2d - p
3d - p - p - 3s (initial pass taken back)
5d - all pass.
So:
- Was taking the bid back and reopening auction correct?
- Was it sufficient rectification for EW? ...who then did themselves no favours by bidding 3S.
- N claims no UI, as S's subsequent pass had woken him up to the fact it was a WJS (and not the fact that S had called TD). Seem reasonable to me.
- Did S have any UI that would have forced him to take further action?
- Any reason to adjust the score as per 21B3?
Thanks, Graham.
Comments
First action: what was the correct meaning of 2d? (Everything below is subject to polling of course, but...). I assume the correct meaning is "weak jump responses" since otherwise law 21 won't apply. If the correct meaning is as north explained then there is no MI. (See answer 4 below) and the final contract should have been 3 diamonds (also see answer 2 re director's error)
1) Law 21B1 allows West to change her call if it was based on misinformation AND she would have bid differently with the correct explanation - NB this is NOT the same as if they would change their bid if they find out that the opponents are having a misunderstanding.
2) As you can see law 21B says that if they change their call then there is without further rectification - if you haven't made this clear then you may be in a position of awarding NS the score for 5 diamonds and EW the score for 3 diamonds +2 under law 82C.
3) If 3 Diamonds was forcing as far as North was concerned then I would be prepared to accept that the fact that South does not have a strong diamond hand. NB if 3 Diamonds is NOT forcing I would start checking to see if this has happened before!
4) South has UI that North was surprised that he had passed the bid. This would possibly indicate that North has a much stronger hand than the AI would suggest. I cannot see how that knowledge demonstrably suggests that South passes over the 5 Diamond call. AS I said this should be polled.
5) There is no reason to subsequently adjust the score. As well as point 2, the law says that an offending side can take any action after rectification even though they seem to profit from their infraction. Law 10
make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit
through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).
(Law 16C is UI from withdrawn calls and plays, law 27 is insufficient bid and law 72C is the usual catch-all about if they could have known at the time of the infraction it would have damaged the NOS you award a adjusted score.)
Although South has admitted a 'wheel came off' which wheel was it? Did South forget the agreement and misbid, or North forget the agreement and give a wrong explanation. I know South doesn't have to own up to a misbid but many do.
Assuming it was MI then I can see that West might not have Passed 2D with the correct explanation, and would have questioned her and then polled to test that hypothesis, adjusting if necessary. The Pass of 2D is not available to be changed.
Of course if West can convince the Director that her final Pass was influenced by the MI she can change that Pass without other rectification. However I think it is unlikely the final Pass was influenced by the MI and I would be reluctant to allow it to be changed.
By the time of West's final Pass she could/should have worked out what was going on since North's explanation of 2D as GF cannot be correct or else South would not have Passed 3D. If N/S had convention cards then West has the opportunity to see if the real meaning of 2D is explained therein.
Perhaps the time to call TD Please! would have been when South passed 3D as this is the point at which
the given explanation is manifestly fishy.
Peter Bushby Suffolk
NS were playing Weak Jump Shifts and N's explanation was incorrect.
Good point that W should have worked out the problem for themselves without S pointing it out.
South called the TD after W had passed.
Although not mentioned in my earlier response - the TD can still rule on MI if West would have bid 2 Spades (or doubled) over the correct explanation of South's call (assuming the actual explanation is incorrect). Obviously this is now into the hypothetical stages. In that situation EW might get get doubled in a major-suit partscore (even 4SX-2 beats 5D) - especially if North thinks South is strong and tries for 800.
If West would not have passed over a weak jump shift, then North may not get woken up. For instance, North may make a pass (intended as forcing following a GF 2D) and find that everyone passes.
Thanks all for the collected wisdom. On consideration I correct the scores to:
This changed a 50/50 to 100/20 which feels fair and pragmatic. I am also a little wiser.