Incorrect bid
N opened 2c alerted by S, silence all round, E passed and S bids 2D, no alert from N then there are 3 passes leaving S playing in 2d which was of course a "tell me what you have" bid. Nobody ever asked anything, when dummy goes down he has 6 clubs and 6 hcp, the opps call the director saying that they thought it was a strong 2club as indeed did S they are playing acol.
The director says play it and if you are unhappy with the result I will adjust the score to 60/40 was this correct?
Comments
If North has misbid (i.e. not bid within the agreements of the partnership) then this is not an offence and whatever result happened on the board should stand, no matter who is unhappy or happy about the result.
It may be worth ascertaining, if possible, whether North deliberately bid outside of their system (i.e. a Psyche) or just forgot that 2C was a strong bid rather than a weak 2. If they regularly deliberately bid outside of their system, an implied understanding that 2C could be weak may arise and then there could be a danger that their partner will bid differently - that would be an offence. I think it's most likely in this case that no offence has been made and it was simply a mistake. E/W can feel aggrieved about the result but there can be no rectification within the Laws of Bridge.
Irrespective of North's reason for bidding 2C, the bid is deemed to strong in the NS system (Law 21B1b). South's 2D response should therefore be alerted, and since it wasn't, NS have committed an infraction.
Moreover, it seems likely that North has used UI (his partner's alert of his 2C). I would question further to form an opinion on this, and if I decided so, might not allow N to pass.
Does N normally pass after partner changes suit after a pre-empt? There are partnerships I play in which 2D (weak), 2H would force me to pass unless I had an unexpected heart fit (on the principle of "after a pre-empt, you don't bid again"). If North has such a partnership agreement over weak twos in other suits, then the pass over 2D is presumably systemically forced and there's no logical alternative to it.
2d might be forcing, unless N has either psyched or misbid and subsequently woken up. Can't see why he'd be forced to bid again.
Can't see how failing to alert the 2d has damaged anyone. There is some onus of oppos to ask questions. I certainly would if I was in the pass out seat.
The 2D response surely isn't the issue? The missed alert is because of the misunderstanding of the 2C bid rather than being an infraction in itself. If North has bid 2C as a weak 2 in clubs, 2D would be a natural response and therefore he must react to the bid in that way - not alerting it and bidding as if it was a natural response. Doing otherwise would be using the UI given by South's alert of his 2C bid to wake him up to the fact that he has forgotten the system.
**Unless the 2C is a deliberate Psyche of course, then the unalerted 2D is an infraction.
I'd suspect that we're discussing a beginners' or No Fear session here and that their agreements extend no further than that they play what they've been taught and are able to remember, regardless of whether they claim to play Acol. I've seen Acol-2C bids passed out in such sessions.
This might also explain the director's willingness to adjust to 60-40, rather than do something to the score which they wouldn't understand.
The director will have to determine their system, and in it 2C is either weak, natural or strong artificial. If the former then the alert of 2C is an infraction, and if the latter then the failure to alert 2D is an infraction. One of them has to be wrong!
It's not quite that simple. Let's assume the system is that 2C is strong. North is not allowed to be woken up by South's alert, however this applies only to his bidding, not to the alerting. If North is jolted into remembering that they play 2C strong, then he must alert the 2D accordingly, but still bid as if the 2C is a weak 2 and the 2D is a natural change of suit. The obligation not to misinform the opposition overrules the need to avoid UI. In fact, by not alerting the 2D North is giving UI to his partner.
It does get horribly complicated in such situations!
Experienced pairs are expected to protect themselves against weaker pairs, so if a 2C response to 1NT was not announced (or alerted) but has a Stayman like sequence afterwards, then they can't claim misinformation. There is however no obligation to do so if enquiring would alert the opposition to their misunderstanding.
The failure to alert 2D gives UI to his partner. Whether there is damage will depend on whether South used any UI in his subsequent bidding.
Depending on the experience of the players, there might be no UI issues here at all. One player opens 2C, weak, and expects his partner to say "weak", since, after all, he's been doing that with the other weak-two bids so far. This time, however, partner flashed the alert card - silly partner, obviously he's forgotten that he's supposed to say "weak"?
The auction continues with South assuming that his partner has simply neglected to alert the 2D bid, which was passed out anyway. I should add that I often see improvers not realising that they should alert the 2D response to 2C, maybe due to someone having told them that they shouldn't alert the 2D response to Stayman.
Tag is quite right it was only North's third time playing in a club and I think he just panicked I was really not bothered about the bidding just curious about the director's ruling
Letting play continue was right. The artificial adjusted score would only be appropriate if this a fielded psyche or an illegal psyche or an illegal agreement,
Otherwise if there was an infraction is was because there was a partnership understanding and some failure to alert/explain - any of which would result in an assigned adjusted score - not 60/40.