Posted 2006-September-10, 07:22
You are only required to alert your agreement, not what you hold. If you don't alert properly your agreement, then you give misinformation (regardless of what you held). If you alert correctly your agreement then you provide no misinformation even if you hold something VERY DIFFERENT from what your agreement is.
So as TD, your first responsibility is to determine if the partnership agreement was explained accurately (no need to even look at the hand held to determine this). A couple ways you can do this. Look at their convention card, look at previous hands they have played. Etc. As long as the agreement was adequately explained, then there is no ground for correction.
On this hand, EAST suggest 2♠ was "weak" and WEST expressed it as "to play". WEST explaination sounds like something he might say if WEST was a passed hand. If WEST was a passed hand, and the agreement is that 2♠ could be highly variable (including an opening hand), then the alert would be mis-information (assuming west's explaination is correct). If west is an unpassed hand, then 2♠ is to "play" means by default it has to be very weak. So I suspect you left out WEST initial pass...to make the problem more interesting, lets assume this is the case (the bidding was pass-1D-2S with inappropriate alert).
In this assumed case, you know have misinformation. In a F2F event, you might very decide that EW can not profit from their misinformation and award them 3S making three for EW +140. But lets turn our attention to north's bidding. Misinformation does not protect NS from a wreckless and suicidal action. So you have to judge was north's actions reasonable given the misinformation?
The balancing double, hoping partner has a penalty pass is not a horrible decision I suspect, and opening 1D instead of 1C or 1NT is not wild option either. However, after the risky double of 2S (given the doubleton heart) and hearing partner bid 3H and WEST come alive with 3S, what else can 4H be but reckless. Partner not only didn't pass the 2Sx the 3S bid suggest partner is short in spades and didn't even use a negative double of 2S despite having some hearts. The 4H bid is so reckless, that NS deserve their 4Hx-6.
Did the misinformation (explaination of agreement if it could include an opening hand) lead to NS bidding too high? I think the answer could be yes, so I would like to roll back EW result to 3S=. But NS real problem was norths bidding, so I would like to leave their result as 4Hx-6. At F2F, this kind of adjustments is possible. On BBO, sadly it is not. There is no fair way to correct it on BBO currently. Perhaps Average EW, and average - to NS but that doesn't seem fair either. NS deserve much worse.
--Ben--
Bidding:
1♦-2♠!-Pass-Pass;
Dbl-Pass-3♥-3♠;
4♥-Dbl-All Pass