[Hanoi5]

---

After the bidding ends, West asks South what's the meaning of the doubles. South explains the first double was for take-out and the second for penalty. Before leading the ♥Q, North writes in a piece of paper that the first double was for penalty. The hand is played, West finesses spades into South and goes an extra down. He calls the Director. What would you do as Director?

[blackshoe]

result stands.

[Hanoi5]

I accept that. But no comment to what happened at the table? Isn't one of the doubles alertable?

[blackshoe]

Depends on where you are. Neither is alertable in the ACBL, for example.

[gordontd]

Hanoi5, on 2012-April-10, 19:30, said:

After the bidding ends, West asks South what's the meaning of the doubles. South explains the first double was for take-out and the second for penalty. Before leading the ♥Q, North writes in a piece of paper that the first double was for penalty. The hand is played, West finesses spades into South and goes an extra down. He calls the Director. What would you do as Director?

Quote

L20F5(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in
his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)
but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

This business of writing something down on a piece of paper has no legal basis, and had the player followed the correct procedure EW would likely have been better off.

I must say though that I would need some more evidence before I accepted North's assertion in any case, given the hands they each have and the way the auction proceeded.

This post has been edited by gordontd: 2012-April-11, 02:32

[gnasher]

North's correction of the explanation was illegal and it encouraged West to go wrong in trumps, so it's clear to adjust the score.

We aren't told how the play went in 3♠x, but it's possible that West misplayed it. If North led ♥K, marking him with KQ, and also has ♠Q, and 1NT was 15-17, that means both diamonds are onside. Depending on the sequence of plays, it might have been right to play South for SQ anyway. However, I can't see that coming close to being a "serious error".

With the original information given by South, I think it's clearly right to play South for ♠Q. It's suggested by the original explanation of North's first double, by the opening bid, and by the considerations about the diamond layout. Hence I'd give 100% of 3♠x= to both sides.

Unless North was very inexperienced, I'd fine him as well. I'd resist the temptation to put him in the stocks for a couple of hours.

[mr1303]

The OP suggests that West went an extra one down, which I take to mean probably 2 down in this case, rather than 1. Unless the defence is truly horrible, I can't see any more than 8 tricks. So I adjust to 3S X -1, NS + 200. Other than that, agree with Gnasher.

[gnasher]

Sorry, can't count. I adjust it from -2 to -1.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Either somebody edited the OP, or I need remedial training in reading comprehension.

What the heck did North think he was doing? Agree with adjusting to down 1.

[kuhchung]

North's actions are frightening.

[Hanoi5]

I made a TERRIBLE mistake. I wrote 'North writes in a piece of paper that the first double was for penalty.' when I meant that North wrote in a piece of paper privately to West that the first double was for penalty. There was no way for East or South to see what was written on the paper AND they might not even have noticed the note was written or shown at all.

Does this change anyone's decision?

Wasn't this clear from the first post?

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on 2012-April-11, 20:41, said:

Does this change anyone's decision?

Wasn't this clear from the first post?

Probably not.

No.

[barmar]

North's heart seems to be in the right place -- unless he was deliberately trying to mislead declarer, it seems like he was trying to help declarer without giving UI to partner. The UI problem is presumably the reason why the Laws require defenders to wait until the end of the hand to correct MI, but he thought he'd come up with a better solution.

But we don't allow improvisation like this. The Law says you wait, and then if the TD judges that the MI affected the result, he adjusts.

And since this correction is an infraction, and North could have known that the infraction would mislead declarer into finessing the wrong way, we adjust.

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on 2012-April-11, 20:41, said:

Does this change anyone's decision?

Not mine. North still broke the laws, and he still gained by it.

[Benoit35]

On which planet does one make a penalty double over 2♠ with this hand?

I know "cheat" is a 4-letter word in bridge, but this smells... Adjust the score, and PP to North.

And by PP, I mean Public Phlogging.

[ahydra]

I'm not convinced North is "cheating" at all. A number of pairs (e.g. if playing LEB) will play penalty X there, and North knows the opps have at most 17 HCP. He may know West likes to overcall light, or he is taking a shot at 200 with no game on his way.

Nonetheless, what barmar says is correct - North could have known that going out of his way to write the correct explanation of X on the paper might mislead declarer, so I'm definitely adjusting it back to -1.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Wait a minute. North wrote something on a piece of paper and showed it to West, who is dummy. East, even if he notices all this, has no idea what's on the paper. How could North have known that this action would mislead declarer?

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-19, 06:12, said:

Wait a minute. North wrote something on a piece of paper and showed it to West, who is dummy. East, even if he notices all this, has no idea what's on the paper. How could North have known that this action would mislead declarer?

Looks to me like West is declarer, not East.

[blackshoe]

Bah. Disregard my last.

[bluejak]

There is always a problem with MI when it describes the hand well. Certainly I would give North a PP on this occasion. Giving declarer a piece of paper telling him it is a penalty double is ok if the hand looks like a penalty double, even though it is not legal. But doing a mild illegality like this is completely unacceptable if the hand does not look like the correction but does look like the original explanation.

Mind you, I have found some posts confusing, so I may have mixed everything up. Is my understanding correct?

• the hand with ♠xx doubled 2♠
  
• this was described as a takeout double
  
• the player who held ♠xx passed a private note to declarer saying it was a penalty double

If this is correct adjust and give the player with ♠xx a PP. If I have messed the facts up, ignore this post!