[sanst]

---

The 2♠-bid was correctly explained as 5+♠ + 4+minor. EW can introduce both majors with 2♣. The meaning of N first double is unclear but probably TO, the second is penalty. EW made 3♠x, NS are not happy and call the TD. They claim that if N had known that W had a hand like this, he would have started hearts and S would have trumped the third heart. The TD decides to let the result stand, NS got the right explanation and are not entitled to know that W deliberately deviated from the system. It’s clear that E was surprised by the bidding of W, but why he did pass 2♠ instead of asking the minor is unknown to me. Also unknown is why S didn’t introduce his diamonds in the first round. And W had a strange remark about his bidding. He didn’t bid 2♣ “because my hand is to strong”. Why he didn’t bid 3♥ but instead rebid the spades is also not clear, but he obviously prefered these over his hearts.
Some obviously atrocious bidding has been going on, but that’s not the question. The question is whether we believe E that he was very surprised by west’s hand as he claimed. In his defense I must add that he is the one who asked advice about the TD’s decision because NS kept grumbling.

[Cyberyeti]

How did the defence go ? I presume N went to bed with ♠A when a small spade was led by W after 2 rounds of diamonds, but surely with that dummy and declarer apparently having clubs, you should cash ♦A (getting a count signal and knowing that's all) then take as many heart tricks as possible before they go west on the clubs. Even if you decide to go for a club ruff and play a club at trick 2, you fly A♠ cash ♥AK before giving the ruff and all is well.

Unless EW have a recorded incident of doing this before, I don't see any redress. If E assumes W has 5♠/4♦ I can see wishing to get out of the auction as low as possible and passing 2♠.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2020-February-25, 04:23, said:

It’s clear that E was surprised by the bidding of W, but why he did pass 2♠ instead of asking the minor is unknown to me.

What does his pass of 2♠ mean in their agreements ("I am comfortable with spades doubled"?) and why did he choose it with that hand? Surely this is the crux of the matter. If he was not acting on UI then it's hard to see any other infraction, unless you know they have a history of misusing interference.

Even if an infraction is ascertained, the damage to NS is not that clear to me. They could have bid to 5♦ with or without the interference and they could have done better than 1NT+3 simply by leading AK♥. South should smell a rat if 3♣ is bid but he already got one bid wrong.

[lamford]

East doesn't have any UI so can bid what he likes. I would also pass 2SX, especially, if as stated, it is 5+ spades, not exactly 5 spades. It rates to be best opposite something like KQJxx xx Axxx xx.

The defence has to be sharp to beat 3♠X, but that is irrelevant from a legal point of view. AK♥, third heart ruffed, diamond and fourth heart promoting a trump trick seems to be the only defence. However, no MI, so no adjustment.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2020-February-25, 10:04, said:

East doesn't have any UI so can bid what he likes. I would also pass 2SX, especially, if as stated, it is 5+ spades, not exactly 5 spades. It rates to be best opposite something like KQJxx xx Axxx xx.

The defence has to be sharp to beat 3♠X, but that is irrelevant from a legal point of view. AK♥, third heart ruffed, diamond and fourth heart promoting a trump trick seems to be the only defence. However, no MI, so no adjustment.

That's the defence to beat 2♠x, you only need 2 hearts, a heart ruff and 2 aces to beat 3, but I agree no adjustment

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2020-February-25, 10:04, said:

East doesn't have any UI so can bid what he likes.

He doesn't have any UI if West gave none. It's not easy even for a good player to remain impassible when he hears his natural spades interference explained as spades plus a minor. Of course that takes an admission by EW or at least an accusation by NS, but the Director should have it in mind as a possibility I think.

[blackshoe]

It would be a mistake to assume UI without positive evidence.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2020-February-25, 15:49, said:

It would be a mistake to assume UI without positive evidence.

Absolutely.
But also to exclude it without examination of any evidence.
East might even concede it, we aren't told what he was asked.

[blackshoe]

True.

[sanst]

A few, probably not so satisfactory answers. I wasn’t present and have only information provided by E, asking a couple of TD’s whether the director’s decision to let the result stand was right.
Somehow, incomprehensible but true, N managed to give his partner not the hearts ruff. He probably thought, after seeing the dummy, that W was short in hearts. Still, continuing the suit can hardly be wrong if that’s the case.
What the agreement about the pass of E was, is also unknown. I gather that it wasn’t alerted nor asked. Maybe E passed since he didn’t like the idea of ending in 3♦ - S hadn’t introduced his diamonds at that point, so he decided to leave the decision to W.
E was asked about the agreement about the 2♠ and explained it correctly. Since I haven’t any information from NS, it’s impossible to know how the answer was given was.

[weejonnie]

I would like to know if there is any history of West 'forgetting' the system. That would seem to be the only possible irregularity i.e. the opponents not knowing that he might have a hand incompatible with the auction.

In the old days, I suspect this would be rated as an amber misbid by an EBU director - meaning it is not conclusive that East picked up on the misbid.

(I would be tempted to pass with the East hand - I know we are in a 5-1 fit and that can actually play reasonably well - and it is one level lower than (presumably) bidding 2NT and getting a 3-Diamond response. Also North's double is for takeout and with that hand, I would be pleased that the opponents are going to declare. Not to mention a 3-level bid is more likely to be doubled than a 2-level bid.) In fact as we see, South took out the double (as expected) and of course there is no point looking for a fit at the four level - especially as West's furthe bid of 3 spades (with no support) must show a pretty strong suit - and East has an honour in it, as well as an honour in West's presumed second suit.

West's hand is pretty strong - as long as a fit can be found - it only has 5 losers! Compared to some hands that are bid these days it is a 'rock crusher'.

[gerry]

We are told that East was 'surprised'. Combined with West's bid I am inclined to rule MI. Further, am I the only person concerned about the 3S bid? Why not 3H?

[pescetom]

gerry, on 2020-February-27, 00:33, said:

We are told that East was 'surprised'. Combined with West's bid I am inclined to rule MI.

The OP says that East was asked the agreement about the 2♠ and explained it 'correctly'. If Director was convinced that the explanation is correct (say it was written on a system card) then I can't see why you should incline to MI. East being 'surprised' is consistent with correct explanation, or at least with sincere conviction that the explanation was correct.

gerry, on 2020-February-27, 00:33, said:

Further, am I the only person concerned about the 3S bid? Why not 3H?

That's a better point, I think. 75A says that the unexpected explanation of 5 card ♠ plus a minor was UI to West and he has to avoid taking advantage of that as per 73C, but that is not so easy to apply here.
Certainly the 3♠ rebid should have already 'surprised' East, if 2♦ would have shown a 6 card major as seems likely given the other agreements.