[AndreSteff]

---

Result 4♠+1 +650NS

2♥:'Muiderberg' 5 card hearts with at least 4 cards in either minor.
3♣: West hesitates but explains to South that he assumes it to be convertible : pass with clubs, or correct to diamonds. East would typically hold at least 4-4 in the minors for that call.

The TD is called after play. NS feel damaged: a double of 3♣ would have been for penalties, but South refrained from that because he forsaw EW running to 3♦ (West confirms that he would have bid 3♦). Had South known that 3♣ was real he would have doubled for penalties as EW now for certain have no diamond fit. The convention card mentions that 3♣ indeed is convertible, but that is when the opponents pass or double. EW agree after some discussion that 3♣ just showed clubs and nothing else.

How do you rule?

[lamford]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-16, 12:03, said:

---

Result 4♠+1 +650NS

2♥:'Muiderberg' 5 card hearts with at least 4 cards in either minor.
3♣: West hesitates but explains to South that he assumes it to be convertible : pass with clubs, or correct to diamonds. East would typically hold at least 4-4 in the minors for that call.

The TD is called after play. NS feel damaged: a double of 3♣ would have been for penalties, but South refrained from that because he forsaw EW running to 3♦ (West confirms that he would have bid 3♦). Had South known that 3♣ was real he would have doubled for penalties as EW now for certain have no diamond fit. The convention card mentions that 3♣ indeed is convertible, but that is when the opponents pass or double. EW agree after some discussion that 3♣ just showed clubs and nothing else.

How do you rule?

This looks an easy one.
"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" therefore we assume 3C is just clubs. South will double; West will still correct to 3D and North will double. This looks like a simple N/S +1700, after a heart lead and diamond switch, or only +1100 on a spade lead. I think the former is unlikely, and would give 90% of the latter and 10% of the former.

[campboy]

Agree that the score should be adjusted to 3♦x making some number(s) of tricks.

"It was a convertible disaster -- the retractable roof fell in!"

[Cascade]

Are north south certain that double is for penalties over a natural 3♣

[AndreSteff]

Cascade, on 2011-January-16, 15:47, said:

Are north south certain that double is for penalties over a natural 3♣

Do you have any reason to doubt that assertion?

[Cascade]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-16, 16:18, said:

Do you have any reason to doubt that assertion?

Nothing concrete but I would like to investigate further.

1. Depending on the players it may be unusual to play penalty doubles when partner has made an overcall and our hand is undefined and the opponents make a natural bid

2. It is possible that they have different agreements over a convertible 3♣ to over a natural 3♣

I would like to be sure of these things before making a ruling.

There are some other questions/comments I have:

1. Was 3♣ alerted? You have an explanation given but no alert.

2. Are we really sure that south would have doubled with undisclosed spade support

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2011-January-16, 17:11, said:

Nothing concrete but I would like to investigate further.

1. Depending on the players it may be unusual to play penalty doubles when partner has made an overcall and our hand is undefined and the opponents make a natural bid

2. It is possible that they have different agreements over a convertible 3♣ to over a natural 3♣

I would like to be sure of these things before making a ruling.

There are some other questions/comments I have:

1. Was 3♣ alerted? You have an explanation given but no alert.

2. Are we really sure that south would have doubled with undisclosed spade support

We should accept the findings of fact of the TD or OP that double would have been penalties, but even if it would have been values with no clear bid, North would surely double the run to 3D.

[blackshoe]

You have evidence to the contrary: the fact that 3♣ is "pass or correct" in two other situations. However, given that EW had to spend time discussing the meaning of 3♣ in this auction tells me that they hadn't discussed it previously and had no agreement. So I would not assume "clubs is just clubs"; apparently they have no agreement as to what clubs is in this auction. Still MI, sure, but the question now is whether South would have doubled had he been told NS have no agreement, but that it is "pass or correct" in two other situations.

[bluejak]

It does not look like a simple 1700 to me: what is East, an idiot? Well, ok, that 3♣ bid is pretty barking , but even so. Surely a man with a seven card suit is not standing a known 4-3 fit doubled. I suggest at least a percentage of 1100 in 4♣ doubled. I also have some worries as to how easy it is for N/S to get it right.

While a pretty large percentage of a pretty fair sized penalty is no doubt in order, I doubt it should be 100%.

[mfa1010]

I don't think that E can run from 3♦X after the UI.

[bluejak]

He can if you do not consider pass an LA - and I don't.

[AndreSteff]

bluejak, on 2011-January-16, 18:52, said:

He can if you do not consider pass an LA - and I don't.

West must have at least 4 diamonds, but it can easily be 5 and even 6 would not be unheard of.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-January-16, 18:41, said:

It does not look like a simple 1700 to me: what is East, an idiot? Well, ok, that 3♣ bid is pretty barking , but even so. Surely a man with a seven card suit is not standing a known 4-3 fit doubled. I suggest at least a percentage of 1100 in 4♣ doubled. I also have some worries as to how easy it is for N/S to get it right.

While a pretty large percentage of a pretty fair sized penalty is no doubt in order, I doubt it should be 100%.

From his point of view, he has heard his partner pull a natural and non-forcing 3Cx to 3D, and he has three-card support for those. I would expect partner to be 3-5-5-0 at least, and it certainly an LA to pass 3Dx. In fact I think it is the right bid, but all we need to establish is that it is an LA. And I was only awarding 10% of 1700 with the main ruling being 1100, which 4C will get as well.

[bluejak]

No, he hasn't, Paul. He has heard his partner bid 3♦ over 3♣ when he does not know whether 3♣ was pass/correct or not. I agree, if 3♣ was unambiguously to play the pass of 3♦ doubled rates far more highly.

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2011-January-17, 06:46, said:

No, he hasn't, Paul. He has heard his partner bid 3♦ over 3♣ when he does not know whether 3♣ was pass/correct or not. I agree, if 3♣ was unambiguously to play the pass of 3♦ doubled rates far more highly.

I agree with Paul here. We know West was unsure about whether it was natural or not, but we don't have any reason to suppose that East was. In fact he managed to convince West that it showed long clubs after the hand (did, not should, in the OP) so it sounds like he was pretty sure!

[bluejak]

"E/W agreed after some discussion" does not sound the same as "pretty sure" to me.

[blackshoe]

Certainly East being pretty sure but West thinking otherwise is consistent with "some discussion".

[olegru]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-16, 12:03, said:

3♣: West hesitates but explains to South that he assumes

I 100% off track here but I hate this situation.
For me it looks like an ideal “double shot.”
EW clearly have agreements in similar situations and did not discuss the current one. West is not professional enough to give the correct explanation “no agreements,” he (wrongly) feels obligated to share by request his understanding of partner’s bid with opponents. By his behaviour (hesitation) and wording (assume) everybody at the table knows what actually there is no rigid agreement and West is merely guessing.
Now opponents choose the natural bid. If EW are on the same wavelength NS will get the correct score and if EW are not on the same wavelength NS will ask director to give them more. No risks for NS involved.

[barmar]

If West has partnership experience that suggests what to guess, the opponents are entitled to that information. Remember, opponents are entitled to both explicit and implicit agreements.

[olegru]

And?
As we can see from this bidding EW clearly had no partnership experience that suggested what to guess. One person though it is "pass or correct," another "to play."
Lets make it clear:
1. Explicit agreements - I discussed with my partner and we both agreed to use this bid for certain purposes. (Example we discussed and agreed to use 15-17 NT. This is our explicit agreement and opponents are entitled to know about it)
2. Implicit agreements – we did not actually discuss but from partnership experience know what to expect from partners bid. (Example, We never discuss but partner have experience when I open 1NT on 3rd sit with 13 points and 6 cards minor. This is our implicit agreement and opponents are entitled to know about it too. )
3. There is no agreement in situation we never discuss with partner and logic of our system did not give define answer. Opponents are not entitled to know what partner meant by his bid and how I understood his bid. Of cause if our agreements and experience could somehow limit possibilities of possible meanings they entitled to know it.