| 1. close call, but I'd let the 3NT stand. the responder could
have had reasons for the "uhhh", but bridge logic says the sequence
shows hearts and asks opener to "pick a game". Not unreasonable
to pick 3NT.
2. Any opponent (etc) is allowed is be "confused". If explained
correctly, no problem. If he chose to deviate this time, no problem.
If he gets a lousy score, too bad. If his 3D is misinterpreted
(by either side), too bad. However, the other opponent gave the wrong
explanation of their "agreement". It is this which I think should
cause the score to adjust to 4H down 1. Full disclosure is required.
Blindly following your agreements 100% is not required. Confusing
your partner is allowed.
|
|
Well, our committee ruled just as the two responses here suggest -
we let 3NT stand on (1) and overturned (2). I suppose that is
predictable, and I would argue, is the closest our committee could
get to restoring "equity". But both rulings are probably "wrong"
according to the letter of the law.
On (1) passing 3NT is reasonable, but so is bidding 4H, and the
rule is supposed to be that partner with unauthorized info must
choose from among his reasonable alternatives the one NOT suggested
by the irregularity. Our committee knew that, but balked at
awarding the other pair a cold top for doing nothing, or savagely
punishing a pair for a minor gaff. The "correct" ruling seemed
to us to threaten the integrity of the contest.
On (2), the weak hand with majors was misinformed, and the rule is
supposed to be that he is protected for normal inferences, but not
from eggregious subsequent errors. Our committee felt the double
of three diamonds was insane, but again we balked, this time at awarding
a pair a top precisely BECAUSE they committed an irregularity. Once
again, we felt a duty to the other contestants to reverse it.
I could say a ton more about this, but I won't. Sometimes I think
bridge law as hard as bridge itself.
bb
|
|
On the first hand, I would have two questions:
1) Why, after the "3D...huh" didn't the auction stop. Was this "huh" said after LHO had already
called? If not, why wasn't the 3D bidder simply allowed to change his/her call? As of now, the
call can be changed, if it was inadvertent, without penalty and can be changed, otherwise, with
penalty, so long as LHO hasn't called. After May 27, the call can be changed even after LHO
has called (which will make, I think, for some strange rullings).
2) If the auction stood as stated, how can passing 3NT be right? Partner is showing a 5-card
heart suit and game-going values. You have 3 good hearts (not Qxx or something like that) and
a doubleton diamond with possibly wasted value (AQ could be only 1 stopped/trick at NT). Clearly
the inadvertent "huh" suggests that partner has not meant a heart transfer. With that info,
passing 3NT does not strike me as a valid alternative. I would adjust to 4H (whatever that does)
or A- if I can't figure out what happens to 4H.
So, bottom line, there is no way I can see this standing at 3NT once the 3D bidder wasn't allowed
to change their call. But, since I think they should have been allowed to change their call
(which would, presumably have led to a 3NT contract), letting it stand may be right (even if the
reasoning for getting there is something I disagree with).
On the second hand, the sanity of doubling depends upon what agreements you have over interference,
if any. Clearly, if doubling is some kind of negative double, it is not insane. If it is
penalty, I wouldn't get it. However, even if I believe doubling is crazy, I would not allow the
offending side (who mis-explained their agreements) to keep 3DX making. So, even if the defenders
kept their -470, the offenders should get A-.
|