[jjbrr]

Honestly don't remember if advancer asked about the double of 3♦. I suspect that could be relevant info.

[awm]

Apollo81, on Jul 15 2009, 09:14 AM, said:

Why can't this be exactly what happened on this hand? Advancer was going to bid 5♦ (or 4♦ or pass) until he was tipped off by the double of 3♦. Now he's 100% sure what's going on, and doesn't alert partner's bid because (1) if they had an agreement, the agreement would be natural which is unalertable (2) they don't have an agreement anyway.

This really shouldn't matter. When deciding between "mistaken bid" and "agreement" in the absence of evidence, the director should assume "agreement" -- especially when both partners appear to have been on the same page. In the absence of substantial documentation, director obviously cannot tell whether their agreement was majors, or the 3♦ bidder mistakenly thought their agreement was majors and then his partner was awakened to this possibility by the double. But given that both players appear to have been on the same page in the auction, the right thing to do is assume that this is their agreement. There is also no indication that arguments were made by the bidding side that they have no such agreement -- it is their burden to prove what their agreements are or are not; not the director or committee's job to assume whatever agreements lead to the best result for the offending side. It may also be worth noting that when it becomes clear to the bidding side both that the 3♦ bidder intended his bid as majors and that his partner is going to play him for majors, there should be some effort to inform the opponents.

The only way the committee ruling here is reasonable is if you accept their reasoning that a 3♦ bid showing majors would not be alertable in this auction. The other arguments (maybe they had no agreement, maybe the non-offending side should have asked about an unalerted bid, etc) all seem irrelevant to me. Assuming this meaning of 3♦ is alertable, the facts remain that:

(1) A bid which should have been alerted was not alerted.
(2) The opponents received a poor result to a great degree because they assumed the unalerted bid had its normal non-alertable meaning.
(3) While the double may be somewhat speculative, it was not "irrational or gambling" based on the information received.

Note that asking about an unalerted bid in the middle of a live auction could easily give partner unauthorized information (i.e. "I have diamonds partner") and lead to issues for the non offending side.

[Apollo81]

I'm disagree with #1 because to me, it makes sense to assume that people don't have an agreement about this auction. If advancer said he was going to assume the 3♦ bid was natural until the double occurred, that would be good enough for me.

BTW I'm curious exactly what opener had -- I may not agree with #3 either.

[jjbrr]

Quote

BTW I'm curious exactly what opener had -- I may not agree with #3 either.

Sorry, don't remember that either. Again, probably relevant. But like I said, I'm less interested in the AC's decision and more interested in the 3♦ bid.

[FrancesHinden]

jjbrr, on Jul 13 2009, 10:47 PM, said:

We actually did poll the Famous World Champion who frequents MABCs and asked him 1) if he thought this was alertable, and 2) if 3♦ michaels is highly unusual here.

He said 1) probably, though he would definitely make sure the opps had information before the lead, and 2) not highly unusual. he thought it was entirely conceivable to have a bid to show majors in this auction.

just fwiw.

As a general rule, Famous World Champions (or other great bridge players) are not necessarily particularly knowledgeable about alert regulations, or other aspects of the Laws.

[jjbrr]

i never claimed they were. my point was that the assumption that "the world and his dog" play 3♦ as natural here is, apparently, a slight overbid. some good players, including members of the AC and a world champion, see at least an iota of merit in having a way to show majors, and 3♦ might be one of those ways. maybe the pair plays double of a conventional bid as their way of showing that suit naturally.

just playing devil's advocate (or trying to rationalize the AC's decision).

If he had said "it's completely and utterly ridiculous for them to have such an agreement and the only rational explanation is that the fast 3♦ was made in hopes partner would know not to ask too many questions," that would have been good enough for me.

anyway, bluejak's answer is all i was really interested in, and as i said i appreciate the response.