[schulken]

Within the last week, I (new club director) have been summoned to the table TWICE to rule on potential damage for an potentially improper Drury alert. In the first instance, the auction proceeded (W dealer) P - P - 1H - 1S - 2C (alert as Drury) - P - 3H - 3S - all P. Declarer called when dummy came down holding 2 H and she held 5 H. She believed she had been damaged because she could have defended against 3HX for a better score. I questioned W who stated that E's alert was correct and that she had forgot they were playing Drury after interference - she meant it as a C bid and she held KQxxx. The club manager and I consulted with a very experienced pair playing in the game (10,000+ MPs) about their experience in using Drury after interference. One said he and a different partner use this in their system and have specifically have marked their card accordingly. However, he agreed that the mistaken call was likely given the hands and the level of the players (NLM). It seemed that S was fishing for a better score - she made 4. I ruled that W made a mistaken call (75C) and that N-S were not entitled to an adjusted score. To my thinking, she could have doubled 3H anyway, believing the defenders had a 5-0 trump split and she was sitting behind the player with the longer and (probably) stronger Hs.

In the second occurrence, the auction proceeded (again W dealer) P - P - 1H - 1S - 2C (alert - "I believe that's Drury") - 3S - all P, making 5. N-S believed they had been damaged in that they believed W's hand was stronger than it actually was. While E said she "believed" they were playing Drury after interference, W said they were not, but only after then hand was played. N-S failed to consult E-W's card (which said they were playing Drury but nothing else). Again in consultation with the club manager, I ruled there was no damage. N had other bids available to him regardless of his stated perceived strength of the W hand and the corresponding perceived weakness of his partner's overcall - he could have cue bid 3C or simply raised to 2S - and that his 3S bid showed a weaker hand than he held.

Two questions - how do you manage (and rule on) conventional responses when they are not clearly laid out on the pair's card? Second - did I get these right?

[mrdct]

Q1: All you can do it ask a few probing question in an attempt to establish on the balance of probabilities what the actual agreement (if any) was, then determine if there has been a misexplanation and, if so, work-out whether or not the NOS has been damaged and also consider to what extent that damage may have been self-inflicted. The benefit of doubt generally goes to the NOS, so the players trying to argue that they did in fact have an agreement to play Drury after intervention will need to cound pretty convincing. You might consider asking questions like, "has this come up before?", "did you previously play it as natural?", "when did you change?", etc.

Q2: Your ruling on the first hand looks OK, but I can't really comment on the second had without seeing the hand record.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-November-20, 23:47, said:

so the players trying to argue that they did in fact have an agreement to play Drury after intervention will need to cound pretty convincing.

People who have really unusual agreements are often held to a higher standard, and I think that this is right. One reason is that opponents will not be able to make certain inferences about your hands if the bidding system is very unfamiliar. So if you are playing something very strange like Drury after interference, you can protect yourself by putting it on your convention card.

The importance of this depends on the jurisdiction. In England I do not think it would be easy to get away with claiming to play Drury after interference if it is not marked on the card; but many jurisdictions, notably the US, have much more relaxed CC regulations so there it may be possible.

[barmar]

On the second hand, I'd expect that 2♣ shows about the same strength whether you're playing Drury or not, unless you also play negative free bids. The difference is in whether it's natural or shows support for opener's suit. So the argument that they expected West's hand to be stronger seems invalid.

[mycroft]

I'm seeming to agree with almost everyone today...

I would preface any of my rulings in this with "you need to come to an agreement about Drury after interference - and I'll expect you have one if this auction comes up again today." Having said that, they're allowed to misbid; they're allowed to forget, or not know, or not have, an agreement about this auction; it's also possible that they've misinformed; and the TD has to rule according to what he believes is the case. So the first thing is to ask enough questions that you know what you are going to decide the Laws require you to consider as "having happened".

If you believe they actually have no agreement about this auction, then you have to determine if you believe it is "likely" that South would double with 5 trump given the explanation "maximum pass, but I have no idea if it shows heart support or clubs" in the first case.

In the second case, barmar has it right in my view - 2C in this auction absent other information shows maximum pass, whether or not it's support (in fact, it probably shows *more* card strength (because less distributional strength) if it doesn't have support). East can't say anything on defence until after the hand, so that's all good. North had at least one stronger call than a (assumedly) preemptive 3♠, and almost certainly two (and 3 if they knew it was clubs-not-hearts); he didn't make it. This sounds very much like "they did something wrong, we should get a good score."