[VixTD]

This incident from the Friday afternoon pairs game was reported to me by the director:

---

I expect both sides play a fairly simple form of Benjaminised Acol with a weak no trump and four-card majors and minors. NS are a regular partnership who play club-only bridge. East is an experienced county and congress player playing with a much weaker partner.

There were no alerts in the auction. Before bidding 2♣ East asked about the redouble and was told by North "he expects the contract to make". Before the opening lead South (incorrectly) volunteered a correction that it was a transfer to clubs. (This is a common agreement around here when 1NT is doubled.) The director was called by East, who said she wouldn't have bid given a correct explanation. The TD said she couldn't retract her bid, but may be due an adjusted score after the hand had been played out. (The director failed to allow West to retract his final pass, but let's assume he wouldn't have changed his call in any case.)

Result: 2♣ (E)-2, NS +200 (14/14 MPs)

I'm not sure how far the TD investigated the facts, but it's probably fair to assume that NS do have such an agreement about a redouble, although there may be some doubt about whether it applies after a 1NT overcall. They don't have a convention card, or at least, not one that helps in this case. I think it's also safe to assume that no one, least of all West, knows what the double of 1NT was supposed to mean.

What sort of score adjustment do you think the TD should give?

[helene_t]

If "transfers to clubs" is the correct explanation then obviously you must roll back to 1NTxx by N.

However, the correct explanation was probably "no agreement". If that explanation was given, maybe East would run also, but it seems unlikely. If W's double shows extra values then E knows that S has appr. zero points. East would probably assume that S was trying to run out and that N didn't understand that.

The issue that remains is whether E's 2♣ bid is a SEWoG.

[lamford]

It looks like 21B1(b) applies:
(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

East, even with the explanation, "I think it could be a transfer to clubs, but I am unsure" would not bid 2C, and would pass at matchpoints. It looks like NS will be held to five tricks, losing three spades, two diamonds and three clubs, so +600 to EW.

2C is a poor bid, but the requirements for SEWoG are much more stringent, particularly at this level.

[WellSpyder]

Is anyone else concerned about how long East might have thought for over the 1NT overcall? I guess we cannot assume anything not in evidence, and NS have made no suggestion of UI, but I must admit to a feeling that a hesitation from East here is by far the most likely explanation of that rather odd double of 1NT by West.

[weejonnie]

Since there is no evidence to the contrary, East is entitled to the explanation "We have no partnership agreement, but a redouble after a 1NT opening bid is doubled would be a transfer to 2♣" (assuming that is the case)

Given that, I can't see that he would ever bid 2♣. (He has already assumed the X is for penalty by a) not alerting it and b) passing it)

SO I concur 1NXX -2? EW+600

With regards to the UI - I don't think that it is the TD's job to look into it. NS are presumed to know the law and Yes! if there was UI then we would have to consider whether it could demonstrably have suggested double over pass or double over 2♠.

[VixTD]

Knowing the West player, I don't think he needs a hesitation or any kind of UI to double, I can just imagine him thinking that double is the sort of noise players make here without really knowing what it means. I don't think East has quite enough to double 1NT, but it's true that they might have been thinking about it.

The director adjusted the score to 1NTXX(N)-1, NS -200 (0/14 MPs). I thought there should have been a large proportion of -2 in the adjustment, but that wouldn't have affected the matchpoint score.

Like Helene, I wondered whether East's 2♣ bid could be considered a wild or gambling action. If I had that East hand I'd be delighted to defend 1NT redoubled, even given the uncertainty over partner's double. I decided it wasn't, but wanted to know what you all thought.