After East's 3NT bid, South asks the meaning of 2.
East explains and South passes.
At this point North calls the TD and states that he would have bid differently if he had known the meaning of 2 (no prizes for guessing what that meant…).
TD explains that it's too late for L21b and warns for UI.
3NT is passed out.
South leads the spade 4, 10, ace, 6. East wins the third round of spades, finesses the diamonds the wrong way because she "expected the long spades to be with South" and ends up one down.
East starts shouting at North for illegally inviting a spade lead, North replies that he was not familiar with the LOL's old- fashioned bidding system, where 2 could very well have been natural, had no reason to inquire about a non-alerted 2 bid, and thought that there were possibilities to change his second pass.
Do you adjust? If so, how?
(If 2 had been alerted and North would have doubled, then even this East wouldn't have failed to make 11 tricks. Same case if North doubles 3NT for a spade lead).
I like this one. Having read four replies I think that no-one has really grasped the problem in full. Perhaps a better title for the Subject line would be "Count the infractions". Let us see.
So, we have four possible infractions, and we need to deal with each one.
So I would adjust for MI on this basis, wait a minute, no I would not, the offending side did worse than this on the hand! No damage!
So perhaps we should adjust this way for E/W, since they are the NOs under #3b. But what about #1b then? Bear with me for a bit: I shall return later - see #C2.
Phew! Now, what do we actually do? Let us consider penalties, then adjustments.
To be honest, we do not have a lot of guidance for multiple infractions. Some people think we should deal with them in order. This has always seemed correct to me where the same side is the offenders, but not necessarily otherwise.
Perhaps we should go back to first principles. We are trying to redress damage: what would have happened, in our view, if there had been no infractions, giving the benefit of doubt to the NOs, as usual.
If East alerts, North may double - no, it is not certain, despite what he said - and South would lead a spade, or maybe a heart with no double. If there is a double, the UI becomes irrelevant since the spade lead is automatic, and then the result on the board would be
However, I think there may not be a double [only S A7532, remember]. Without it, the UI ruling comes in to play: we disallow a spade lead, and then the result would be
If we think North will double three times in five we get
What about giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOs? I did that in the original figures. Of course, it would be easy to change the percentages, but this seems a reasonable approach overall.
Have I forgotten anything? Well, I believe this was played in a place where L12C3 was enabled, but let us consider the effects if it was not.
For E/W, as Os originally, we give them the worst score at all probable [L12C2] which is 3NT-1 assuming a double. Since the double is assumed the UI does not come in to play.
For N/S, as NOs originally, we give them the best score that was likely without the infraction, and the same logic comes in to play and we get 3NT-1 assuming a double.
This does not automatically feel right. N/S have offended in the use of UI but nothing happens as a result. However, adjustments are not designed to punish, so the adjustment seems fair.
How about a PP to warn South of the use of UI? I know he is inexperienced, but it was so blatant ["I would have done something over 2" "Oh, look, I have led my tripleton, aren't I clever"] and the Director warned against it.
Yes, that is the answer. 10% of a top and explain why gently. After all, he is getting a very good score. It was not necessary in #C2 because part of the adjustment was based on disallowing the spade lead, and South lost some of his good table score, but it is necessary in a L12C2 jurisdiction.
OK, let's summarise.
If L12C3 is enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East as a DP, and adjust for both sides to
If L12C3 is not enabled, warn North, South and East as a PP, and East as a DP, give South a 10% of a top PP, and let the table result [3NT-1] stand.
Personally, I think this is one of the most interesting problems ever seen on BLML.
OK, have your fun. Who thinks I am out of my tree?
Thanks for the extensive analysis. It looks quite right for L12C3 purposes (although no doubt one could quibble with the percentages). Without having yet read other responses, I am not certain how to adjust where 12C3 is not available.
I did have one comment that may apply outside the EBU and related areas:
When the unopposed auction has gone 1NT-2-3NT, it is virtually certain that something should have been alerted.
But this seems uncalled-for. South has to wait 10 s anyway, remember, because of the skip bid, and he expects to find himself on opening lead. It seems quite reasonable to me to ask what is going on in order to think about the lead, if nothing else.
What I don't understand is why North didn't call the TD before South passed if he wanted to take some different action after hearing about the failure to alert. He should have had plenty of time during South's 10-s pause. I suspect in the real world there wasn't any pause, and there's one more infraction that David didn't count. (To be fair, we weren't told explicitly about it.) I am not sure whether this should change the adjustment, but I'm inclined to think so.
One approach for L12C2 would be to go through the whole process as David does and come up with the final numbers above, then use the percentages to decide which scores are "likely" and "at all probable." But then who is the NOS and who is the OS? One might treat each side as the OS, giving 3NT-1 to EW and 3NT+1 to NS. Another option would be to treat each side as the OS but use the "likely" standard instead of "at all probable." This leads to 3NT= for both sides. I kind of like this result, but I don't think the Laws support it. I am not fond of the "adjusted score + PP" approach, in general, but perhaps one can justify it on this hand. It's true South offended by "using UI," but he was put in that position only because of the original EW infraction. On the other hand, there would have been an easy chance to rectify that infraction if the TD had been called before South passed, so NS bear some culpability for creating the situation too.
I agree. It even gives one some sympathy for the "standard ACBL adjustment" of avg- for both sides.