What a great real-world conundrum. Junior / Novice player session?

As I see it both sides have offended:

•           East by failing to promptly alert the 2D bid [Law 21B1A];
•           East by initially mis-explaining the 2D bid (albeit only for an instant before correcting the explanation) [Law 20F1];
•           East by not calling the Director upon initially mis-explaining the 2D bid [Law 20F4a]; and
•           North by telling their partner that the double was lead directing [Law 16B1].

There are other irregularities that may, or may not, constitute offences:

• East’s pass after the double, despite explaining the 2D as being a transfer. What was their agreement re doubled transfers? Had North also told East, before the Director arrived, that they must pass?
• West’s 2H after their transfer was not closed. What was their agreement re doubled transfers? Was this just a ‘rescue’ attempt given their partner apparently messing things up?
• South’s 3D bid, after having passed twice already, given North’s unauthorised information that their double was lead directing.

I agree that NS have been damaged, but do not see that damage as being the result of EW’s offences. It seems to me that NS’s damage was mainly at their own hands. I do not see EW’s infractions as resulting in an advantage to them [Law 16B3]. I do see NS’s infraction as possibly resulting in their own damage [Law 16B1a].

EW did misinform their opponents, by not alerting the 2D. This was corrected, upon enquiry (albeit haltingly), and subsequent bids were made based on the correct information. North transmitted unauthorised information to their partner by explaining their double as being lead-directing. South, twice passed, then bid the suit that North had ‘directed’. The 3D bid was at best neutral or at worst influenced by unauthorised information.

So, in the absence of further information, I would:

1. Not penalise EW in respect of their failed alert and initial mis-explanation. Instead I would counsel them on their alerting obligations, caution greater care in the future, and suggest they call the Director as soon as possible when something starts going wrong.
2. Conclude that South’s 3D may have been the result of North’s providing unauthorised information, and leave that -2 result to stand. If that bid was not the result of unauthorised information then it stands. If it was the result of unauthorised information then EW may have a case to seek further redress … but given a messy part-score hand it’s not highly likely they’d do better than 2-light, unless their 2H makes and vulnerability is favourable to them. I would counsel North concerning such explanations within earshot of their partner and also, likely, suggest that North not provide law advice to other players at the table.

South held :

QJ52

632

QJ

AJ72

N/S are NZ Open players, Provincial Master and Life Master.

E/W are both NZ Intermediate.   West had a doubleton heart.   Yes, I should've established what East's Pass meant in this sequence after the double.

E/W were vulnerable, N/S not-vuln.     E/W can make 9 tricks in hearts, eight more likely.

Yes, correct, East has the doubleton heart, sorry.   I had rotated, and then gone back to the original hand record :(