[blml] The dog in the night

[Steve Willner]

A couple of weeks ago, I offered:
> MP/EW vul/Dlr W
>     K32
>     972
>     AQ752
>     A8
> QJ84    AT76
> A6      JT8
> KJT96   84
> J3      QT96
>     95
>     KQ543
>     3
>     K7542

> Auction:
> 1D!-P-1S!-?P
> 2S-?..P-P-2NT
> P-3NT-AP
> 
> 1D was alerted (not announced).  North passed without asking.  After 1S 
> was alerted, South asked about the auction and was told that 1D showed 
> nothing about diamonds and either 14-16 balanced or 11-15 unbalanced 
> with at least one 4cM.  1S was natural but could be quite weak if short 
> in diamonds.
> 
> Over 2S, North re-asked about the auction, getting the same information 
> given to South plus an explanation of 2S: 3 or 4 card support but not 
> maximum with 4 spades and not balanced 11-13.  After hearing the 
> answers, including those to several supplementary questions, North 
> paused awhile then passed.

There were no comments on this except that pass was not a LA for South. 
The ruling at the table didn't reach that question.  The TD ruled (after 
consultation), that North's actions didn't suggest anything except 
trying to come to grips with an unfamiliar situation.

That seems a fair enough ruling.  The problem is, at the table, it was 
quite clear that North was showing values.  (I was West.)  Is there any 
way the TD could have known that, other than the obviously-biased EW 
testimony?

Later on, it occurred to me that there might have been.  Doesn't a North 
who is just trying to understand what's going on ask about the alerted 
1D bid?  (In practice, virtually every pair we meet asks about the bid; 
it is highly unusual for anyone not to do so.)  We're all used to 
drawing inferences in the play when an opponent fails to so something 
expected.  (Hence the subject line, which will be familiar to Sherlock 
Holmes fans.)  Is this an instance where a TD could draw the same sort 
of inference?  I don't think I've seen this suggested before; is there 
anything to it?

(A different ruling wouldn't have changed our results; we got quite a 
good score on the board anyway.)