[jtfanclub]

Dealer: East
Vul: Both
Scoring: MP
North: ♠ A653 ♥ 32 ♦ J983 ♣ 843
West: ♠ KQT2 ♥ 987 ♦ AKQ76 ♣ 6
East: ♠ J4 ♥ AKT6 ♦ T2 ♣ KJT52
South: ♠ 987 ♥ QJ54 ♦ 54 ♣ AQ97

East opens 1NT, South bids 2H, and West says 3 diamonds, ending the auction.
Makes 3.

1NT was announced as 12-15.
2♥ was alerted as hearts and spades.

Three diamonds was the contract...making.

After the hand was over, it was discovered that over a strong no-trump, the 2♥ bid meant hearts and a minor. A strong no trump in their system was defined as 'any NT that includes 15 hcp'.

EW argues that they were damaged by the explanation. The director ruled that the 3♦ bid, defined as natural and invitational but not forcing, with a 14 count was an egregious error, and it canceled out any damage. The reveiwer for the appeals committee said...well, I'm not going to say what she said.

The story ended there, but what if...

EW appeals, arguing that the 3♦ bid doesn't matter. An X of two hearts in their system is takeout (for the unbid major or the minors), so after a correct explanation, West has a clear X, and East has a clear leave-in, for 800. While West could have bid 3♥ with the bad explanation to show a game forcing hand with 4 spades, there was no way to get the 800.

How would you rule?

[kenrexford]

This appears to be simple to me, although I would be open-minded to explanations from the parties.

The simple appearance of things is that South was screwing around, regardless of what the system was, and just would not admit it. However much South wants to offer bizarre explanations, I think he just psyched. So, I'll rule that this is allowed.

No matter what, however, E-W bid like morons. No adjustment.

I might assess a PP, depending upon what people said.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Feb 28 2007, 11:36 PM, said:

EW appeals, arguing that the 3♦ bid doesn't matter. An X of two hearts in their system is takeout (for the unbid major or the minors), so after a correct explanation, West has a clear X, and East has a clear leave-in, for 800. While West could have bid 3♥ with the bad explanation to show a game forcing hand with 4 spades, there was no way to get the 800.

How would you rule?

Let me get this straight:

1. East opened a 2=4=2=5 11 count with a 12 - 15 HCP NT

2. South then overcalls a vulnerable 2♥ holding a 3=4=2=4 11 count.

3. West (holding the best hand at the table) bids a non-forcing 3♦

4. North actually managed to find a green card and passes...

(Manadatory discussion of consequent and subsequent deleted)

One simple question:

Do East / West play different methods a conventional 2♥ overcall showing Hearts and Spades than they do over a 2♥ overcall that shows Hearts and a minor?

Personally, I'd doubt that I'd ever rule in favor of East/West. However, this might be germane to determining whether to assign an "Appeal Without Merit"

[hotShot]

Obviously this was f2f, because there is an AC involved.

So the first question we have is the UI case.
North has 4 spades, but with only 5 HCP in red pass has no LA.

Was there misinformation? Yes.
Was there damage? Yes.
Was the damage caused by the misinformation.
If south is promising both majors, indeed X and 3♥ are no longer options for west, and the 2♠ bid has a different meaning.
So west was bidding under pressure and made a bad bid, because 3♦ is not GF. But to lose their rights, they have to bid irrational, wild or gambling after the MI.
NS get a warning (or an PP if they are experienced enough) to correctly use and disclose their system.
I would grant EW a score correction, but to tiered to think about the correct score now.

[awm]

I'd give a split ruling here. Certainly something odd has gone on with N/S, and if south's bid had been correctly described as "hearts and a minor" it would be easier for E/W to penalize. However, the 3♦ bid by west seems atrociously bad, and the "failure to play bridge" by making a non-forcing call on a good 14 opposite 12-15 should not be rewarded.

I'd let E/W keep the table result, but give N/S the most likely result in 2♠X, which looks to be around -800.

[pbleighton]

3D NF was horrible, no adjustment, warning to NS to get their alerting act together.

BTW, "hearts and a minor" with a 3=4=2=4 11 count vulnerable, decent chance of forcing pd to the 3 level is just incredible to me, and I compete over opps' NT very aggressively.

Peter

[inquiry]

First, I will assume this was F2F and north explained the 2♥ bid.

So we first need to decide if MI occured (in other words, was the agreement that 2♥ over a 1NT that was strong showed both majors). In fact, it was discvoered presumably unquestionably that NS were playing that 2♥ showed the bid major and a minor if the range of 1NT included 15 hcp. If the descrption of the agreement had been correct, then there would be no MI, but here it was incorrect. Thus, MI has occured.

The second question is was there damage as a result of the mis-information?

I think one thing is clear, if it wasn't for the mis-information, E/W would have done better. Since the anything subsequent to the MI that E/W does should not affect the result N/S gets, thus N/S will not get to score up 3DW -110. Without the MI, West would double and N/S would be a potential pickle. North is likely to bid 3♣ pass/correct which will get hammered. Even if north passes, it is possible East pass, and if not will bid 3♣ which will get a 3♠ bid by West and 3NT by East.

Thus, I would assign an adjusted score to N/S so we are heading for at least a split score if not soley in the Favor of E/W. I think the score I would assign N/S would be a mix of 3♣X down four -1100 and 2♥x down three (-800). I figure about 80% chance of 3♥ so I would give E/W for -980 (or just -1100 and be done with it, all are probably zeros for them).

The question for E/W is more clear. The question is along the lines of did they commit an egregious error that severed the connection between the MI infraction
and the damage that occurred to them. The answer there is clearly yes. West has a very good 14 hcp and nice five card diamond suit, along with "well placed" spade honors. And he bid a non-forcing 3♦. Of course East has an easy pass of a non-forcing 3♦, although his 11 pt 1NT probably added to their problems, at least it was not egregious bid. I think 3D on this auction got what it desrved, so I would leave EW with their 3D = +110 result.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

1. East opened a 2=4=2=5 11 count with a 12 - 15 HCP NT

You're one of two people to say that....

East: ♠ J4 ♥ AKT6 ♦ T2 ♣ KJT52

That's 12 hcp. EW open all 12 counts, and the other choice is 2♣.

[the hog]

No adjustment. East West lose their deposit for making a frivolous appeal.

[hotShot]

The_Hog, on Mar 1 2007, 07:00 AM, said:

No adjustment. East West lose their deposit for making a frivolous appeal.

I won't follow the tend, to pick on players who have been mislead by opps MI and make a suboptimal move when put into a position, where a lot of their agreed bids no longer fit their shape or strength, because opps claim to hold a suit or specific strength they don't really have,

Of cause victims could often do better than they did, but they are still victims.

[helene_t]

The 3♦ bid may be a consequence of the misinformation but the bad result for EW is not a direct consequence of the misinformation, as I see it. It's still a bad bid given the explanation, and whether the second suit is spades or it's a minor is imaterial.

Result stands.

[inquiry]

helene_t, on Mar 1 2007, 05:17 AM, said:

The 3♦ bid may be a consequence of the misinformation but the bad result for EW is not a direct consequence of the misinformation, as I see it. It's still a bad bid given the explanation, and whether the second suit is spades or it's a minor is imaterial.

Result stands.

Not true. IF alerted as major and minor, Double is clear, as noted in the methods stated for the opening side. After 1NT-2H-DBL things don't go well for the overcalling side. Will north sit in 2♥ wth a doubleon and aparnter who oevecalls on four card suits? If not and opener rebids 3C WEST sill make a forward going bid.

[the hog]

"I won't follow the tend, to pick on players who have been mislead by opps"

And I won't follow the trend to reward players for their own stupidity.

[Sancho]

First of all, we have to assume MI here from what we know about N/S's system.

Second, the argument "EW acted irrationally by bidding 3♦, thus score stands" is methodically wrong. If we accept that there is any chance at all that West doubles 2♥ and East leaves it in, then we would have to assign at least a split score.

But that is not all. If EW could have scored +800 without the MI, they would still be damaged even if they had bid and made 3NT.

So, if we accept that

1) there was MI;
2) it is likely that, without the MI, the contract would likely (in the sense of L12C2) have been 2♥X down 800;
3) it was irrational not to reach 3NT in the actual auction,

the correct ruling is the following split score:

N/S score adjusted to 2♥x -800;
E/W score adjusted to 2♥x -800 minus the part of the damage they caused themselves by not bidding 3NT.

Say this is a pairs event with the following frequencies (I'll do the MP "European style", ie 2 for a win, 1 for a tie):

1x 3D (EW) 9 tricks -110 (this is our table)
3x 3NT (EW) 9 tricks -600
2x 3NT (EW) 10 tricks -630

The table score netted EW 0 MP.
The score EW should have achieved after the MI (3NT=) would have netted them 3 MP.
The likely score without the MI (-800) would have netted EW 10 MP.

So, their total damage was 10 MP (they would have scored 10 MP without MI, but actually got 0), 3 of which they caused by irrationally stopping in 3♦. Thus, we assign a score of 7 MP for E/W.

[jtfanclub]

Sancho, on Mar 7 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

Second, the argument "EW acted irrationally by bidding 3♦, thus score stands" is methodically wrong. If we accept that there is any chance at all that West doubles 2♥ and East leaves it in, then we would have to assign at least a split score.

But that is not all. If EW could have scored +800 without the MI, they would still be damaged even if they had bid and made 3NT.

Whether this was a split score has been discussed earlier in the thread, but you're the first one to argue that because even if EW hadn't bid like morons they still couldn't have gotten the top score that they could have gotten with a correct explanation, they should get an adjusted score.

Is your argument based just on logic, or is there a rule or precedence for this?

[Sancho]

jtfanclub, on Mar 7 2007, 01:21 PM, said:

Whether this was a split score has been discussed earlier in the thread, but you're the first one to argue that because even if EW hadn't bid like morons they still couldn't have gotten the top score that they could have gotten with a correct explanation, they should get an adjusted score.

Is your argument based just on logic, or is there a rule or precedence for this?

Both .

L40C says that the director can award an adjusted score if the opponents are damaged through misinformation.

Well, they clearly are, because after the MI they could not do as well as they would have without MI. It's just that the damage they got through the MI directly was only 7 MP, while the caused the other 3 MP themselves. So 7 MP is what they deserve and what they get. OK, 7 sounds like a lot, but that is just a function of the frequencies I made up without really analyzing the hand; the principle is what matters here.

This is the standard procedure for cases like this (I know precedences from EBL tournaments) and one of the reasons why L12C2 states that the director can assign either a contract or a score in matchpoints directly.

[Sancho]

inquiry, on Feb 28 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

Thus, I would assign an adjusted score to N/S so we are heading for at least a split score if not soley in the Favor of E/W.  I think the score I would assign N/S would be a mix of  3♣X down four -1100 and 2♥x down three (-800). I figure about 80% chance of 3♥ so I would give E/W for -980 (or just -1100 and be done with it, all are probably zeros for them).

Don't want to nit-pick, but how did you arrive at -980? In any case, that is not how weighted scores are calculated.

Assuming a MP pairs event, you have to calculate the MP for every score that is part of your assignment. Then, you weight those MP by your percentages.

The reason for this is easy. Assume a weighted score of 75% 3NT+1, 25% 3NT+2. All other tables scored 3NT+1. If you simply weight (.75*430)+(.25*460) and assign a score of 437.5, that would suddenly be a MP top against all the 430s, clearly not what you want.

[david_c]

Sancho, on Mar 7 2007, 07:44 PM, said:

This is the standard procedure for cases like this (I know precedences from EBL tournaments) and one of the reasons why L12C2 states that the director can assign either a contract or a score in matchpoints directly.

I think this may be an EBL-specific thing. From what I've picked up from reading various forums, such a ruling is based on this paragraph from the WBF "Code of Practice":

WBF CoP said:

If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction.

[In particular the words "such part".]

I know for a fact that this does not apply in England (it says so explicitly in the EBU's White Book), and if I remember correctly it doesn't apply in the ACBL either. It seems to be only EBL-trained TDs who rule this way.

[Sancho]

david_c, on Mar 7 2007, 02:08 PM, said:

I know for a fact that this does not apply in England (it says so explicitly in the EBU's White Book), and if I remember correctly it doesn't apply in the ACBL either. It seems to be only EBL-trained TDs who rule this way.

Interesting. I just re-read the relevant section of the White Book, and it seems that the correct ruling in EBU-land would be to adjust the score to 2♥x -800 for both sides, as the 3♦ bid is neither wild nor gambling (and there is no element of an apparent double shot), and its "irrationality" must be ignored.

The adjustment I originally described is indeed the procedure used by the EBL (and presumably WBF); I can't speak as to the applicability of the CoP in the ACBL or other jurisdictions. So I really should have qualified my statement as to this being the "standard procedure" a bit.

[blackshoe]

The CoP has not, to the best of my knowledge, been adopted by the ACBL. In addition, Law 12C3 is not in force here.