[Hanoi5]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South
Pass Pass 1C* X
Pass 1NT Pass 2H**
X Pass 2S X
3C Pass 3D X
All Pass



* 11+ with or without Clubs
**East was alerted 2H as being natural and strongwhile West was alerted by South himself as to 2H being transfer.

E/W went down 4 -1100.

The Director was called after dummy was tabled. It's a butler tournament, pairs face each other for a match of 12 boards; North/South didn't have a Covention Card (they were penalized for that). How would you rule? What result should the Director give?

[hrothgar]

Silly question: East West scored +1100 defending 3♦X....

What damage are they claiming?

[Sancho]

I guess there's something wrong with the bidding; maybe West passed over the X, North bid 1NT etc.? OP, could you please clarify and add the precise meaning of 1♣? Thanks!

[Hanoi5]

Sorry but the bidding was wrong. West doubled 2H to show hearts and East understood it as take out and chaos ensued.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

Silly question: East West scored +1100 defending 3♦X....

What damage are they claiming?

EW were playing at 3♦X.

West made a penalty double of 2♥ while East, thinking that 2♥ was transfer, apparently took out to 2♠.

At least, that's how I read it.

[Hanoi5]

Again. West doubled the 'transfer' bid of 2H to show hearts. East was alerted that the 2H bid was natural so he took the double as take out (therefore his partner had spades). As I said previously it turned to chaos afterwards and E/W played in the poor contract of 3Dx instead of 3H.

[Sancho]

So in fact West was told that 2♥ was a transfer, while East was told it was strong and natural (contrary to what the original post says)? That would make more sense because typically North and East sit on one side of the screen.

Still, I'd really like to know the precise meaning of 1♣. And am I right to assume that we cannot determine the systematical meaning of 2♥?

[hrothgar]

OK... The amended bidding makes a bit more sense

West was told that 2♥ showed Hearts and (presumably) made a penalty double.

East was told that 2♥ showed Spades and thought that the X showed Hearts (or was takeout of Spades or some such). Once East bid 2♠, N/S are going to be able to double them in virtually any contract.

Reach any definitive conclusion is a bit difficult difficult because we don't know anything about the bidding system that East/West were playing. Equally significant, we have no idea what North / South's actually agreement is in this auction.

Regardless, here's what i think that the most important issue is:

East / West had a really dreadful result which occured after an infraction by North / South. Even so, I don't believe that their poor result was directly caused by the infraction. 2♠ striked me as a dreadful call.

East has a sub-minimum opening bid. (in theory, their opening requires 11+ HCP). East's hand has downgraded incredibly once he knows that South has 5+ Spades sitting over him. The QT92 sure doesn't look to be carrying much weight...

Partner is a passed hand. He couldn't scrape up an opening bid?

What the hell is East doing cue bidding 2♠? This might make sense if East/West play that 2♠ is some kind of convention weakness signal or some such. However, if they are planning anything remotely resembling standard, 2♠ is a strong bid.

If so, 2♠ is such an atrocious call that it breaks the chain of consequence.

Result stands

[mink]

I would assume that the agreed meaning for 2 ♥ was natural. In this case, West would not bid, and the 2 others do not bid either so South plays 2♥ undoubled, down a lot. This would be my ruling if the agreed meaning cannot be determined.

If the agreed meaning really was transfer (unlikely imho), I would adjust to 3♥ by East, made.

Karl

[Sancho]

mink, on Mar 8 2007, 07:02 PM, said:

I would assume that the agreed meaning for 2 ♥ was natural. In this case, West would not bid, and the 2 others do not bid either so South plays 2♥ undoubled, down a lot. This would be my ruling if the agreed meaning cannot be determined.

If the agreed meaning really was transfer (unlikely imho), I would adjust to 3♥ by East, made.

Karl

I agree.

[Hanoi5]

I made so many mistakes with the explanation. West, who's sitting next to South of the screen receives the correct meaning of the 2H bid and so he doubles to show hearts. At the other side North alerts the bid to East as natural and strong, and this made East think that his partner had few hearts and was trying to find a part-score, i.e. that west's double was for take-out. I'm really sorry for the mess I've created trying to explain things but I think everything is finally correct.

[jtfanclub]

Huh? What would have an XX have meant over 1♣, then?

The X there should mean 'I have enough strength to penalty X anything they were going to say', if the system is anything like a Precision-type system. East has a pretty clear leave-in. If it was a transfer, East has an even more clear leave-in. Looks like East chickened out because he didn't actually have his bid.

West wasn't damaged, since he got the correct explanation. If East had passed, South converted to 2♠, and that was the final score, I would convert to 3♥ making.

I'm not sure if the 2♠ bid by East is egregious or not. It would depend upon the agreements between EW (I don't play the system, so maybe a failure to XX doesn't set up pass/penalty like in Precision). Under no circumstances would I force NS to play 2♥, assuming South's explanation was the correct one.

This post has been edited by jtfanclub: 2007-March-09, 09:42

[Sancho]

jtfanclub, on Mar 9 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

West wasn't damaged, since he got the correct explanation. 

Well, he got the right information about what South held in his hand. But that is fundamentally different from saying that it is the "correct" explanation, especially when playing with screens (without screens, this situation rarely occurs, and when it does, it does not usually lead to damage. It is possible, but unlikely).

The Laws tell us to assume "misinformation" rather than "misbid" in absence of evidence to the contrary. So, as long as we cannot determine the actual meaning of 2♥ in their system, we have to assume that West was in fact misinformed (as long as this assumption is advantageous to N/S) which leads us to the score correction described earlier by Mink.

[inquiry]

Sancho, on Mar 9 2007, 11:09 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 9 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

West wasn't damaged, since he got the correct explanation. 

Well, he got the right information about what South held in his hand. But that is fundamentally different from saying that it is the "correct" explanation, especially when playing with screens (without screens, this situation can hardly ever occur, and if it does, it does not usually lead to damage).

The Laws tell us to assume "misinformation" rather than "misbid" in absence of evidence to the contrary. So, as long as we cannot determine the actual meaning of 2♥ in their system, we have to assume that West was in fact misinformed (as long as this assumption is advantageous to N/S) which leads us to the score correction described earlier by Mink.

Well someone got MI, and in fact both coudl have.

If the agreement was that 2♥ was a transfer, then the one who was told it was hearts strong got MI. If the agreement was 2♥ was strong, then the one told it was transfer got MI. And in fact, if they had no agreement, they were both given MI since the statement should have been we have no agreement. I actually suspect NS had no agreement on this auction and my personal belief is that 2♥ should be hearts and strong.

In general, the director will need to determine what the agreement actually is. This is supported by written documents such as system notes or the CC. Here that is missing. He could ask the pair what, now upon relection, they recall their agreement to be. But it is rather immaterial. The result is a direct result of MI (and MI had to exist).

I disagree with Richards characterization

Quote

East / West had a really dreadful result which occured after an infraction by North / South. Even so, I don't believe that their poor result was directly caused by the infraction. 2♠ striked me as a dreadful call.

To this I say BULL. If dbl fo 2♥ was takeout, what do you expect east to bid but his 4 card spade suit. To call that a dreadful call is nonsense. He would not want to convert this to a penalty double with four weak hearts, no quick tricks, and a possible disastrous club opening lead (given the odd opening bid forced by system).

The entire bidding on this hand is so odd. East opens a singleton club, north bids 1NT with only 3HCP, south uses JACBOBY rather than bidding naturally (and I would have shot out 3NT), and EW find their 4-2 fit to play at the three level (can EAST have five diamonds on this auction?).

As far as ruling, NS can not get to defend 3♦X. I have no idea how to restore equity here. So I would give an artificial adjusted score. Average plus EW, average minus NS, plus a procedural penalty to NS as well. IF I am wrong, let the appeals committee deal with it.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Mar 9 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

I disagree with Richards characterization

Quote

East / West had a really dreadful result which occured after an infraction by North / South. Even so, I don't believe that their poor result was directly caused by the infraction. 2♠ striked me as a dreadful call.

To this I say BULL. If dbl fo 2♥ was takeout, what do you expect east to bid but his 4 card spade suit. To call that a dreadful call is nonsense. He would not want to convert this to a penalty double with four weak hearts, no quick tricks, and a possible disastrous club opening lead (given the odd opening bid forced by system).

The original write up had a number of rather critical points reversed including which people received which pieces of information.

As originally posted, West was told that the 2♥ bid was natural and East was told that this was a transfer to spades.