[Chris3875]

---

Australia - Teams event. N/S were "advanced" players - E/W "intermediate".
The 2H bid was alerted and explained as showing 5 hearts and 5 of another suit.
The 2S was alerted and explained as showing spades and support for hearts.
After the auction was completed North called the director and said that her partner had given a wrong explanation of the 2S bid and that it was, in fact, a "pass or correct" bid which was on their system card. 3D made 6 tricks. I felt that E/W were damaged as they could have made 3H, 4C or game in spades or NT.

[mgoetze]

All damage self-inflicted - correct explanation makes it less attractive to bid, not more.

[c_corgi]

 mgoetze, on 2012-May-06, 16:29, said:

All damage self-inflicted - correct explanation makes it less attractive to bid, not more.

I'm not sure about this: it may have sounded like N/S were having a constructive aution to a heart contract which W would penalty double. Hence we need to know why E/W didnt bid, what they would have done and why given the correct explanation. Also curious why S showed his diamonds if N had shown a heart fit.

[blackshoe]

"I have two suits, I must show them both"

[Chris3875]

West felt she couldn't double after the 2H bid because in their system that shows at least an opening hand and a shortage in the bid suit - support for all other suits. By the time the auction came back to her at 3D she basically didn't know what to do. I was the director and felt that Under Law 75B I should be awarding an adjusted score. I did speak to other senior players in the room and eventually adjusted the score to 3NT by E/W but I was not really happy with that decision. Blackshoe was correct - South believed that she should show the other suit and that North could sign off in 3H or bid on if her hand was strong.

[gerry]

 Chris3875, on 2012-May-06, 17:39, said:

West felt she couldn't double after the 2H bid because in their system that shows at least an opening hand and a shortage in the bid suit - support for all other suits. By the time the auction came back to her at 3D she basically didn't know what to do. I was the director and felt that Under Law 75B I should be awarding an adjusted score. I did speak to other senior players in the room and eventually adjusted the score to 3NT by E/W but I was not really happy with that decision. Blackshoe was correct - South believed that she should show the other suit and that North could sign off in 3H or bid on if her hand was strong.

I think you should be quite content with your ruling. I get heartily sick of bunnies trying to play methods they don't understand and stuffing it up. Should be a good lesson for them.

[Chris3875]

N/S were definitely not bunnies, but I did suspect them of doing some "bunny bashing".

[blackshoe]

What was the basis of your ruling, Chris?

[c_corgi]

 Chris3875, on 2012-May-06, 17:39, said:

... By the time the auction came back to her at 3D she basically didn't know what to do...

This does not suggest to me that she would have known what to do, or done any different, given the correct explanation.

[Chris3875]

I ruled under Law 75B that E/W were given a mistaken explanation of the 2S bid when the system agreement was for it to be "pass or correct" or basically show me your other suit if it's not spades. "East/West are entitled to an accurate description of the North/South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East/West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). I did discuss it with 3 other senior players and they agreed on the damage. I noted (and bluejak will go spare when he reads this) that almost every other pair in the room had bid either 4S or 3NT (making between 9 and 11 tricks. I did see that even given a correct explanation of the 2S bid that South would still have bid 3D as it was her other suit. I was generally uneasy about my decision which comes back to my shortcomings as a player.

[aguahombre]

 Chris3875, on 2012-May-06, 18:47, said:

I did see that even given a correct explanation of the 2S bid that South would still have bid 3D as it was her other suit. I was generally uneasy about my decision which comes back to my shortcomings as a player.

This takes us back to what Michael said in post #2. Although I don't agree that E/W did anything "self-inflicting", the correct explanation would not have helped E/W.

I, too, like the Bobby Wolff approach and want to summarily punish anyone who uses first-round toys, then can't disclose their first-round responses correctly. But, there still should be damage demonstrable, and somebody should be able to articulate how the auction might have gone differently after the correct explanation before they adjust.

The fact that the whole room declared from E/W is not really relevant. The whole room did not have the given auction (even with correct explanations) to deal with.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2012-May-06, 19:43, said:

The fact that the whole room declared from E/W is not really relevant. The whole room did not have the given auction (even with correct explanations) to deal with.

Unless this type of opening 2 bid is common where this was played.

[sfi]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-06, 18:38, said:

What was the basis of your ruling, Chris?

The issue of how E/W were damaged does not seem to have been clearly addressed, which is a key point. "Basically did not know what to do" isn't really sufficient and you cannot adjust simply because there was MI.

My argument for an adjusted score is that West could have doubled 3D for takeout given the correct information. Partner will bid with a fit or pass with diamond length, either of which is likely to lead to a reasonable result. The explanation provided means that she has much less reason to double since the auction is likely to be forcing. In fact she probably has the wrong hand for it since it might be something like lead directional or simply not be understood by partner.

I would be happy enough to adjust on that basis.

[sfi]

 barmar, on 2012-May-06, 23:23, said:

Unless this type of opening 2 bid is common where this was played.

I don't know about the specific area, but this opening is common among club players all over Australia.

[mgoetze]

 Chris3875, on 2012-May-06, 18:47, said:

"East/West are entitled to an accurate description of the North/South agreement (when this infraction results in damage to East/West, the Director shall award an adjusted score). I did discuss it with 3 other senior players and they agreed on the damage.

Of course these senior players, not being trained directors, may not be aware that "infraction results in damage" does not mean quite the same as "they got a bad result". It means "They got a bad result, and only because of the infraction - had they received correct information they wouldn't have gotten a bad result." Here I feel that E/W are never getting a good result after West passed 2♥ (and BTW, I wouldn't double, I would choose between 2♠ and 2NT).

So it's all fine and well to say West was expecting they would revert to hearts and would then double at her third turn, but you also need to say what West was going to do over 3♦ given the correct explanation, and I feel she is absolutely stuck due to her failure to act on the first round.

[blackshoe]

At this point, I have to agree with Michael. The "damage" was not caused by the MI, but by the players' inexperience.

I would have asked West what she would have done over 3♦, given a correct explanation. If she still doesn't know, or says she'd have done what she did at the table, then no adjustment.

[Chris3875]

West did say she would have called over the 3D bid given the correct information - but I foolishly didn't ask her what she would have called.

I don't think she could have bid 2NT because in their system that means 5+ of both minors and she needed to have 5 spades to bid 2S. She was really caught between a rock and a hard place - I don't know that any other South's in the room opened 2H.

[blackshoe]

Which is why the final contract at other tables is irrelevant to the ruling at this one.

[Chris3875]

Yes, well I did sort of understand that ...... but bluejak hasn't been wound up for a while.

[mgoetze]

 Chris3875, on 2012-May-07, 01:56, said:

I don't think she could have bid 2NT because in their system that means 5+ of both minors

So there you have it, damage caused by playing ridiculous system.