[arrows]

---

Spot cards are approximate

IMP TEAM
VUL. N/S
Del. West


W-----------N-----------E-------------S
1♣--------2N---------3♥----------P
3♠--------P-----------4♠----------P
P-----------5♣---------P------------P
5♥--------P------------P------------P


There's no curtain.
One clubs was precision, and north's 2NT intended to show both minors.
North-South play 2NT showing lower 2 suits over a natural/semi-natural opening,
but have never discussed what 2NT is over an artificial 1C. When asked, South
just took it literally and told N-S 2NT was showing ♦ & ♥.

3♥ showing spades, and at the moment North bid 5♣, director is called and
E-W explained what had happend...

The auction continues and West bid 5♥, east gave it a serious thought, and finally passed.

5 hearts over one.

East - West complained that they were damaged because of the misinformation.
The director adjust the results to E-W 6 hearts make.

What do you think about this ruling?

[000002]

oh no

east can bid 4[d] and south is deception(99%)
so cancel this hand, east/west gain 3imp

[whereagles]

I think the Director must have been confused about something. This ruling makes no sense. The misinformation caused no damage since EW were heading for a stop in 4♠.

[hotShot]

Without the misinformation it would have been easier for EW to find their doublefit.
With this information included, it is more likely to try 6.

There is no need for EW to prove how they might get there, TD has to adjust to the best score that is probable.

The ruling is fine.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

The TD must owe considerable money to the EW pair. The ruling is very strange.

Committee please, the TD bids 6H for the EW pair after they stopped in 4Ss.

The EW pairs methods prevented them from finding the double fit. East bid a transfer 3H bid and West accepted it and was raised to game.

Since clubs had never been bid, I do not understand 'without prior agreement' why the two lower unbid suits would not be the minors.

My Big Club defense uses 2NT to show a bad 3 level overcall. 1C-2D shows a 'weak' 5-5 'minors or majors' hand playing CRO Wonder

I would 'pass and later bid' holding the North hand to show values plus 5-5 minors.

Regards,
Robert

[whereagles]

hotShot, on Dec 4 2005, 01:56 PM, said:

There is no need for EW to prove how they might get there, TD has to adjust to the best score that is probable.

Well, that might be the way things are done in the US, but in Europe that procedure is incorrect.

The onus is on EW to point out (convincingly) what they might have done differently had they been given the correct information. For an adjustment to be awarded, there has to be damage coming directly from the misinformation (we call that "consequent damage"). In this case it is not clear how EW might have found their slam. Particularly after North bid 5♣, a bid which clearly exposed what he in fact had.

[P_Marlowe]

whereagles, on Dec 4 2005, 10:59 AM, said:

<snip>
In this case it is not clear how EW might have found their slam. Particularly after North bid 5♣, a bid which clearly exposed what he in fact had.
<snip>

But after 5C it may be impossible to reach the slam,
they were able to show spades naturally, but not
to bid hearts naturally.

I agree with your statements, but there may still be
damage even if the misinformation gets revealed in
auction.

Marlowe

PS: Although East showed a strong hand with spade,
west made no further move over 4S, and AJ are dream
cards, so I would not change the result to 6H making.

[luis]

There was missinformation
There was damage
Damage was not due to the missinformation(*)

Result Stands.
Procedural penalty to NS for not knowing what they play against a strong club.

West knows that the NT bidder has both minors. Had east been informed of this I doubt he would have done something different than bidding 3♥ (spades) and then passing 4♠. When West bid 5♥ East knew North had both minors and yet refused to bid 6♥, I think this is a double-shot, either you don't make 6 or if you make it you claim damage so he has no right to redress. If he thought they had a slam he should have bid it, he had all the information he needed.

Bad ruling but common TDs tend to punish people for forgetting their system when it's clear in the rules that that is not an infraction. The missinformation and the damage here are no linked and Eeast is trying to get a slam that he refused to bid.

Luis

[hrothgar]

For what its worth... this incident closely parallels any number of Ghestem misunderstandings.

I storngly recommend looking at some WBF appeals booklets. Its QUITE easy to find a Ghestem appeal. For example, consult Tenerife Appeal 10 at
http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files...eals%20Book.pdf

Its worth noting that many of these appeals focus on partnership agreement. Written system notes/convention cards are often critical in reaching a decision. However, in this case it sounds as if there is NO partnership agreement.

There's an OK thread at

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=1184

which you might want to look at

[hotShot]

luis, on Dec 4 2005, 08:35 PM, said:

There was missinformation
There was damage
Damage was not due to the missinformation(*)

Result Stands.
Procedural penalty to NS for not knowing what they play against a strong club.

West knows that the NT bidder has both minors. Had east been informed of this I doubt he would have done something different than bidding 3♥ (spades) and then passing 4♠. When West bid 5♥ East knew North had both minors and yet refused to bid 6♥, I think this is a double-shot, either you don't make 6 or if you make it you claim damage so he has no right to redress. If he thought they had a slam he should have bid it, he had all the information he needed.

Bad ruling but common TDs tend to punish people for forgetting their system when it's clear in the rules that that is not an infraction. The missinformation and the damage here are no linked and Eeast is trying to get a slam that he refused to bid.

Luis

Lois I do not agree with you here.

You say that west knows that North holds both minors, can you back that with facts?
If North holds ♦ and ♥ as explained, West can expect East to be short in ♥ and East can hold lots of ♣. Void opposit parters long suit, is not good, if the suit has top honors. Furthermore ♠AJ is not what you would want to use tu ruff your ♣ high, you would want to use them to draw trump. So stopping in 4♠ is not irrational. EW could still ask for an adjustment, even if stopping in 4♠.
East 3♥ is a transfer bid, so West is forced to execute the transfer first.

Now North 5♣ bid, is some sort of illegal wake up call. IF this happend in f2f bridge, North might have overheard South explanation and gained UI about the mistake. North would not be allowed to use that. So the 5♣ bid might have been illegal.

After the 5♣ wake up call of North, west tries to tell partner about his good ♥'s, but East does not recognise this as slam try.

So there is missinformation, illegal use of UI, damage and all is related.

[mikeh]

I do not know the rules as well as I should, given that I sit on appeal committes from time to time And I certainly do not know the rules as adopted in Europe.

But I find it strange that no one has yet pointed out that absent the systemic misunderstanding NS, S might have got excited with his ♣ fit, and had he bid 5♣ at his first opportunity, would any North sit for a slam EW? 7♣ looks like a good save even at unfavourable!

I suspect that any plausible route by EW to 6♥ would get NS to an equally plausible save, and if EW are red v white, they actually beat par by playing 5♥+1

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Dec 5 2005, 02:05 AM, said:

But I find it strange that no one has yet pointed out that absent the systemic misunderstanding NS, S might have got excited with his ♣ fit, and had he bid 5♣ at his first opportunity, would any North sit for a slam EW? 7♣ looks like a good save even at unfavourable!

Very few people have the balls necessary to advance an argument that (basically) boils down to:

"If we knew our agreement we would have been able to compete more effectively"

Maybe I'm a cynic, but...

Once a partnership demonstrates that they don't know their own agreements they don't get much leeway in claiming that they'd find an obvious sac. This is especially true when bread-and-butter sequences like a direct seat overcall of a strong club opening are involved.

[LH2650]

mikeh, on Dec 4 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

But I find it strange that no one has yet pointed out that absent the systemic misunderstanding NS, S might have got excited with his ♣ fit, and had he bid 5♣ at his first opportunity, would any North sit for a slam EW? 7♣ looks like a good save even at unfavourable!

This only marginally relevant, since EW are entitled to the correct information (which is apparently "No Agreement") while NS are stuck with their misunderstanding. In view of the table explanation, North will be constrained in his ability to compete further, and his apparently illegal 5 club bid will probably bar South from bidding 7 clubs. However, EW have not explained how they should get to 6H, given the correct information, and I can't see how I would, so no adjustment.

[Kalvan14]

W was certainly damaged by the incorrect explanation: if he had known that N had the minors, he would have certainly bid 4♥ over 3♥ (hiding an 8-card suit is not good bridge ).
N-S were guilty on 2 counts: insufficient agreements, or lack thereof, for the first cound; and stupidity (on N behalf) for the second one.

The first accusation does not even needs to be explained; for the second one, N has done his bid, and he has been lucky enough that S misunderstanding has not resulted in a hearts bid. Over 4♠, his only option is pass. Now, I am pretty sure that TD cannot change the table result.

[Fluffy]

North should be penalized for cheating (5♣ bid is obvious use of UI), and EW should keep their result because they weren't damaged by the missinformation. I would had let them play 4♠ +1 If 5♥ didn't score better.

[000002]

West is damaged: 8cards ♥ with 8-5-0-0;♣ void can't to show.

East isn't damaged, and he lose chance to seek slam.

North is inculpable: he can predict opps have 9cards ♥ and maybe un-fit ♠.
he can re-bid since his extra 6-5 strong (of course 5♣ is worse than 4nt), 5♣ maybe risk.he never interpret

south is deception unless he is beginner or novice.

[arrows]

I am really confused, why 5C bid could be using of UI?

And in this situation, what is the appropriate action of North?

[luis]

luis, on Dec 4 2005, 08:35 PM, said:

You say that west knows that North holds both minors, can you back that with facts?

He has 8 hearts and pd has spades. After 4♠ was passed back to North he bid 5♣ do you need more facts?

Quote

If North holds ♦ and ♥ as explained, West can expect East to be short in ♥ and East can hold  lots of ♣. Void opposit parters long suit, is not good, if the suit has top honors.

Absurd, you have 8 hearts, North can't have a heart suit. Furthermore assuming hearts are 8-5-0-0 then when North bids 5♣ over 4♠ the picture is completely clear.

Quote

East 3♥ is a transfer bid, so West is forced to execute the transfer first.

Is this a joke? Since when you are forced to complete a transfer to spades when you have an 8 card suit?

Quote

Now North 5♣ bid, is some sort of illegal wake up call. IF this happend in f2f bridge, North might have overheard South explanation and gained UI about the mistake. North would not be allowed to use that. So the 5♣ bid might have been illegal.

What kind of Wakeup call? 5♣ he has a lot of shape and both minors so he is free to make a bridge decision and bid 5♣

Quote

After the 5♣ wake up call of North, west tries to tell partner about his good ♥'s, but East does not recognise this as slam try.

That's a problem of EW, first of all West only bid 3♠ when pd transferred to spades holding 8 hearts. Even worst then he passed 4♠ which I think is just terrible and now after they completely missbid the hand they want to be awarded an slam? Cmon this is really outrageous.

Quote

So there is missinformation, illegal use of UI, damage and all is related.

No, there is a lot of missbidding by EW, a South player forgetting his own system (which is not illegal) and then NS want to win in the comitee what they couldn't win at the table. The TD should let the result stand and in an appeals comitee I will strongly recommend to keep EW deposit if they appeal.

[whereagles]

luis, on Dec 5 2005, 04:45 AM, said:

in an appeals comitee I will strongly recommend to keep EW deposit if they appeal.

Hum.. I wouldn't go that far, but almost

[Gerben42]

Important piece of information missing. What is the level of the players (no MP nonsense just tell me if this was a club tourney, and if NS were decent players).

Could a pair of the level of NS be expected to have a defence against Precision 1♣ is the real question. Given the story I would say probably not. If not, there is no misinformation as they were just confused about who has what. No adjustment.

You play a nonstandard system and opps have not done their homework. Happens. Tough luck.