[Gerben42]

Agree with EW 3♥X -3. Instead of bidding 3♦ (blatant use of UI) he should raise ♥ which partner bid naturally.

NS keep their score as it's basically the 1NT opening that was responsible for missing game.

A score of 30% is not allowed, what your AC obviously did is to let EW keep their score and give a 30% penalty? I cannot like it and I will not like it.

[pigpenz]

clearly East had UI,
would rule that 3hx- whatever would be the final contract.
I would also give PP to E/W for using the UI.

[paulg]

David Stevenson, from the bridgetalk forum, has given permission to cross post his thoughts here.

First his original reaction which is more about how to apply the laws ...

Quote

Let's forget the MI and concentrate on the UI. You are East, you bid 2♦ natural, partner bids 2♥, you hold ♥KQx and a doubleton. what do you do? Raise, of course. This is doubled, what do you do? Pass with a satisfied smile.

Why did East not do this? Because of blatant use of UI! This is yet another totally extreme case, extreme enough to warrant an additional penalty if East is experienced.

Should we give this score to North-South? Well, why not? Why do you want to split the score? The only reasons for doing so are these two:

    * N/S took irrational, wild or gambling action so do not deserve redress, or
    * the different bases for adjustments for the two sides given in Law 12C2 come to different adjustments

Well, there certainly is no irrational, wild or gambling action by N/S, so we can discard that approach.

So let us look at the basic approach.

Was there UI? Yes.
Could N/S have been damaged? Yes.
Was there an LA to 3♦ ? Of course, 3♥ [and pass, I suppose].
Did the UI suggest 3♦ over 3♥? Of course.

Any more snags? Yes, the biggy!

When we adjust, are we allowed to adjust for UI and ignore the MI? Because if we do not, and we decide that South would always bid 2♠, it means 3♥ is not reached.

When a TD is asked to consider a hand, if he decides there was an infraction but no damage, then he does not adjust. That is an accepted principle of directing. So, after you have considered the UI and come up with an adjustment of 3♥ doubled minus whatever, you then consider the MI - and there was no damage from the MI since N/S would not get a better score if correctly informed.

Why do we take the UI first? The Law book does not tell us what to do, and it is accepted strategy for TDs and ACs to consider infractions in any order they please, effectively any order that helps the non-offending side.

How about the different criteria in Law 12C2 for the two sides? There is nothing there: it is a routine clear adjustment, not even close.

So I consider it an easy adjustment: 3♥ doubled minus whatever, plus a PP for East if he is experienced.

I should appreciate it if this article could be posted unedited and credited [ie, including my sig below] to the relevant BBO forum.


--
David Stevenson <bridge2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

And then a subsequent quote more specifically about this hand

Quote

It is true that I looked more at the legalities in my previous post than at the actual hand. Yes, I suppose East would pass 2♥ generally once 2♦ was doubled, though a raise is possible. Would South double 2♥? Possibly.

I am assuming the correct explanation was both majors. I think South would normally double 2♥ with that hand.

I do not know whether Law 12C3 applies in Argentina. So, having re-considered, I think one of the following is correct:

Adjust for both sides using Law 12C3:

.. 15% of 3♥ doubled minus 3, NS +500
+ 60% of 2♥ doubled minus 2, NS +300
+ 25% of 2♥ minus 2, NS +100

Adjust using Law 12C2:

N/S get
2♥ doubled minus 2, NS +300
E/W get
3♥ doubled minus 3, NS +500

The Law 12C3 weightings involve a "benefit of doubt" bias, as is normal. So I believe that 3♥ doubled will be reached about 10% of the time, which is not high enough to be considered "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" but is high enough to be considered "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" for Law 12C2 purposes.

Again, I would be happy if someone posts this to BBO, unedited and credited

--
David Stevenson <bridge2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Naturally a debate still rages on the other board

[hrothgar]

This is a great example why I regualrly suggest that TDs post these hands on David's forums. I don't always agree with David, but I very much respect his opinions.