BBO Discussion Forums: Ruling - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Ruling

#1 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,898
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2008-July-17, 14:52

I thought this was an unclear decision but maybe I'm very wrong.

Scoring: MP


Bidding went, as both pairs agreed, as follows:

p-p-1(polish)-2
2(NFB)

here S alerts and explains 2 as a random Michaels, promising 5-4 or better in majors, could be any strength. TD is called, explains to E that he can change his call now. E doesn't change his call. S passes and W bids 3NT, ending the auction.

T1: club to queen and ace
T2, 3: heart AK
T4: spade to 8, holding
T5-8: 4 hearts taken, declarer discarding a diamond, two spades and a club. N kept his aces and 3 clubs.
T9: diamond, N claims for -1

W calls the director, explaining that his partner could have opted for 4 if the MI had not taken place.

NS have no mention about an artificial defense to polish club on their CC.

(I'm not sure if the following is relevant:)

Neither NS nor EW have especially good results. They both have about 50%.

The field played the following contracts, excepting this table:

4 made 5: 2
4 just made: 10
4 going down: 12 (one table down two)
2 or 3 made 5: 2
2 or 3 made 4: 2
2 making 3: 1
2 making 2: 1
3NT making 3: 3
3NT down 2: 1
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#2 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,721
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2008-July-17, 15:32

One wonders why East can't speak for himself. :unsure:

What happened at other tables is irrelevant.

I don't think EW were damaged by the MI, so I'm inclined to let the score stand. But this is the kind of situation in which TDs are taught to consult, so perhaps after consultation I would change my mind. IAC, whatever way I rule, I would remind the players of their right to appeal.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#3 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2008-July-17, 15:48

If NS's agreement is that 2 is Michaels, there's no damage and no adjustment - North has simply misbid.

Suppose that we determine, from their convention card and notes, that their agreement is that it's natural, or that their agreement is unclear, in which case we'd assume that there's been misinformation.

EW's failure to bid 4 appears to result from their not knowing what they were playing over Michaels. If East's 2 is natural and weakish, why is West bidding 3NT? And if East's 2 is artificial, why did he bid it? (Especially given that he could retract it, leaving partner with the authorised information that he had hearts.)

Finally, 3NT was makeable, either by playing a spade to the 8 at trick 3 rather than trick 4, or by playing as declarer did but discarding all the spades from his hand, keeping four clubs. At the point that declarer made his first discard from his hand, he already knew that North didn't have a Michaels cue bid.

It seems to me that the damage was subsequent rather than consequent to the misinformation. Hence East-West should keep their score of -100. I'm not sure what North-South should get.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#4 User is offline   hotShot 

  • Axxx Axx Axx Axx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,976
  • Joined: 2003-August-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-July-17, 15:53

Just to understand that correctly:

1) Declarer player AK in trick 2-3 noticing that North cannot have 5-4 in the majors, because South followed suit on trick 3.
Noticing the irregularity he did not call the director.

2) West called the director, explaining that East might have bid differently without the MI.

3) East could have changed his 2 call.

4) West is declarer and did not wonder why North is leading a short minor.

If declarer claimed he misplayed the contract because he was expecting North to have short , I would seriously consider, if there was damage related to the MI.
Fortunately this is not his argument.

The results of the other tables is irrelevant.

Was there missinformation? I'll assume yes. (I'll investigate closer if necessary.)
Is there damage? They went down, so perhaps there is. (Declarer missplayed.)
Is the damage consequence of the MI?
This is the though spot here.

I will investigate what 2 and 3NT promise exactly and under what conditions East would convert to 4.
To my knowledge West promised 18+ HCP, but not necessarily 's or 2 cards in . I guess he should stop .
This is MP and I want to hear from East the arguments that would make him bid 4.

If East is not very convincing, I let the result stand and remind them to appeal.
(The AC has much more time and brainpower to investigate all implications.)

Edit:
Doesn't have West he captaincy of the bidding here?
East / West know from the late alert, that NS may not be familiar with defending against polish club.

gnasher's right I will have to give the N-S result some thought.
But still I let the result stand and recommend them to appeal.
(The AC has much more time and brainpower to investigate all implications. Thank god I'm not in it.)
0

#5 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2008-July-17, 16:02

Well, the other contracts would be relevant if 3NT-1 was at least as good a result as 4. Which it almost is. Do they play 2 as Michaels over Precision club? If so, it seems like an easy ruling. I suppose they don't, though. Sigh.

This is just gross. If the 2 bid had been alerted properly, and they got to 4, do they even make it? East is declarer and he's getting a club lead. That doesn't look good to me.

I'd rule against N-S and then strongly suggest they take it up with the committee. I have no idea how I'd rule as the AC. If it's an international game (say, the European Pairs) I'd probably rule that it's N-S's fault because they should be prepared for a Polish Club opening club. If it were an American game, I'd be tempted to rule that East should be aware and ask about what N-S do over an artificial club, and that East isn't entitled to information that South doesn't have (whether North considers Polish Club an artificial club). E-W should know (playing in America) that this confusion over Polish Club is very common.

At least at the AC level, this one seems really tough.
0

#6 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2008-July-17, 18:21

The discussion of what NS does over an artificial club opening is entirely irrelevant. A Polish 1 opening is not an artificial 1 opening. Most of the time, it is identical to a Standard 1 opening.

If the partnership agreement is that 2 is Michaels, then there is no damage. Period.

Quite frankly, I find that West's play is quite odd, and that is the reason for the damage.

Assuming that East's 2 bid is in accordance with his partnership's methods, why would he ever overrule his partner's 3NT call even if he knew that North's bid was not Michaels? 3NT is not cooperative - it is the end of the auction. It would take a very unusual 2 bid by East to even consider bidding again. And East's hand looks like a perfectly normal 2 negative free bid to me.

So, it is hard for me to see how the alert and explanation caused a problem, even if Michaels is not NS's agreement. If anything, it made the play of the hand easier for West. West "knew" that North had the AJ of spades. Properly played, he always makes 3NT.
0

#7 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2008-July-17, 19:31

Quote

The discussion of what NS does over an artificial club opening is entirely irrelevant. A Polish 1♣ opening is not an artificial 1♣ opening. Most of the time, it is identical to a Standard 1♣ opening.


Getting a lot of 'irrelevance' on this thread where it's very relevant. If they play Michaels over natural, and Michaels over a Precision club, then it's forgotten agreement, end of story. If they play Michaels over natural but 2 over artificial, it's not at all clear.

I suspect that 3NT shows a very specific hand for them. I would not presume that they pass with a 6 card suit. Although this is a particularly bad 6 card suit....
0

#8 User is offline   Codo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,373
  • Joined: 2003-March-15
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany
  • Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2008-July-18, 01:32

Csaba stated that "NS have no mention about an artificial defense to polish club on their CC."

So there was surely a misinformation.
Without this misinformation, it had been much easier to reach 4 Heart.
4 Heart will make with reasonable play.

So there was a damage due to the misinformation and so the result is changed to 4 Heart=. (I don't see the overtrick).

It is absolute not relevant that W misplayed the contract. Yes he should have done better, but this is irrelevant for Easts play in 4 Heart.

I would ask N/S to go to the AC, because there is a good chance that the ruling will be changed.
Kind Regards

Roland


Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
0

#9 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2008-July-18, 01:55

Codo, on Jul 18 2008, 08:32 AM, said:

So there was surely a misinformation.
Without this misinformation, it had been much easier to reach  4 Heart.

That's not a sufficient reason to adjust the score.

12 C 1 (b) [New rules]:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by 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 should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the
consequence of its infraction only.


It seems to me that the non-offenders contributed to their own damage either by:
- Not knowing what their methods were over Michaels, or
- Making a stupid 3NT bid
Either of these is a "serious error".

I agree that West's misplay in 3NT would only be regarded as a "serious error" in an event of a reasonably high standard.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#10 User is offline   dan_ehh 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: ACBL
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 2005-August-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tel Aviv, Israel
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, Music

Posted 2008-July-18, 02:44

I must say that this looks like a very easy case to me.

The first step is to establish whether or not there's been misinformation. According to the information given by the poster, NS have no special agreement over a Polish 1 opener, therefore the correct answer to the opponents' question is "natural" or maybe "no agreement", but certainly not "Michael's", and hence wrong information has been given. Moreover, I will add that without proof (on the CC), the director should assume that the bidder knew what he was bidding while his partner was mistaken, and not vice versa.

The second step is to establish damage. This looks very clear to me - if a proper explanation had been given, it is very likely that EW would have reached the good 4 contract, and made it, possibly even with an overtrick (need a lead and continuation to hold the contract to 10 tricks. A can be discarded on the 4th if there is tempo, and after the natural 2 bid a bid is more than likely. Of course declarer must play s before s but regardless of that, 10 tricks seem very likely.

It is true that East decided not to change his bid after the "corrected" explanation, but we have no idea what west understood from the "new" 2 bid. Maybe their agreement is that cuebidding now shows a stopper in this suit? Maybe East has QTxxx in ? Does the 3NT bid imply a balanced hand according to the Polish system? The fact that there is "authorised" information that east wanted to make a nonforcing 2 bid does not seem very relevant to me, since West's 3NT bid is normal regardless of the information given, and it is East's decision that is affected by the misinformation. East is a passed hand so even if 2 showed a maximum hand with a stopper west's practical bid is 3NT (especially considering Matchpoints scoring). Another irrelevant fact is that 3NT can make on good play - it is true, but in MP scoring, 9 tricks in 3NT are still inferior to 10 or 11 in 4. I do not think East can correct 3NT to 4 after a Michael's bid, because I am pretty sure the West hand can be almost anything - from a balanced 19 count to a 4126 strong hand (and if I am wrong here, please correct me). It is very clear that East can never bid 4 under these circumstances while there is a fair chance that EW can try some constructive bidding and reach 4 if given the proper explanation (West might bid 3 as an artificial bid asking for more info?). A good rule is that when in doubt, the director should rule in favour of the innocent side and send the guilty side to the committee. Therefore as a director onsite I would surely rule that the score be changed to 4 (not sure how many tricks but that doesn't seem very important at the moment), and send NS to the appeals committee.

Now, as the AC, I might change this decision, but not completely. A just result, in my opinion, would be some number of %% of a making 4 contract (about 55% I would say), another %% of 11 tricks in 4 (probably around 15%), and the remaining 30% will be from the actual 3NT-1 result.

The important point that needs to be stressed is that damage begins where the misinformation altered events. We need to answer this question: "What would have happened had EW been given the proper explanation?", and the answer to this question is the correct ruling.


Quote

It seems to me that the non-offenders contributed to their own damage either by:
- Not knowing what their methods were over Michaels, or
- Making a stupid 3NT bid
Either of these is a "serious error".


I strongly disagree with both of these being serious errors.
The argument about "not knowing their methods over Michael's" is irrelevant, as there was no Michael's bid in this board, and even if you are right, it is very unfair to expect a pair to be able to reach 4 of a major after their opponent showed 4 (usually 5) cards in that suit. This depends of course on the level of this pair, but I am assuming this is not the Bermuda Bowl.
The argument about a "stupid 3NT bid" may have *some* merit, but it is still my opinion that 3NT is a rather normal bid, considering the scoring method and the fact that East had already passed initially.

Please note that the 30% I gave as a committee to 3NT-1 is due to my assumption that there is a certain chance that EW would not have reached the good 4 contract even if given proper information, and there is no relation to the supposedly self-inflicted damage. Perhaps I was too harsh with them as the poster notes that only 4 out of 34 tables played in NT (only slightly more than 10%).
Ah, no, no. My name is spelt 'Luxury Yacht' but it's pronounced 'Throatwobbler Mangrove'.
0

#11 User is offline   Codo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,373
  • Joined: 2003-March-15
  • Location:Hamburg, Germany
  • Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2008-July-18, 04:46

gnasher, on Jul 18 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

12 C 1 (:( [New rules]:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by 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 should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the
consequence of its infraction only.


It seems to me that the non-offenders contributed to their own damage either by:
- Not knowing what their methods were over Michaels, or
- Making a stupid 3NT bid
Either of these is a "serious error".

Sorry, but if 2 Heart as a nfb can be based on something like a 2533 with 8 HCPs (as an example) 3 NT isn't unnormal.

I don't know how well tuned their system is, I had bid 2 NT with the West hands in the polish club we play .
But we have no clue that his 3 NT bid with 18 HCPs, no established fit in pds suit and good stoppers in their suits isn't their book bid. And anway to call this call IWG or even "a serious error" is far off if you agree that his hand is balanced, with stoppers and too strong for a 1 NT opening.

And why do you state, that they don't know their methods over michaels? 2 Heart was explained as "NFB", exactly what East had.

So, no, there is no serious error that makes me change the ruling again.
Kind Regards

Roland


Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
0

#12 User is offline   Rossoneri 

  • Fish
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 970
  • Joined: 2007-January-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore
  • Interests:Bridge, Football, Statistics, Classical Music

Posted 2008-July-18, 11:01

I would think these are the few salient points:

1) Was there MI? It seems to me that NS had no agreement over a Polish Club and hence 2C was not the partnership agreement. (BTW I disagree that a polish club should be treated like a "standard" 1C bid.)

2) Did the MI damage EW? I would probably poll to decide. Also, I would look at how does EW handle interference over their 1C opening.

3) Did the offenders do anything serious to contribute to their own damage? I would probably say no, but that again depends on poll results/CC.

I would most probably be in favour of a weighted score.
Blog
Qualified SCBA and EBU Club TD

Currently in Singapore.
0

#13 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,898
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:matching LaTeX delimiters :(

Posted 2008-July-19, 05:11

I was N here and I am probably biased.

What I'm wondering about is this. W can make 4 on reasonable play, yet many tables went down. Does the TD have to assume W is one of the "good" half of the field? An adjusted score between 4 making 4 and 5? I don't really understand.

From the way he played 3NT he seems to be, at least to me:
-a bad declarer
-a declarer who didn't care about 3NT because he knew he'd call the TD anyway.

Another aspect of this ruling was that the director promised he'd get back to us, because this was the last board of a round, and then only after 3 rounds later I saw our percentage abnormally low. When I asked the TD about the decision, he explained that declarer can make on normal play, so that's that. After I was still not convinced, he just shrugged and said "this was a joint decision. it's not my fault. don't ask me" or something, in bad English. He didn't mention the AC or anything like that.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#14 User is offline   dan_ehh 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: ACBL
  • Posts: 124
  • Joined: 2005-August-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tel Aviv, Israel
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, Music

Posted 2008-July-19, 06:09

From the info you provided, 16 tables made at least 10 tricks in a contract. That's almost half of the field. As to your question whether the director must assume that "your" declarer is part of the "good" guys, the answer is yes, because it is your bad information that robbed him of the chance to prove himself.

Note that I am not suggesting in any way that you or your partner had any malicious intent of deceiving the opponents - in fact I am convinced that there was no such intent. A common problem is that players don't know the correct answer to the opponents' question, and this causes misinformation. The score adjustment is not a penalty in the sense that it is not meant to discipline you, it is just an attempt to "make things right" - to change the score to what it would have been if a proper explanation had been given. Of course an artificial score of 50% of this and 20% of that, etc., is not a real score, but it is considered the most accurate solution.

Regarding the appeals' committee, my guess is that he knew you weren't a contender and thought you wouldn't care enough (for the committee to look at the case, you must deposit a sum of money, and this money is not given back if the committee finds the appeal to be unjustified).
Ah, no, no. My name is spelt 'Luxury Yacht' but it's pronounced 'Throatwobbler Mangrove'.
0

#15 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,476
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2008-July-19, 09:23

I'm surprised at the number of people saying how they would rule.
From the information given here, I don't see that it's possible to give a ruling at all.

As everyone agrees, if the NS agreement was that 2C was Michaels, no MI, no adjustment. As the CC did not specify the defence to a Polish club, it seems the correct explanation was 'no agreement' - I don't care what the CC says about defence to a normal 1C opening or to a Precision 1C opening, a Polish club is neither of them.

So to rule, we have to decide how the auction would have gone after
1C (2C no agreement) 2H P ?

What would a 2NT rebid by opener mean? What would a 3NT bid mean?

On the actual auction, opener is only entitled to believe that his partner knows the opponents' system. So after what did the 2H bid mean systemically? Was it alerted? What is the systemic meaning of 3NT over the 2H bid? What would a 2NT bid have meant?

Why did East bid 2H with hearts, and then not change that when told his RHO had the majors?

p.s. I would expect 4H to make if that were considered to be the final contract on an auction starting this way. If South thinks North has a 'random Michaels' he's going to lead a spade against 4H, on the expectation that EW have screwed up and the contract is going off; on a spade lead it makes 11 tricks. If South leads a club it makes an easy 10 tricks even getting spades wrong.
0

#16 User is offline   hotShot 

  • Axxx Axx Axx Axx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,976
  • Joined: 2003-August-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-July-19, 13:47

gwnn, on Jul 19 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

I was N here and I am probably biased.

What I'm wondering about is this. W can make 4 on reasonable play, yet many tables went down. Does the TD have to assume W is one of the "good" half of the field? An adjusted score between 4 making 4 and 5? I don't really understand.

Once the TD decides to adjust the score, he is tied to regulations how to do it.

Law 12C (e) (2007) said:

(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a nonoffending
side is the most favourable result that was likely had the
irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most
unfavourable result that was at all probable.

You were OS, so you got, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users