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'.