[Echognome]

Part of the problem TDing online, of course, is that there is no possibility for a split score. So what should a TD do? Give Avg+/Avg-? It certainly makes it difficult to determine what the "right" thing to do is when the "right" thing is impossible to implement. So I guess I would answer that I would assign a split score if ruling at the table (under the assumptions given above) and online would probably rule Avg+/Avg- given the circumstances. It's not very satisfactory make an illegal ruling (such as giving averages when there is a table result), but it's not very satisfactory assigning a score when you can't assign the appropriate one.

[LH2650]

Echognome, on Aug 15 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

EW are non-offenders.  So unless you think his double is wild or gambling (or irrational in certain jurisdictions), why would you not adjust?

As I suggested in my original post, I think that doubling off a 4-level contract with one sure trick is irrational.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 15 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Like I said, TD error.

I think I can quote you as saying #1 Dont argue with the TD #2. If the TD is wrong, see rule #1

Absolutely, but who's arguing? I'm just saying they were wrong.

It does occur to me that if East had been aware on the first round that NS were playing Precision, he would probably not have doubled. So that's where the damage may have occurred. Or at least part of it. If the auction starts 1♣-(P)-1♦-(P)-1♥ will West now jump to 2♠? If not, I suspect it will continue 2♣-2♦-P (EW being silent). So the result, absent the MI, would have been 2♦ making 5 or 6. It does not look to me like any less favorable result is at all probable (OS) nor likely (NOS). So it looks to me like absent the TD error the adjustment should be 2♦ making five for both sides. With[ the TD error, both sides get treated as non-offending, hence the split score. As for a PP, I'm not sure it's appropriate to let a PP stand when TD error is involved. One would be appropriate, seems to me, absent TD error.

If the software won't allow split scores, then I think making 5 for both sides is the best you can do.

[jillybean]

I was East and had no idea NS were playing Precision, neither did my partner.

Anyway I think the most useful thing Im taking from all this is..

Cascade, on Aug 15 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

I seldom have sympathy for someone who doubles with very few defensive tricks.

[han]

jillybean2, on Aug 16 2008, 01:59 AM, said:

I was East and had no idea NS were playing Precision, neither did my partner.

I have more understanding for your double than for partner's jump to 2S. What kind of bid is that? Maybe your partner was confused and thought 2S was preemptive, like it would be if third hand had redoubled. But not now, now it shows a much better hand. I think that you are worth a 4S bid over 2S.

[jillybean]

My pard said his 2♠ was obviously weak and I should know that

Why is my hand worth 4♠ now? The ♣ and ♥ bidder is sitting over top of me, my pard couldnt overcall at the 1lvl, I have nothing extra in distribution

[mike777]

IN reading the posts there is alot of confusion over what 2spades means.
There seems to be some confusion over what hands partner MUST overcall one spade at unfav vul over one club.

[LH2650]

Echognome, on Aug 15 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

So do you believe if East was given the correct information he would double?  If so, then there is damage.  Regardless of whether you believe that East's double is wild or gambling, shouldn't NS's score be adjusted?

No. EW would have obtained a good score had they acted rationally based on the information available to them. They were not damaged by the misinformation, but by their own bad bridge.

There is no legal basis for adjusting the NS score if EW were not damaged by NS actions.

[han]

jillybean2, on Aug 16 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

My pard said his 2♠ was obviously weak and I should know that

Why is my hand worth 4♠ now? The ♣ and ♥ bidder is sitting over top of me, my pard couldnt overcall at the 1lvl, I have nothing extra in distribution

Your partner is wrong, 2S here is the same as 1C-Dbl-p-2S.

[badderzboy]

In my humble opinion,

I feel EW are getting short-changed as ANY alert in the opening auction would at least stop the final contract becoming reality.

Did EW act so poorly that we assume they failed to play bridge so they lose the right to an adjustment ...

I guess it was a pickup and East misunderstood the 2S bid by West then I would not rule against them as they are the non-offending side.

I would likely adjust to 2D+3 or 4 - I haven't looked in great detail at the hand and East would never double the opening sequence showing the majors given the correct information so they was clearly damage by the failure to alert.

The best advice Jilly is to post on www.bridgetalk.com as you will get replies by some very experienced directors incl David Stevenson EBU and Francis Hinden and Jeffrey Allerton who will comment with a directors hat on.

Cheers

Steve

[blackshoe]

LH2650, on Aug 16 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

They were not damaged by the misinformation, but by their own bad bridge.

Given that 1♣ is natural (since there was no alert), I don't think the initial double was IWoG, and "bad bridge" is not enough to deny redress. Since it's the initial double that led ultimately to the bad score, IMO EW were damaged by the MI.

[han]

I agree that EW were damaged by the misinformation even though they both displayed poor bridge.

[jillybean]

han, on Aug 16 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 16 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

My pard said his 2♠ was obviously weak and I should know that 

Why is my hand worth 4♠ now?  The ♣ and ♥ bidder is sitting over top of me, my pard couldnt overcall at the 1lvl, I have nothing extra in distribution

Your partner is wrong, 2S here is the same as 1C-Dbl-p-2S.

Ok, why is my hand worth a 4♠ bid after pards 2♠ bid?

[gwnn]

Because partner promises a constructive/invitational hand. In terms of hcp (of course this is a rough guideline), 8-11, and you have a prime 15 count.

[Echognome]

LH2650, on Aug 16 2008, 09:43 AM, said:

No. EW would have obtained a good score had they acted rationally based on the information available to them. They were not damaged by the misinformation, but by their own bad bridge.

There is no legal basis for adjusting the NS score if EW were not damaged by NS actions.

And I'm saying my claim is that if EW had attained the correct information about the NS bidding, then they might (would) not have doubled the final contract. That is the basis for damage. Guess what? They get the benefit of the doubt. Do you want a basis in the laws for that?

[jillybean]

gwnn, on Aug 16 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

Because partner promises a constructive/invitational hand. In terms of hcp (of course this is a rough guideline), 8-11, and you have a prime 15 count.

OK and how do you further evaluate this 23-26 hcp hand, what makes it right to bid game?

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Aug 16 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

Because partner promises a constructive/invitational hand. In terms of hcp (of course this is a rough guideline), 8-11, and you have a prime 15 count.

You had a prime 15 count.

Then LHO opened a club, and the king of clubs went down to worth 2 or so.
Then RHO responded a diamond, and the xx in that suit looks like a flaw.
Then LHO rebid a heart, and the AQJ7 went from being worth 7 hcp to 5, since the finesse is most likely off and the 7 probably won't set up even if it's not.

After this auction, I'd say the hand is worth 12-13 hcp. It's only barely worth an invite.

If your partner has, say, the ace of spades and the ace of diamonds as his only useful points, you're probably going to lose a diamond, two or three clubs, and a heart. If he has the ace of spades and the king of hearts, you're going to lose 4 or 5 minor suit tricks off the top. If he has the ace of spades and the ace of clubs, looks like you're losing two diamonds a heart and a club. And so on and so forth.

What 8 or 9 hcp hand are you hoping that partner will have that can make 4♠?

[Vilgan]

Given the location of the K of clubs.. I'm not sure that its a clear 4♠ bid. Most values are working, but the K♣ is questionable, no singleton, etc. If you need a heart finesse, it too is off. Given imps, I think 4♠ is a fairly normal bid but not an omg clear one. Over 4♦ and no x by partner, I think 4♠ at that point sounds a lot better than X.

Calling 2♠ preemptive is just a complete departure from common sense. Don't let someone bully you into thinking you were wrong when you weren't

As for ruling.. I think the contract should stand because the 2♠ by west and the x by east were both pretty crazy. However, N/S should a significant procedural penalty for the failures to alert. Nobody ever gives procedural penalties for crap like this and they really should.

[jtfanclub]

Vilgan, on Aug 17 2008, 12:13 AM, said:

Calling 2♠ preemptive is just a complete departure from common sense. Don't let someone bully you into thinking you were wrong when you weren't The double WAS a mistake w/ no real defensive tricks but the bidding by east other than the X was fine.

See, here's what I don't get.

On the one hand, there's this advice to go to game with the doubling hand. Because, apparently, this hand is going to take so many tricks in hearts and clubs (since it's only going to take a maximum 3 in spades and diamonds total).

And on the other hand, there's people saying that the double of 4♦ is horrible. Because you aren't taking making tricks in hearts and clubs.

I'm having trouble imagining the hand partner could have where we make 4♠ and they make 4♦. Look at the auction, look at your hand. Do you really think there are 20 total tricks?

So how can this argument even happen, where some people are saying that East's failure to bid 4♠ is egregious because he has so much in the round suits, and others are saying that doubling 4♦ is egregious because he has so little in the round suits?

[han]

Considering how many things you say that simply aren't true, it isn't surprising that you don't get it.