[gwnn]

JT,

I knew I shouldn't have used the term "hcp"

how about

JTxx
Kxx
xxx
Axx?

Jxxx
xxx
x
QJxxx

oops this last one has 4 I suppose that's why game is on a finesse and a 3-2 break.

[jtfanclub]

gwnn, on Aug 17 2008, 02:58 AM, said:

JT,

I knew I shouldn't have used the term "hcp"

how about

JTxx
Kxx
xxx
Axx?

Jxxx
xxx
x
QJxxx

oops this last one has 4 I suppose that's why game is on a finesse and a 3-2 break.

Don't think the second one has any chance to make. If opener has 4 clubs, then it's club, club ruff, diamond, club ruff and you're still losing the ace of spade.

I suppose opener could have 3-4-3-3. That would give his partner what, 2-2-7-2? Still on the lead of a club and another you're losing a spade, diamond, club, and a club ruff.

On the first one, that looks like it'll work. Even an opening heart lead won't set it.

So certainly there are some 8-9 point hands that'll make game, you're right.

[gwnn]

The point is 8-9 point hands will be good hands, partner doesn't jump around with a bad hand.

[LH2650]

Echognome, on Aug 16 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

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?

I think that if you accept your argument you will never find a case where you fail to adjust after misinformation, and a bad result.

[LH2650]

blackshoe, on Aug 16 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

Since it's the initial double that led ultimately to the bad score, IMO EW were damaged by the MI.

Why? The double properly represented East's hand. The EW misunderstanding is their problem, as is the penalty double without tricks in the face of a strong opposing auction.

[badderzboy]

LH2650, on Aug 18 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 16 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

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?

I think that if you accept your argument you will never find a case where you fail to adjust after misinformation, and a bad result.

I wonder how many people on this thread have gone thru any director training.

The laws are there to protect everyone especially the NON - offending side.

In the quote above it is N/Ss responsibility to alert THEIR bids to their opponents so they created the MI not EW so guess what they are likely to pay the price.

I would even bet that Jilly may have even alerted the DBL as other two suits.

So any benefit of the doubt goes to the non-offending side EW.

So we need to consider an adjusted score for both pairs.

[david_c]

LH2650, on Aug 18 2008, 03:35 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 16 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

Since it's the initial double that led ultimately to the bad score, IMO EW were damaged by the MI.

Why? The double properly represented East's hand.

That's irrelevant. If East would not have doubled 1♦ with the correct information, and not doubling would have got a better result, then that means E/W were damaged.