[bluejak]

A correspondent writes:

The case is described by South. I was the arbiter and was called by East after 3 diamond X. I said, the bidding and play should go on. and I will judge the case at the end of the (club) tournament. (I played myself and didn?t know, if I played this hand allready)

After the game North admitted he had given a wrong information: ?It was a mistake, but an honest one?

The attachment contained the following:

Scoring: n/k

....... 1NT Dbl#1 2♠#2
3♦.... Dbl ...P... ...P....
4♣#3 Dbl ...P... ...P....
...P...

---

#1 Double was alerted as DON’T = long suit
#2 2 ♠ were alerted as transfer to ♣.
#3 When the bid comes to West, East calls the TD and tells him that North has given a wrong information. Now, everybody at the table knew that East’s suit is ♣, on what West took the bid to 4 ♣ and got doubled again from North.

If West would pass, North then bids 3 ♣ and me on South, I will pass, with the knowledge that we definitely get a bottom in this hand. I think I’m not allowed to bid my Spades or Hearts again, to tell Partner that he was wrong (we have not played together for a long time and we have taken a simple system and we did not talk about, what we are going to bid in such a situation).

The contract ended 3 down, doubled for 800 for N/S and finally the TD came back to our table and wanted to correct this result into 40% - 60%. After intervention that East and West have taken incorrect actions at the table, the TD did corrected the score to 40% - 50% with the explanation: North has given a wrong information and for this, N/S get penalized anyway.

For me says this now that: whenever someone gives an information (and I know it is wrong), I call the arbiter and me and my partner can bid any rubbish we want, the opponents get anyway a bad score and we are scoring at least 50%. Can this be the truth?

Another person had given a view:

Funny story but TD's decision is wrong : once there has been a misexplanation (not a misbid ! ) the non offending side is protected unless they take an inappropriate action before the TD is summoned ( in this case ,East should not have reacted in anyway and his side would have obtained an adjusted score ) . But as he tried by his remark to tell his partner that his suit was Clubs , he is not protected anymore and fully deserves his bottom at NS + 800 . As for the NS pair , the TD MUST make himself sure whether the 2S bid was a misbid ( NS play effectively as a transfer to C ) in which case ther will be no penalty against the NS or whether 2S is natural in the system in which case N gave a wrong explanation of the system and should be penalized at the discretion of the TD ( personnally I would have penalized 25% of a top ) .

All this mess was created by East and if he had stayed quiet he would have got an adjusted score probably if the explanation was wrong .

Hope I clarified some points

My correspondent then wrote again:

Thank you for answering so fast, but I am still confused:

My consideration as arbiter was the following:

According to § 75 C. I have to assume misinformation rather than misbid, I had no of evidence to the contrary.

According to § 75 B. I shall award an adjusted score.

As the bidding went: 1NT ? X: meaning a good long unknown suit, min. 6

South 2 Spade, alerted, after asked, North said transfer to clubs (min. 6)

Now West bid 2 Diamonds.

I asked myself: did  West according to §12 C1b) as the non-offending side contribute to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)?

I came to the conclusion: No, because his partner must have diamond, heart or spade, because clubs were excluded. So he hoped to play in a 10 or 11 fit or in worst case in an 8 fit (spade). If the spade by South were real, West needed to pass or bid 3 Clubs, but never 3 Diamonds. So 3 Diamond was clearly a bid caused by the misinformation.

Now North doubled the 3 diamonds and East called the arbiter.

In the rules of 1997 there was a sentence in Law 75 D2. that the arbiter should only be called at the end of the game. It didn?t say anything what happend if the arbiter was called before. In the new laws of 2007 this remark is gone.

In the moment the arbiter was called by East it was clear that the game could not be finished. East gave UI to West and he bid in a sort of panic 4 Clubs.

Apart from how do you rule [and I have more than one idea myself there are other questions which might be answered.

[Sven Pran]

Oh dear, oh dear.

North has given misinformation, that is almost for sure even without his "confession". But the mistake does not appear malign to me; if they have a transfer system on then 2♠ is quite naturally a transfer to 3♣ which possibly (depending on agreements) can be passed or corrected to 3♦.

So far so good. But what on earth was in East's mind when he completely spoiled the board with his absolutely improper action? This action warrants a penalty at least corresponding to the adjustment East/West otherwise would be awarded.

And as for adjustment: Artificial adjusted score is not an option for the director; a result has been obtained on the board.

OP further refers to Law 75 and asks about consequences. I agree that under normal conditions the Director should try if he considers East/West to having been damaged by misinformation, but here I would consider Easts action so horribly illegal that I would deny him any redress at all. (Call it a procedure penalty if you like). Whether North/South should keep their table score is a separate question, but again I tend to rule that this score was mainly a result of East's activity and only a minor consequence of the misinformation.

Others may disagree, I shall not argue. In a real case I would have discussed the situation with at least one other qualified director.

regards Sven

[LH2650]

I find this to be a very interesting problem, and am surprised that it has not received more comment.

If West had not bid 3♦, I assume North would bid 3♣, and as South, I think I would have to interpret that as some sort of strong ♠ raise. I would bid 3♥ as a game try, and pass partner's 3♠, or bid 4♠ over anything else (probably 3N). I expect that partner will have gotten the message by now, and pass, so that 4♠ seems to be a legitimately reachable contract. (I would rule down 1 if I assigned it.)

No matter what we think of East's action, the MI damaged EW, and they deserve rectification. In practice, we don't really penalize players for East's type of indiscretion, so a stern lecture is appropriate.

I assume that there will be polling, and that raises a question. The respondents will be told that 2♠ was a transfer to ♣, and they are likely to view this as more of an absolute truth than they would at the table. Does this bias the results?

[awm]

It seems strange to reward E/W here. There is no clear link between the MI and the awful 3♦ bid; swap everyone's clubs and spades and you can see that E/W are still going for a huge number after this call even though N/S have their "club transfer." The fact is that west seems to think his hand is worth competing in this auction; there is no compelling reason to think he would not find a way to compete over a natural 2♠ also, and the best E/W are likely to do is to reach 3♣X instead of 4♣X. However, the MI was not really responsible for 4♣ -- they reached 3♦X, which is the same score as 3♣X. They then blatantly abused UI (east's comments and director call) to "correct" to the inferior 4♣X. So I would let them keep their table result.

As for N/S, they are not entitled to the bonanza they received, but I don't think playing in 3♣ N/S is a likely result on the hand. Supposing that being told 2♠ is natural somehow silences west (no obvious reason it would but let's suppose), north's 3♣ bid should be some super-accept of spades and N/S will probably land in 4♠. This might even make, but since they are the offending side we should give them the worst "likely" result, which is 4♠-1 on a misguess of the hearts.

So I'd rule E/W play 4♣X-3 for -800, and N/S play 4♠-1 for -50 or -100 depending on colors.

[bluejak]

awm, on Sep 10 2009, 03:07 AM, said:

This might even make, but since they are the offending side we should give them the worst "likely" result, which is 4♠-1 on a misguess of the hearts.

This is Europe, where Law 12C1E does not apply, so we use 12C1C: we do not give 'worst likely results', but a weighted score.

[richlp]

bluejak, on Sep 8 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

If West would pass, North then bids 3 ♣ and me on South, I will pass, with the knowledge that we definitely get a bottom in this hand. I think I’m not allowed to bid my Spades or Hearts again, to tell Partner that he was wrong (we have not played together for a long time and we have taken a simple system and we did not talk about, what we are going to bid in such a situation).

While I laud your willingness to take a zero, I think your logic on needing to pass is flawed.

Unless your mannerisms give the show away, bidding further won't tell partner he has given a mis-explanation. He'll think you have ♣s and whatever else you bid.

So you must continue to bid as is partner had said "That bid is non-forcing and shows Spades. I bid 3C." Unless the 3C bid shows clubs, you must NOT pass.

I would expect the 3C bid to show support for spades and a maximum (or at worst better than minimum depending on your style). If your ♥K were a ♠x, I think you could ethically bid 3♠. Your partner should expect ♣s and ♠s and you will probably escape.

With your actual hand I think a 3♥ bid is called for. Partner will now expect ♣s and ♥s and you might get the same zero, but you'll have followed correct procedure on dealing with the Unauthorized Information that partner thinks you have clubs.

[gnasher]

awm, on Sep 10 2009, 03:07 AM, said:

The fact is that west seems to think his hand is worth competing in this auction; there is no compelling reason to think he would not find a way to compete over a natural 2♠ also, and the best E/W are likely to do is to reach 3♣X instead of 4♣X.

So West hears a natural 2♠ and bids 3♣, to play in his partner's suit. Why should this be doubled?

[bluejak]

Because North thinks South has shown clubs.

When adjusting for MI we decide what action might have been taken if the non-offenders had full and correct information, but the offenders were still in a state of ignorance.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Sep 11 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Because North thinks South has shown clubs.

When adjusting for MI we decide what action might have been taken if the non-offenders had full and correct information, but the offenders were still in a state of ignorance.

So North has heard his partner show clubs, and then he's heard RHO bid 3♣. Is he allowed to know that 3♣ is intended as natural?

If North thinks 3♣ is a cue-bid, he has no particular reason to double - 10xx isn't a particularly exciting holding, and nothing about the rest of North's hand suggests competing further in clubs.

If North is allowed to know that 3♣ is natural (and I suppose he is), wouldn't this rather surprising natural bid in partner's suit would have reminded him of their actual agreement? If so, North now thinks that partner has spades, and again he has no reason to double.

[campboy]

Firstly, 3♣ wouldn't be intended as natural, but "pass or correct". Secondly, I don't think North should be assumed to know any more than "3♣ is pass/correct if 2♠ is natural, [insert meaning] if it is a transfer".

So I agree that doubling 3♣ is not at all certain.

[LH2650]

awm, on Sep 9 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

There is no clear link between the MI and the awful 3♦ bid;

Certainly there is a link. If East does not have ♣, as West can assume from the MI, then he probably thinks that the worst case for his 3 ♦ bid is that they will get to 3♠, one level higher than partner was willing to go, and there could be a tremendous upside if East happens to have a red suit. I consider the 3♦ bid to be bad bridge, but not wild and gambling. West, without the UI, presumably was planning to redouble if doubled, in order to get to East's suit. Therefore, the UI did not affect the probable result. Perhaps EW don't "deserve" a good result, but no one said that bridge was fair.

[awm]

It is not clear to me why 3♣ is "pass or correct" over a natural 2♠ rather than a natural suit. Evidently 3♦ was considered to be a natural suit.

Supposing that 2♠ was described as natural, I don't think that west would actually pass. There is no reason to pass a natural 2♠ on the west hand which does not equally apply to passing a "transfer to clubs" 2♠ as far as I can tell. Of course if west did pass then N/S would probably land in 4♠ after the accept of transfer is taken as showing a good hand with spade fit. It seems quite difficult to assign a "weighted score" since it depends heavily on whether north will consider east's overcall to mark him with the club king once the diamond honors are located, versus the count on the suit heavily favoring a heart finesse. This is the problem with weighted scores -- my impression is that european directors often just make the weighted score up, and that committees don't let you appeal them unless they are wildly wrong, so basically they just make up whatever they want. How about 80% 4♠-1 and 20% 4♠ making?

It's true that west might not have bid 3♦ given the correct information, since he would want to make an allowance for east's suit being clubs. But as stated before, there's no reason to think he will actually pass. So he might bid 3♣ if he thinks it's pass or correct or might double (if that is "bid your suit") or bid 2NT (if that is "bid your suit"). It is not particularly obvious to me which of these is the case. If the auction goes 1N-X-2♠-3♣, then north will probably double to show a maximum with a club fit (keep in mind he thinks they are bidding south's transfer suit) and end up defending there. If the auction goes 1N-X-2♠-X or 1N-X-2♠-2N, then north is likely to redouble in the first case and double in the second; in any case south may double (for takeout/cards) when 3♣ is bid and north leave it in figuring an accident (remember he thinks south has clubs). In any case, north has a very nice hand and does not know about the big spade fit and south has enough values to keep the auction open, so 3♣X seems very likely to me.

Really I have trouble constructing an auction where 3♣ passes out. There is some possibility that 3♣ gets removed to a N/S spade contract if north somehow wakes up to the misunderstanding but honestly 3♣X seems a lot more likely to me.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Sep 11 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

This is the problem with weighted scores -- my impression is that european directors often just make the weighted score up, and that committees don't let you appeal them unless they are wildly wrong, so basically they just make up whatever they want.

On what do you base this impression?

[bluejak]

awm, on Sep 11 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

It seems quite difficult to assign a "weighted score" since it depends heavily on whether north will consider east's overcall to mark him with the club king once the diamond honors are located, versus the count on the suit heavily favoring a heart finesse. This is the problem with weighted scores -- my impression is that european directors often just make the weighted score up, and that committees don't let you appeal them unless they are wildly wrong, so basically they just make up whatever they want. How about 80% 4♠-1 and 20% 4♠ making?

You seem to think the process is different. But it is not. If you were in a jurisdiction that does not use weighted scores, and you decide there is UI and some possibility of damage, then you would consider the possible results without the infraction, and then apply the standards in Law 12C1E to get the answer. That is completely and absolutely the same process until the final step. When ruling under either Law 12C1C or 12C1E you work out the possible/probable/likely results and work out how likely they are. You then either give a single score [possibly different for each side] under Law 12C1E or a weighted score under Law 12C1C. The only real difference is that if you are 15% or so out in your calculations, under Law 12C1C the difference is trivial: under Law 12C1E the difference can be enormous.

You say "It seems quite difficult to assign a 'weighted score' since it depends heavily on whether north will consider east's overcall to mark him with the club king once the diamond honors are located, versus the count on the suit heavily favoring a heart finesse" but the difference between these two will be much greater using Law 12C1E.