[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

2NT(1)..P..4♦(2)..P
5♣.....P.....5♦.....P
P......P

---

(1) alerted, 10-15 pts, 6+ diamonds, no 4-card major
(2) intended as a "frivolous invite" (i.e. accept only with absolute maximum), explained by North as RKCB for diamonds

Result: 5♦(S) -2
West called the director at the end of play and claimed that he would have doubled 4♦ for takeout given South's explanation, and his partner might then have doubled the final contract.

Convention cards give no clue as to what is the actual agreement. North claims to have a comprehensive set of system notes confirming his view, but not with him, unfortunately. (South should have called the director and corrected the misinformation at the end of the hand, but perhaps he was unsure his original view was correct.)

This happened in the last stages of the event at table 1, so assume a high standard. Do you adjust the score?

[gordontd]

I'm far from convinced that West would double 4♦, but even if we accept that I can't see East doubling 5♦.

5♦ could easily be cold - swap a major suit card in each NS hand, and move the ♣10 to the North hand.

[cherdanno]

gordontd, on Sep 10 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

I'm far from convinced that West would double 4♦, but even if we accept that I can't see East doubling 5♦.

5♦ could easily be cold - swap a major suit card in each NS hand, and move the ♣10 to the North hand.

East might make a responsive double of 5♦. West, with bad majors and two aces, would pass that, of course.

[bluejak]

If you think that West might double 4♦ but probably not, and if so East might double 5♦ but probably not then you could adjust - assuming you have decided there is MI - giving a very low percentage of 5♦ dbld and a high percentage of 5♦.

[NickRW]

Surely the critical question is, was there MI? If North is actually correct about their agreement, then S has forgotten the system or psyched, but there is no MI. Unfortunately it seems that N cannot prove the case and it looks a little suss without a convention card or system notes to prove his point.

One would think that pairs capable enough of getting to table 1 in a reasonable quality event would have learnt to cover their arses???!!! Which is, I suppose, a way of saying I would adjust - but it seems a bit of a stab in the dark to figure out what % of what to adjust to.

Nick

[Jlall]

West has an auto double of 4D if given the right explanation, and east has an auto X of 5D, especially if they are good players.

Obviously you have to rule MI if they can't prove one way or the other what their agreement was.

[gnasher]

VixTD, on Sep 10 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

West called the director at the end of play and claimed that he would have doubled 4♦ for takeout given South's explanation, and his partner might then have doubled the final contract.

Actually, West said that he *might* have doubled 4♦ for takeout, and that if he had done so East *would* then have doubled 5♦.

Quote

(South should have called the director and corrected the misinformation at the end of the hand, but perhaps he was unsure his original view was correct.)

South did correct the explanation at the end of the auction. (Even if he had been unsure about the agreement, he would, of course, still have pointed out the potential misinformation.) Nobody called the director at that point because nobody had any bridge reason to do so*. The only call that could be changed was East's final pass, and he certainly wasn't going to do that.

* Before somebody tells me that obeying the Laws is a bridge reason, yes, I know. On the other hand, if we really called the director every time a mistaken explanation was corrected at the end of the auction, each session would take an extra half hour. 90% of such misexplanations cause no damage, and 89% of them are resolved without a director call.

[VixTD]

gnasher, on Sep 10 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

Actually, West said that he *might* have doubled 4♦ for takeout, and that if he had done so East *would* then have doubled 5♦.

Quote

(South should have called the director and corrected the misinformation at the end of the hand, but perhaps he was unsure his original view was correct.)

South did correct the explanation at the end of the auction.

I stand corrected. I must admit I made up the bits that I either didn't know or couldn't remember which weren't likely to be important for the ruling.

In absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary I ruled as if there had been a misexplanation rather than a misbid. I thought it highly likely that West would double 4♦, but the director I consulted wasn't so sure, so I conducted a quick poll of players at the top of the field at the end of the round. About 20% of them said "pass, what else?", another 20% said "double, wouldn't dream of passing" and the rest opted for double with varying degrees of conviction. I thought the double of the final contract by East with the correct information (whether West doubles or not) was not clear cut, so I finally opted for an adjustment to 50% each of 5♦X-2 and the table score.

[NickRW]

Seems reasonable to me regardless of which of E or W that said they might/would have doubled.

[aguahombre]

I would believe North's explanation as being what he thought their agreement to be. South, by "correcting" later, makes it clear that he thought differently. From what is given by OP, both seem to be telling the truth as they know it. Is a misunderstanding "MI"? I have more questions than answers.

OP is in an ACBL time zone, but could be in Can or So. AM. What is the actual alert procedure for a Jump above 3NT? It is confusing to me. Was the 4D bid alerted, or just asked and explained? If alerted, it makes North's explanation less "suspect", as Nick describes.

Does any of this matter?

[bluejak]

The word England in the subject second line is the clue, though how you deduce it is an ACBL time zone I do not know. In England bids are never alerted above 3NT, apart from opening bids.

[blackshoe]

I may be wrong, but I think the time stamp on posts is your local time. IAC, the OP is definitely in the UK.

Edit: I'm in Eastern Daylight Time, it's 5:30 PM, and the time stamp I see on this message is 5:30 PM.

[aguahombre]

i looked at what time it is where the poster is on his/her profile. for instance, blackshoe shows "user's local time" as one hour later than mine, and I am in Mountain time. OP shows same time as Blackshoe.

[NickRW]

The time zone of the poster is not necessarily reliable - each user has to set it in their profile

[Sven Pran]

NickRW, on Sep 12 2009, 03:51 AM, said:

The time zone of the poster is not necessarily reliable - each user has to set it in their profile.

But a user who has set his profile incorrect will usually complain that the forum keeps an incorrect clock. Eventually he will learn that in order to get correct times on messages he must have his own profile correct.

Example: Blackshoe wrote that the timestamp he saw on his own message posted at 5:30PM (his own local time) was indeed 5:30 PM. Here the timestamp on that post is 11:30PM; the timie difference between me and ESTDST is precisely 6 hours.

My local time now is 11:10 AM so I shall expect Blackshoe to see my message timestamped 05:10 AM

regards Sven

[helene_t]

West would probably have doubled 4♦ given correct explanation. Then EW gets to 4♠, and NS might not sacrifice. If they do, EW might pass it out or double or bid 5♠. If they bid 5♠ they would probably be one off but might make it once in a blue moon.

So
5♠= ... 5%
5♠-1 ... 15%
4♠= ... 15%
4♠+1 ...5%
5♦-2 ... 30%
5♦x-2x ... 30%

10% chance of a spade contract which makes 11 tricks is probably overstated, maybe I should round it off to zero.

Question: Am I allowed to include a result that gives the offenders an advantage (here 5♠-1) or must I leave that out?

[gordontd]

helene_t, on Sep 12 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

Question: Am I allowed to include a result that gives the offenders an advantage (here 5♠-1) or must I leave that out?

Yes, it's quite common to include such a result. Obviously if you gave a large enough % to such results you could end up with a position where the NOS would be better without the adjustment - which would be another way of saying that they weren't damaged.

[blackshoe]

Sven Pran, on Sep 12 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

My local time now is 11:10 AM so I shall expect Blackshoe to see my message timestamped 05:10 AM

Yep.

[Sven Pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 12 2009, 03:26 PM, said:

Sven Pran, on Sep 12 2009, 05:10 AM, said:

My local time now is 11:10 AM so I shall expect Blackshoe to see my message timestamped 05:10 AM

Yep.

I haven't noticed this before, but I can see from the quote line in the quoter's comment what his local time was when I submitted the message he quotes!

When I saw the confirmation from Blackshoe it told me that he quoted a message I posted at 05:10 AM which of course was his local time.

Knowing that my local time was 11:10 AM when I posted it I also know that the time difference between us is 6 hours.

Funny, but logical. However, I felt a bit dizzy when figuring this out.

Can this have any practical use?

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Sven Pran, on Sep 12 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

Can this have any practical use?

Probably not.