[Phil]

South: ♠AQxxxx ♥Jx ♦xx ♣AKx


Matchpoints, NS Vul

(1♦) - 1♠ - (2♦) - 2♠
(4♦) - 4♠ - (pass) - pass
(5♦) - AP

At the time of the 4♦ call, the 4♦ bidder said "oops, I guess I'm supposed to alert the 2♦ call". NS inquired and the explanation was 'inverted'; limit or better.

4♠ makes 5. 5♦ is -2.


West actually held a 3=2=4=4 7 count. She claims to have forgotten their agreement.

HWYR?

[Echognome]

Did NS state how they were damaged?

Did the TD establish their actual agreement? If limit raise, then misbid, no adjustment. If no evidence, then MI.

If MI, then did NS state how they would have bid differently?

I would like to give a 12C3 ruling, but given that you are in ACBL land, it'd be difficult to judge without knowing who is claiming they would have bid differently and what their hand was.

If it was South saying he would bid 5♠, then I would poll. I don't think many would go on to 5♠, given the risk involved, whereas 5♦ is likely down.

A lot of hypotheticals here, but a likely ruling would be 5♦X-2.

[Phil]

Echognome, on Sep 30 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

Did NS state how they were damaged?

Did the TD establish their actual agreement? If limit raise, then misbid, no adjustment. If no evidence, then MI.

If MI, then did NS state how they would have bid differently?

I would like to give a 12C3 ruling, but given that you are in ACBL land, it'd be difficult to judge without knowing who is claiming they would have bid differently and what their hand was.

If it was South saying he would bid 5♠, then I would poll. I don't think many would go on to 5♠, given the risk involved, whereas 5♦ is likely down.

A lot of hypotheticals here, but a likely ruling would be 5♦X-2.

Yes, South stated she would have x'd 5♦. South did not say that she would bid 5♠ (which looks self-serving to me once she finds out the club finesse works and partner has a void ♦ )

I established their agreement based on the explanation from the 4♦ bidder. Their cc did not contradict the statement. They are a regular partnership.

[aguahombre]

So many questions. If 2D is lr+, is 4D Minorwood? If West doesn't have a minorwood hand, what is 4d? What is pass by responder after 4d-4S? Does West's hand show that at some point he figured it out? Would a Double by North have clarified that it was a N/S hand? Some of these might be relevent.

[Echognome]

aguahombre, on Sep 30 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

So many questions. If 2D is lr+, is 4D Minorwood? If West doesn't have a minorwood hand, what is 4d? What is pass by responder after 4d-4S? Does West's hand show that at some point he figured it out? Would a Double by North have clarified that it was a N/S hand? Some of these might be relevent.

Why? Do you think there's a UI problem as well?

I personally felt that the issue here was:

Misbid or Misinformation? - To which we haven't heard the determination of the TD. Yes, I understand that the explanation of the opponents, but is that enough evidence to rule in favor of misbid?

If MI, then how were NS damaged? South says she would double 5♦. I believe her (based on her hand). So that would be enough for me to rule if I deemed there was misinformation.

[aguahombre]

Echognome, on Sep 30 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 30 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

So many questions.  If 2D is lr+, is 4D Minorwood?  If West doesn't have a minorwood hand, what is 4d?  What is pass by responder after 4d-4S?  Does West's hand show that at some point he figured it out?  Would a Double by North have clarified that it was a N/S hand?  Some of these might be relevent.

Why? Do you think there's a UI problem as well?

MI and UI is possible, if they play minorwood, or perhaps if they don't. If West does not have a hand which could bid 4D in their methods opposite a lr+, there are much more serious implications. And if East's pass has significance that is different depending on whether 2d was lr+ or not, there is UI as well.

[mjj29]

Echognome, on Sep 30 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Misbid or Misinformation? - To which we haven't heard the determination of the TD. Yes, I understand that the explanation of the opponents, but is that enough evidence to rule in favor of misbid?

The laws say "without any evidence to the contrary the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid". Therefore if there is a convention card, but it does not specify whether the raises are inverted, I would rule MI. If it did say inverted, but didn't specify in competition I would question them in more detail to judge whether they'd even considered it would be different in competition.

[jdonn]

mjj29, on Sep 30 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 30 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Misbid or Misinformation? - To which we haven't heard the determination of the TD.  Yes, I understand that the explanation of the opponents, but is that enough evidence to rule in favor of misbid?

The laws say "without any evidence to the contrary the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid". Therefore if there is a convention card, but it does not specify whether the raises are inverted, I would rule MI. If it did say inverted, but didn't specify in competition I would question them in more detail to judge whether they'd even considered it would be different in competition.

If the card says inverted but makes no mention of competition I rule misinformation. Inverted in competition is such a strange agreement at least in the USA that it would have to be specifically mentioned on the card for their claim to be backed up IMO.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

mjj29, on Sep 30 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 30 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

Misbid or Misinformation? - To which we haven't heard the determination of the TD.  Yes, I understand that the explanation of the opponents, but is that enough evidence to rule in favor of misbid?

The laws say "without any evidence to the contrary the TD is to rule misinformation rather than misbid". Therefore if there is a convention card, but it does not specify whether the raises are inverted, I would rule MI. If it did say inverted, but didn't specify in competition I would question them in more detail to judge whether they'd even considered it would be different in competition.

If the card says inverted but makes no mention of competition I rule misinformation. Inverted in competition is such a strange agreement at least in the USA that it would have to be specifically mentioned on the card for their claim to be backed up IMO.

This is what I ended up ruling. There was no mention on the cc about inv on in comp.

Its just 'too easy' for a player to say they forgot their agreement when there was no evidence she did.

BTW, the 4♦ call was on a 1=2=7=3 with solid diamonds and a few quacks. It seemed rather suspect to me opposite a limit raise where 3N could be a lock.

[jdonn]

There still may well be no damage. I think it's unlikely, if you simply show me the auction and my hand as south, that my actions will be influenced at all by whatever strength was promised by 2♦. I can see my own hand and partner's action, and the rest just has to do with how the strength and distribution is distributed between the opponents, not how much of each they both have individually.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

There still may well be no damage. I think it's unlikely, if you simply show me the auction and my hand as south, that my actions will be influenced at all by whatever strength was promised by 2♦. I can see my own hand and partner's action, and the rest just has to do with how the strength and distribution is distributed between the opponents, not how much of each they both have individually.

Yeah that's the kind of hand because of which I would hate being TD. Opponents bid 5♦ white against red after trying to play 4♦, and I have two aces. And now I have to think whether someone who didn't double would be more likely to double given a different explanation??

[bluejak]

While it is entirely logical when both opponents bid that knowing whether a bid is strong or not may be irrelevant, poorer players do not think so. For example, after the auction 1♥ 2♠ P 4♠ a poorer player is more likely to bid if the 2♠ bid was weak rather than intermediate. Frankly, the story sounds to me like four poor players at the table.

Of course, if there was MI originally then there can be no damage. N/S only made one call between the failure to alert and the correction, namely 2♠, and the correction was in time for 2♠ to be amended.

The only real possibility of an adjustment is if the correction was wrong. West "forgot" their agreement. East "forgot" to alert their agreement. Why am I suspicious?

[aguahombre]

You are suspicious because 4D/2S smells bad. With all the possible bids in between, and with 5D possible also --opposite an invitational+2D, that call raises antennae. And it is North, not South, with a side AK in the same suit, who maybe should have been suspicious. As North, I would double 5D and pay off if opener has a club void and didn't bid 4C. Josh is right about the honor distribution being irrelevent to the competitive situation, but West's strength is relevent to MI, UI, and misconduct.