BBO Discussion Forums: Misinformation - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Misinformation Different explanations with screens

#1 User is offline   skjaeran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,726
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Location:Oslo, Norway
  • Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy

Posted 2009-October-26, 09:24

This occured in the Norwegian Premier League this weekend.
Scoring: IMP

Bidding by EW:
1 - 2 
2 - 3
3 - 4NT
6 - 6

Eplanations by east to north:
4NT=RKCBW, 6=2KC + void

Explanations by west to south:
4NT=quantitative, 6=natural

South didn't double, since he expected north to hold enough hearts to know about the void, holding no side suit trick.

North, knowing west was void in hearts, led a club.
The contract made.

How would you rule?
Kind regards,
Harald
0

#2 User is offline   mycroft 

  • Secretary Bird
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,143
  • Joined: 2003-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, D18; Chapala, D16

Posted 2009-October-28, 11:10

As always, "what is the actual agreement?"
When I go to sea, don't fear for me, Fear For The Storm -- Birdie and the Swansong (tSCoSI)
0

#3 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,422
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2009-October-28, 11:49

If East's explanation were correct, and East had given that explanation to South, South could have made a Lightner double to get the killing lead. If West's explanation were correct, and East had given that explanation to North, North could have figured out the killing lead on his own, as Sourth expected him to. So either way, there was damage.

#4 User is offline   jdonn 

  • - - T98765432 AQT8
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,085
  • Joined: 2005-June-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, NV

Posted 2009-October-28, 11:58

barmar, on Oct 28 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

If East's explanation were correct, and East had given that explanation to South, South could have made a Lightner double to get the killing lead.  If West's explanation were correct, and East had given that explanation to North, North could have figured out the killing lead on his own, as Sourth expected him to.  So either way, there was damage.

Correct, but the adjustment would still be different since in one case south doubles but in the other he doesn't. Either way I would adjust 100% of the score to 6-2, doubled or not depending on the actual agreement, since either occurence seems extremely likely to me.

If E/W either can't prove or don't know which explanation is correct, I assume whichever leads the adjustment to 6 being doubled since the non-offenders deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: Actually on rethinking, if I adjust to the auction where south doubles then N/S get 100% of 6X-2. But if it's to the auction where south doesn't double, then having thought about it I'm much less convinced now than when I let on that north would lead a heart. It's extremely possible east has ATxxx and west has Qx or something, and E/W might be going down anyway on the bad break. So in that case I might make it more like 60% 6 making and 40% 6 down 2.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
0

#5 User is offline   skjaeran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,726
  • Joined: 2006-June-05
  • Location:Oslo, Norway
  • Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy

Posted 2009-October-28, 14:35

mycroft, on Oct 28 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

As always, "what is the actual agreement?"

I'd have given the actual agreement if that were known. And then it wouldn't have been an interesting problem anymore. :lol:
Kind regards,
Harald
0

#6 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2009-October-28, 18:16

skaeran, on Oct 28 2009, 10:35 PM, said:

mycroft, on Oct 28 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

As always, "what is the actual agreement?"

I'd have given the actual agreement if that were known. And then it wouldn't have been an interesting problem anymore. B)

I recognize this case, the DIC consulted me on the telephone. All I shall say here is that we agreed completely. I also agree that the problem is indeed interesting.

Sven
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users