[McBruce]

Scoring: IMP

---

West passed in first chair and North opened a 15-17 1NT. East bid 2♦, alerted, asked, and explained as showing the majors. South bid 3♣ and West bid 3♠. North passed and East passed. At this point, West called the TD and explained that the explanation given of the 2♦ call was mistaken. The actual agreement was that 2♦ showed simply hearts.

The TD gave North the option of changing his pass over 3♠; North declined. The auction continued with a 4♦ call by South, a 4♥ call by West, and a raise to 5♦ by North, which was the final contract. Eleven tricks, 600 to N/S.

The TD judged to adjust the score to 720 for N/S, based on 21B3 and 12C1e. 3NT is cold for 13 tricks on a non-spade lead with both club finesses working and diamonds breaking.

East-West protested the ruling, pointing out that North had been given a chance to change her pass over 3♠ after being given correct information about the 2♦ call, yet chose not to bid 3NT. The TD replied that 12C1e requires that the TD judge what would have happened without the irregularity, not what happened after the misinformation was disclosed. What is at issue here, said the TD, is what will probably happen if West understands and explains the 2♦ call correctly when asked, not what happened in an auction with an irregularity.

The result at the other table was 720 to N-S. The offending side won the match by 2 IMPs, so several VPs were at stake.

Opinions?

[RMB1]

I am not sure what the auction would be to 3NT without the misinformation that the TD envisaged. Although NS can be assumed to bid with the correct information, West forgetting the agreement is not an infraction and it seems likely that West will still bid 3S. We know that North did not bid 3NT over 3S with the correct information so it is difficult to see how the TD expects NS to reach 3NT, or how they will avoid a spade lead.

I guess the crux is the TD ruled on the basis that without the infraction, West would not bid 3S; I disagree and think that without the infraction West would still bid 3S.

Robin

[pran]

I have a very big problem seeing how the incorrect explanation affected South's selection of a call over 2♦. Would he have made any other call if he had been given the correct explanation? Frankly I doubt it.

Consequently the first action on NOS that could have been affected by the incorrect explanation was the PASS by North over the 3♠ bid, and North was (correctly) offered the opportunity to retract and change this call.

I feel that the TD ruling was incorrect.

BTW, I find it incredible that the Director could assign an adjusted score based on the presumption that East would definitely not lead his partner's suit against 3NT.

regards Sven

[RMB1]

pran, on Oct 18 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

BTW, I find it incredible that the Director could assign an adjusted score based on the presumption that East would definitely not lead his partner's suit against 3NT.

I think the TD is ruling that West would correctly explain 2D when asked on the first round and (having given the correct explanation) West would be aware of the correct explanation and would not bid 3S. I do not think this is the correct interpretation of "had the irregularity not occurred".

Robin

[duschek]

RMB1, on Oct 18 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

I guess the crux is the TD ruled on the basis that without the infraction, West would not bid 3S; I disagree and think that without the infraction West would still bid 3S.

I agree with Robin and Sven. Since West has no UI, the ruling must be based on the assumption that N/S were never misinformed, but that West himself was "misinformed" as long as he actually was, i.e., the ruling must take into account that West did misbid 3♠ and that he realised his error before his 4♥ bid. This means that both West's bids stand when the TD makes his ruling. East had UI available but obviously did not gain an advantage from it.

Since South's 3♣ bid was the only call made under misinformation in the legal auction, N/S can only be damaged if South would have made a different response had he known the correct meaning of 2♦ (doubtful, but may depend on system).

[bluejak]

One of the problems with these problems is we do not have all the information we would get if we were the TD. For example, suppose N/S play my methods over intervention: Lebensohl [FADS], which stands for Fast Approach Denies Stop. If South was told 2♦ just showed hearts and he played my methods he would bid 3NT, which denies four spades and denies a heart stop, but shows game values. Now the result might easily be 3NT making.

But if he played FASS [Fast Approach Shows Stop] then he might bid 2NT - and now West would probably bid 3♠ getting the killing lead.

So while the ruling is probably wrong, more information would be nice.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 19 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

One of the problems with these problems is we do not have all the information we would get if we were the TD.  For example, suppose N/S play my methods over intervention: Lebensohl [FADS], which stands for Fast Approach Denies Stop. If South was told 2♦ just showed hearts and he played my methods he would bid 3NT, which denies four spades and denies a heart stop, but shows game values.  Now the result might easily be 3NT making.

But if he played FASS [Fast Approach Shows Stop] then he might bid 2NT - and now West would probably bid 3♠ getting the killing lead.

So while the ruling is probably wrong, more information would be nice.

I fail to see how your example is relevant here.

It seems to me that you would bid 3NT regardless of whether the 2♦ bid showed both majors or hearts only, you have no stopper in either suit? Do you know any systemic defense after an intervening bid in 2♦ where the call by South is different depending on which of the two alternatives apply to the 2♦ bid?

It is true that we should have all relevant information, but it is also true that when we are given a problem in this forum we may assume that we have been given all relevant information unless some is obviously missing.

Sven

[suprgrover]

bluejak, on Oct 18 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

One of the problems with these problems is we do not have all the information we would get if we were the TD.  For example, suppose N/S play my methods over intervention: Lebensohl [FADS], which stands for Fast Approach Denies Stop. If South was told 2♦ just showed hearts and he played my methods he would bid 3NT, which denies four spades and denies a heart stop, but shows game values.  Now the result might easily be 3NT making.

But if he played FASS [Fast Approach Shows Stop] then he might bid 2NT - and now West would probably bid 3♠ getting the killing lead.

So while the ruling is probably wrong, more information would be nice.

Aren't we missing something here? Once West realized what their methods were, he bid 4♥, and I doubt that he would fail to do so over a 3NT call by South. Whether he would be astute enough to bid 3♠ as a lead-director is another question altogether. suppose what I am saying is that the TD cannot adjust the score to 3NT making any number of tricks, because E-W are going to bid 4♥ here. Perhaps they will bid 4NT, and perhaps 5♦. Now we are faced with the dilemmas of figuring out the various likelihoods of 12C1e as to what N-S will wind up doing.

[bluejak]

pran, on Oct 19 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 19 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

One of the problems with these problems is we do not have all the information we would get if we were the TD.  For example, suppose N/S play my methods over intervention: Lebensohl [FADS], which stands for Fast Approach Denies Stop. If South was told 2♦ just showed hearts and he played my methods he would bid 3NT, which denies four spades and denies a heart stop, but shows game values.  Now the result might easily be 3NT making.

But if he played FASS [Fast Approach Shows Stop] then he might bid 2NT - and now West would probably bid 3♠ getting the killing lead.

So while the ruling is probably wrong, more information would be nice.

I fail to see how your example is relevant here.

It seems to me that you would bid 3NT regardless of whether the 2♦ bid showed both majors or hearts only, you have no stopper in either suit? Do you know any systemic defense after an intervening bid in 2♦ where the call by South is different depending on which of the two alternatives apply to the 2♦ bid?

It is true that we should have all relevant information, but it is also true that when we are given a problem in this forum we may assume that we have been given all relevant information unless some is obviously missing.

Of course. I do not play what you are suggesting. It is not helpful to play one sequence to show stoppers in both suits, the other neither, and presumably ignore all the hands where you have a stopper in either.

Furthermore, I know of no-one who plays the way you suggest, which I think incredibly silly. So, unless you are suggesting they play this silly way, of course it is relevant.

Your last comment is fairly meaningless: we do not have all the relevant information, so saying we should assume we have it when we know we do not is neither helpful nor sensible.

[McBruce]

It appears from the responses that I got this one wrong based on, as Robin says, misinterpreting "had the irregularity not occurred." Blinded by the misinterpretation, I didn't realize that South also might have made a different call, I took it as given that West would raise to 3♥ or 4♥ and that North might bid 3NT or 4NT (not such a bad gamble when South bids 3♣ over the 2♦ call, especially at this vulnerability) as one of quite a few reasonable possibilities -- in this case the one that gets N-S the most favourable result that was likely.

It's quite possible that South might bid 3NT given correct information, since FADS Lebensohl is fairly common here, so possibly my ruling was correct for the wrong reasons (I didn't find out). Another option open to ACBL TDs would be to rule that the possibilities are too numerous for any to be deemed 'likely' and award the NOS 3 IMPs on the board (12C1d and 86A).

How long after a game ends can a TD use Law 82C to change a score when a ruling is discovered to be wrong? (In this case, luckily for me, it will not matter since the NOS were second overall by 12 VPs from first and third, and the OS finished 11VP from an overall place.)

[bluejak]

The basic approach to giving an adjustment under Law 12C1C is no different from giving it under 12C1E. In effect the TD considers all the possible outcomes - discarding immediately the wildly unlikely - and imagines a rough weighting for them. Under Law 12C1C he then assigns all the scores with their weightings, in England giving a little bias to the weightings in favour of the non-offenders. Under Law 12C1E he orders the results, and then decides where on the list the standards ["that was likely" and "that was at all probable"] are and gives those scores.

Fro an ordinary ruling like this, Law 12C1D is a cop-out. If you assume it never applies you will not go far wrong. This case is an example: giving Ave+/Ave- is just wrong.

Law 82C depends on the Correction Periods established in Law 79C and 92B which apply just as much to this Law as any other.

[jeffford76]

McBruce, on Oct 18 2009, 11:51 PM, said:

It's quite possible that South might bid 3NT given correct information, since FADS Lebensohl is fairly common here, so possibly my ruling was correct for the wrong reasons (I didn't find out). Another option open to ACBL TDs would be to rule that the possibilities are too numerous for any to be deemed 'likely' and award the NOS 3 IMPs on the board (12C1d and 86A).

If the best possible result for north south is to push the board, and it didn't seem like you were considering any scores better than +720, then it can't possibly be right to decide the possibilities are too numerous and award them 3 imps.

[McBruce]

A+ / A- was never a consideration.

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Oct 20 2009, 05:20 AM, said:

A+ / A- was never a consideration.

Good. I am glad it was not you, but another McBruce who wrote:

McBruce the second said:

Another option open to ACBL TDs would be to rule that the possibilities are too numerous for any to be deemed 'likely' and award the NOS 3 IMPs on the board (12C1d and 86A).

[McBruce]

I didn't say it was a good option.

[mycroft]

I would tend to agree with everyone else...the laws don't allow for retraction of West's 3S bid due to his mistaken interpretation of 2D. If South has another bid over 2D (H) as opposed to 2D (H+S), then fine. Otherwise...

After 1NT-2D (Hearts)-3C-3S, North is free to do anything he likes (and he was given that option). But you can't force West to bid 3H or 4H over 3C; the 3S call was neither an infraction nor the result of an infraction. Sometimes brainfarts work to your benefit. At matchpoints, I would rule NS+690, as +600 is going to be almost as terrible a score as -200, so it's clear that North will play the clubs; at teams, not so much. I am not sure I would give it "likely" that North will take the club hooks after "spade to the A, spade back" when he has 9 tops to hand. It's really borderline, and I would like to, because he was put in an unenviable situation, but not one that is rectifiable in the laws. E-W get -690, no question.

[campboy]

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that you agree the auction would be the same without MI, and then you say you will adjust the score (for EW at least). Why?

[bid_em_up]

McBruce, on Oct 18 2009, 05:39 AM, said:

The actual agreement was that 2♦ showed simply hearts.

Ok.

Quote

The TD judged to adjust the score to 720 for N/S, based on 21B3 and 12C1e.

This TD cannot be serious.

Quote

East-West protested the ruling, pointing out that North had been given a chance to change her pass over 3♠ after being given correct information about the 2♦ call, yet chose not to bid 3NT

I'd be screaming to, but not about North being able to change her call. (Ok, maybe I wouldn't....I'd be afraid the director will change their mind and award 6♣ making instead.)

Quote

The TD replied that 12C1e requires that the TD judge what would have happened without the irregularity, not what happened after the misinformation was disclosed.   What is at issue here, said the TD, is what will probably happen if West understands and explains the 2♦ call correctly when asked, not what happened in an auction with an irregularity.

Ummm, any West who does not bid 4♥ immediately NV vs. V when he knows partner has hearts needs to review Bridge Basics 101. Any director who thinks N/S will be able to play 3N when West understands and explains the 2♦ call correctly also needs to do the same.

So if West understood and explained the bid correctly, N/S will never be able to play 3N. The best N/S can do at this point is to bid 6♣ making but is it really realistic? If you think so, award N/S +1370. Otherwise, they get 600, 620 or 640, whichever you think is most likely after West bids 4♥.

3N making 7 should never be an option, imo. Even if South bid 3N as some form of Leb, West should still 4H. I really dont believe North will bid 4N to play here, but maybe you do.