[bluejak]

I think the accusation against the TD is not worthy of you. You may think the ruling wrong, but suggesting it is lazy is pretty disgraceful. He ruled that way because he thought it correct.

While I do not think the 3♥ bid is very good, I think some other people would find it when 3♣ shows clubs, and it is hardly the job of th TD to teach bridge to the non-offending side.

[jdonn]

That is a pretty severe overreaction to an accusation no worse than that someone was lazy. Nonetheless I'm sure you are right, the ruling was honestly made on the basis that the director doesn't realize what a bad bid 3♥ was on the given explanation (to the point that claiming he would have passed with a different explanation is hardly credible.)

[jdonn]

Sorry double post.

[greenender]

bluejak, on Jan 9 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

So he adjusted to 3♣ going off several, and thus did not need to worry about the UI aspects.

Isn't that a non-sequitur?

It is routine to consider MI in a case brought to the TD's attention because of possible UI, and vice versa.

Is it not correct to consider both possible infractions and give the OS the worse of the possible MI adjustment and the possible UI adjustment? It should not make a difference that application of one adjustment (here the MI adjustment to 3♣ passed out) would have denied the OS the opportunity to commit the other infraction.

Here it seems clear that a possible UI adjustment would at least potentially involve some weighting of a high-level doubled ♣ contract, so that a UI adjustment is potentially better for the NOS. I therefore do feel that it was somewhat lazy for the TD to rule as he did. Not deliberately lazy, of course, but not ultimately quite as thorough as we have come to expect from most EBU TDs.

[lamford]

greenender, on Jan 15 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

Here it seems clear that a possible UI adjustment would at least potentially involve some weighting of a high-level doubled ♣ contract

A good point. However, if you disallow the 3S bid by South, on the grounds that this uses the UI of partner's alert, then West will still bid 4H. The vulnerability will deter North from sacrificing in Five Clubs, and we will get something like the results Helene_t suggests, depending on whether South doubles this.

It seems hard to find a high-level doubled club contract. Certainly South will not be volunteering one, and North, who is vulnerable opposite what he thought was a weak jump overcall - although he did indeed wake up when South bid 3S - is unlikely to try a red sac.

[jallerton]

Whilst I am prepared to believe that this particular East would have passed out 3♣ if he had known that both:

[a] 3♣ showed spades and diamonds; and

[b] North had forgotten the agreement,

I believe he is only entitled to know (a).

What the TD should do in all MI situations is to ask the player who claims (s)he might/would have bid differently to explain why and to assess the plausibility of the statement East gives at the time.

What reasoning did East give to the TD in this case?


The potential UI adjustment on this hand is not at all obvious. A lots of factors would need to be considered.

From South's point of view:

1. Was 3♣ forcing? Perhaps some Gh****m players can tell me what the normal call playing this system would be on ♠AKQJxx ♥ x ♦KQJ10xx ♣ none.

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is South allowed to infer from the pass of the forcing bid that North has made a mistake, rather than taking a gamble with a long club suit?

3. What strength does 3♣ show? If South has considerable extra high cards for his bidding to date and the answer to either question 1 or question 2 is no, it's probably at least a logical alternative for South to act again. Furthermore, passing would be demonstrably suggested over (say) an action double by the UI, as passing is more likely to stop North bidding 5♣ on the next round, and the UI suggests that 5♣ is probably a silly contract.

From North's point of view:

1. What strength did he think 3♣ was? Perhaps it's easier to ask what strength would a natural 3♦ overcall would be for North/South.

2. Why did he pass 3♣?

[lamford]

jallerton, on Jan 15 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

Whilst I am prepared to believe that this particular East would have passed out 3♣ if he had known that both:

[a] 3♣ showed spades and diamonds; and

[b] North had forgotten the agreement,

I believe he is only entitled to know (a).

I thought that myself, but decided to have a scour through the Lawbook to confirm it. Certainly East is entitled to know that South's bid shows spades and diamonds, but I could find nothing in the Lawbook to suggest that North's failure to alert is anything other than AI to East, who will conclude that North has treated it as natural.

Unless you can point me to a clause that contradicts this ...

[pran]

lamford, on Jan 16 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

jallerton, on Jan 15 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

Whilst I am prepared to believe that this particular East would have passed out 3♣ if he had known that both:

[a] 3♣ showed spades and diamonds; and

[b] North had forgotten the agreement,

I believe he is only entitled to know (a).

I thought that myself, but decided to have a scour through the Lawbook to confirm it. Certainly East is entitled to know that South's bid shows spades and diamonds, but I could find nothing in the Lawbook to suggest that North's failure to alert is anything other than AI to East, who will conclude that North has treated it as natural.

Unless you can point me to a clause that contradicts this ...

He is not entitled to know that North has forgotten the agreement, but he is entitled to notice North's failure to alert and to draw inferences from this missing alert at his own risk.

[bluejak]

If you are thinking of adjusting, you do so on the basis the infraction has not occurred. So you would adjust as though 3♣ was alerted and passed, which does not tell you there has been a misunderstanding.

[lamford]

pran, on Jan 16 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

He is not entitled to know that North has forgotten the agreement, but he is entitled to notice North's failure to alert and to draw inferences from this missing alert at his own risk.

I would agree, and that would be the logical conclusion he would reach. And it is not entirely at his own risk; if the TD decides that North could have known that his failure to alert prior to passing out 3C (say with a hand that would indeed pass 3C), then the TD may award an adjusted score on the basis that he could have known the infraction would work to his advantage.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 16 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

If you are thinking of adjusting, you do so on the basis the infraction has not occurred.  So you would adjust as though 3♣ was alerted and passed, which does not tell you there has been a misunderstanding.

This indicates that the fact that North failed to alert and then passed cannot be considered in the adjustment. This was certainly my understanding of the way things worked, but under which Law does it state that East cannot make the logical deduction (when awarding an adjusted score) that there has been a misunderstanding? We need to know what he is entitled to know before deciding on what action he will take with the correct information, surely.

[jallerton]

My reading of the Laws agrees with Bluejak's interpretation:

Law 21B said:

3. When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the
offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an
adjusted score.

Law 12 said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side
through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an
innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been
the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1[b]

The infraction is the failure to alert.

The "expectation had the infraction not occurred" is surely based on what would/might have happened had North alerted and explaining correctly; in that hypothetical situation E/W woud not have had any information available from North's failure to alert and would not have come to your "logical conclusion".

[RMB1]

lamford, on Jan 17 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

This indicates that the fact that North failed to alert and then passed cannot be considered in the adjustment. This was certainly my understanding of the way things worked, but under which Law does it state that East cannot make the logical deduction (when awarding an adjusted score) that there has been a misunderstanding? We need to know what he is entitled to know before deciding on what action he will take with the correct information, surely.

This has been discussed by the WBF LC. There is confusion and contradictory advice.

The relevant minutes are attached to the latest EBU L&E minutes, they are Friday 4 September, item 8 (page 9 of EBU minutes) and Tuesday 8 September, item 12 (page 11).

Quote

12. The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected. There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined:
(a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call “could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player”. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3.
(b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information.
[*Secretary’s note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.]

So if the offenders do not correct the explanation at the end of the auction, the TD will adjust on the basis of the non-offending side knowing only the correct information. But if the offenders do correct the explanation and the auction is reopened, the non-offending side may use both the misexplanation and the correct information. Not much incentive for offenders to correct at the end of the auction.

Robin

[jallerton]

Law20F5 said:

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
  [b] The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is
      (i)  for a defender, at the end of the play.
      (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

Robin, the way to give people an incentive to obey Law 20F5[b] is to let it be known that procedural penalties will be automatically applied when they do not!

By the way, I think the situation is different where the NOS might have wanted to change its final pass in the (original) auction.

Say the auction goes (with North dealer) 1♥-3C-P-P-P. If a misexplanation of the 3♣ bid is not corrected at the end of the auction, I believe that for the purposes of evaluating any adjustment to North's second call (and any subsequent auction) both the misexplanation and correct explanation should be available information for North/South because now we are adjusting for damage for a breach of Law 20F5[b](i).

[lamford]

RMB1, on Jan 19 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

So if the offenders do not correct the explanation at the end of the auction, the TD will adjust on the basis of the non-offending side knowing only the correct information.  But if the offenders do correct the explanation and the auction is reopened, the non-offending side may use both the misexplanation and the correct information.  Not much incentive for offenders to correct at the end of the auction.

This accords with my belief of the way things are handled, and I agree with jallerton's and bluejak literal interpretation of the relevant Laws. It is much worse for the non-offenders, however, than your summary.

If there is no alert, then there are essentially 3 different scenarios:

a) the non-offender can replace his final pass only, and he is entitled to know the correct information and make the deduction that the non-alerter has forgotten the system.

b ) if he finds on the convention card at any earlier stage in the auction that there has been a failure to alert - say he examines it and asks some questions to find out whether the pair are playing Michaels or Ghestem - he is again entitled to know the correct information and make the deduction that the non-alerter has forgotten the system. If he asks and gets an answer "I am not sure, but we play Ghestem, but I am not sure if it applies at the three-level" or the type of gibberish that one usually gets, he can draw inferences at his own risk, protected by the "could have known" backstop.

c) if there is no meaningful reply to questions, and no information from the CC which assists him, he is only entitled to redress if his bid(s) would have been different. And that redress does not include concluding that the non-alerter has forgotten. Indeed he is deemed to continue on the basis that he believes the non-alerter has remembered and passed out, for example, Ghestem, overwhelmingly the less likely scenario in my experience.

A complete nonsense, which encourages players not to have a completed CC, and to answer "No habla Ingles" when asked about their methods. And the PP proposed by jallerton is only of value in head to head matches, but of little value in a pairs event, or many teams events.