[savphantom]

Scoring: IMP

1C1 2NT 3H P
4H P P P

2NT alerted and explained as taking it as DIAMONDS plus a MAJOR

---

When the explanation for 2NT was given East noticed the NS system card stated the agreement was "Lower unbid suits" Director called. said why do you want to know?

South strongly confirmed the agreement a Diamonds plus a Major not the statement on convention Cards. Director left table to play the hand.
East bid 3H as Unusual over unusual for the card explanation of 2NT showing game values with Spades. West believing the NS system was Diamonds and a Major sees 3H as 5 card Heart suit.


After making 9 tricks in 4H, EW called the director and claimed damage from misinformation. Believing they would reach 4 Spades not 4 Hearts with clear information of NS agreements. Score adjusted to 4S E 10 tricks.


Issues to consider:
Is East entitled to challenge the explanation during the auction based upon disagreement between CC and table explanation?
Do not consider that North's misbid of 2 lowest suits rather than "unbid" suits precludes EW receiving adjusted score?
Can EW have a prior agreement to adopt a spoken explanation not the written Convention card?
Serious issue with UI available to NS players of their partner's misunderstanding.
Given the situation should the Director declare which systemic agreement is the available to EW not merely that they know of confusion in the opponents?
Was it director error, so should rectification should use L 82C ?

http://forums.bridge...ges/1/icon2.gif

[blackshoe]

The director's question to whoever called him is not appropriate.

In answer to the issues you mentioned, my opinions:

No.
No. For one thing, it's not certain it's a misbid.
I do not understand the question. EW did no such thing, as far as I can see.
So? That's their problem, and the TD's, not yours.
If I understand this (it's not clear) then no. It's not the TD's job to tell EW what NS's agreement is, it's up to NS (South, in this case).
I see no case for director error.

EW were given an explanation by South. That explanation conflicted with the information on the SC. Stuff happens. The TD was called. He properly directed the table to play out the hand. Called back, he apparently ruled that South had misinformed EW, and that led to a favorable score adjustment for EW. I'm not so sure I would have done that - why did East decide to believe the card, rather than the explanation? I might well have adjusted the score for NS, and let EW keep their table score. Or maybe not. I haven't looked at it that closely. IAC, it's a judgment call, and I wasn't at the table.

[campboy]

Ok, easy bit first.

There is UI, but no-one seems to have taken any action which was based on UI. So no reason to adjust there.

If I understand the sequence of events correctly, East asked what 2NT was; South said "diamonds+major"; East said "that's not what it says on the CC"; South said "well, the CC is wrong then". So what's the problem? I don't understand why East would disbelieve South, and if he does that's his own problem.

Of course, if East had bid 3♥ before the 2NT was asked about, that's a different matter.

[lamford]

campboy, on Mar 26 2010, 04:44 AM, said:

I don't understand why East would disbelieve South, and if he does that's his own problem.

The Laws state:
21B1 <snip> ( b ) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

North's hand shows that 2NT was the minors; the convention card shows that it was either the minors or hearts and diamonds, depending on the meaning of 1C, and whether it was being treated as a "bid suit". We therefore assume South's explanation was wrong. With the correct information, East would have bid whatever was forcing with spades in their methods.

It seems a routine adjustment to me.

[campboy]

I do not see why they might not equally have had the following conversation.

E: What does 2NT show?
S: Clubs and diamonds.
E: But the CC says hearts and diamonds.
S: Then the CC is wrong.

If East chose to ignore what he was told and bid 3♥ in the original scenario, why would he not do the same here?

[iviehoff]

lamford, on Mar 26 2010, 11:03 AM, said:

With the correct information, East would have bid whatever was forcing with spades in their methods.

What actually passed suggests that East would not necessarily have bid that. He chose to disregard South's explanation, despite the clear assertion "system card is wrong" and could easily have chosen to disregard a correct explanation had be been given one (and in fact it is possible he was given one, despite the legal presumption of MI).

[WellSpyder]

I don't think this is a routine adjustment.

Yes, there is probably MI - it must be the explanation given by S that counts not what is on the CC, especially when S confirms his explanation despite being told what is on the CC. So as far as I am concerned, the CC is now simply irrelevant to what happened at the table (though it may still be relevant evidence as to what agreement NS actually had - surely "no agreement"?)

But as far as I can see, EW were not damaged by the MI, but by the fact that East chose to make a non-systemic bid. The fact that East's bid might have been appropriate with a different explanation of the NS agreement - indeed an explanation that matched what N actually had - doesn't seem very relevant to me. How on earth did East think he could use 3♥ to mean what it would mean over a different NS system, and in particular how did he think his partner would know what he was up to?

So I think I would rule MI, but no adjustment since this did not cause the damage.

[hotShot]

I read the problem as:

1[cl][space][space]2NT![space][space]3[he][space][space]p

West: What was 2NT?
South: DIAMONDS plus a MAJOR UI-Alert for North
East: But your SC says: "Lower unbid suits" UI-Alert for West
South: SC is wrong!


Now West is not allowed to use the UI that East expected the 2NT to mean the minors.
West has to assume that East showed 5♥.

1) A bravo for Wests ethical behavior.
2) A warning to East, not to produce UI.
3) A big warning to NS to know their system and keeping a correct SC.
4) Adjust the score to 4S= (or whatever that makes).

[jeremy69]

Quote

In answer to the issues you mentioned, my opinions:

No.
No. For one thing, it's not certain it's a misbid.
I do not understand the question. EW did no such thing, as far as I can see.
So? That's their problem, and the TD's, not yours.
If I understand this (it's not clear) then no. It's not the TD's job to tell EW what NS's agreement is, it's up to NS (South, in this case).
I see no case for director error.

Why can't you check during the auction if the stated explanation differs from the convention card? In this case NS probably disagreed as to whether 1C was to be treated as natural or not. NS have caused the confusion by one of them answering differently from the card and if this was a correct statement bringing you wrong written information. I think that you are entitled to get information from the convention card, alerts or announcements and your opponents spoken explanations. Where they differ and cause a problem the presumption should be to adjust against the side that is doing this.

[blackshoe]

Who is "you"? The players? The director?

"The director is to presume mistaken explanation in the absence of evidence to the contrary." Fair enough. The director adjusted the score, as you suggest he should have done. wtp?

[greenender]

I agree with Jeremy that if one receives an explanation which is at odds with the convention card one is entitled to ask the explainer whether he is sure. This usually arises when (say) E asks a question because he does not know the answer, but W has already looked at the SC and knows that it says something different.

I do find E's actions here perverse in the extreme:

1. If he knew what was on the SC, why did he ask? To make sure partner got the info?

2. Why on earth did he prefer the SC explanation to the very definite explanation he got from S? Partners of mine who do that sort of thing are prone to become ex-partners with some degree of rapidity. Which is why I don't buy hotShot's kudos for W: why on earth would a sane W assume that E had deliberately ignored the explanation?

Whilst I agree with Jeremy's philosophy, I am inclined to rule that E was not damaged by MI as he chose to ignore the I he was given. It is therefore logically irrelevant to the result whether the I was M or not.

Off-topic: what is it with the craze for being able to show a two-suiter including ♣s when RHO has opened 1♣? If the opening side's structure is 5 card Ms, better m, then 1♣ is something like twice as likely (IIRC) to deliver 5+ cards than precisely 3. Even if openers bid 4-card ♦s and 2+ ♣s, it seems much more logical to me to treat 1♣ as natural, and it certainly avoids the myriad disagreements as to which suits are shown by a two-suited overcall, when one partner thinks ♣s count as bid and the other doesn't.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Who is "you"? The players? The director?

I meant the players.

[iviehoff]

hotShot, on Mar 26 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

I read the problem as:

1[cl][space][space]2NT![space][space]3[he][space][space]p

West: What was 2NT?
South: DIAMONDS plus a MAJOR UI-Alert for North
East: But your SC says: "Lower unbid suits" UI-Alert for West
South: SC is wrong!


Now West is not allowed to use the UI that East expected the 2NT to mean the minors.
West has to assume that East showed 5♥.

1) A bravo for Wests ethical behavior.
2) A warning to East, not to produce UI.
3) A big warning to NS to know their system and keeping a correct SC.
4) Adjust the score to 4S= (or whatever that makes).

If it was West who asked the meaning of 2N, he did so at his partner's call which is not permitted. It seems more likely that it was East who asked. He may well have been glancing at the SC for contextual information when he spotted the discrepancy.

Players generate UI all the time, and it is not an offence to generate UI provided it is not deliberate illegal communication or another breach. On average your opponents benefit when you generate UI, so it isn't something we need to ban. I agree with others that asking for confirmation when you see such a discrepancy is ethical and desirable. Far better to get a correct explanation at the correct time than ask for a score adjustment later.

[blackshoe]

jeremy69, on Mar 26 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

Quote

Who is "you"? The players? The director?

I meant the players.

Fair enough. But the players (well, East, I presume) asked, got an explanation which didn't match the CC, asked again, got the explanation re-affirmed. Now what? "I still don't believe you?" I think at this point, EW have to go with what they've got, and let the TD sort it out later if necessary.

[lamford]

greenender, on Mar 26 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

I do find E's actions here perverse in the extreme:

1.   If he knew what was on the SC, why did he ask?  To make sure partner got the info?

I do find your posting perverse in the extreme.

The OP states:
"When the explanation for 2NT was given East noticed the NS system card stated the agreement was "Lower unbid suits".

It is clear therefore that either West asked or East asked because it was alerted. Do you think "when" means "before"?

Or do you think "explanation" means "alert"?

[campboy]

hotShot, on Mar 26 2010, 01:39 PM, said:

I read the problem as:

1[cl][space][space]2NT![space][space]3[he][space][space]p

West: What was 2NT?
South: DIAMONDS plus a MAJOR UI-Alert for North
East: But your SC says: "Lower unbid suits" UI-Alert for West
South: SC is wrong!

If that is what happened, the director should be called at this point, and he will allow East to change his 3♥ bid. However, the OP seems to say that the 3♥ bid happened after attention was drawn to the different explanation.

[lamford]

greenender, on Mar 26 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

2. Why on earth did he prefer the SC explanation to the very definite explanation he got from S?

Because the explanation was obviously drivel. Have you ever come across anyone playing 2NT over a short club as diamonds and a major? East can assume, and has every right to assume, that his partner will interpret his bid according to the CC.

[lamford]

campboy, on Mar 26 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

If that is what happened, the director should be called at this point, and he will allow East to change his 3♥ bid. However, the OP seems to say that the 3♥ bid happened after attention was drawn to the different explanation.

Where does it say that?

[bluejak]

[quote name='savphantom' date='Mar 26 2010, 04:04 AM']Is East entitled to challenge the explanation during the auction based upon disagreement between CC and table explanation?[/quote]
Definitely yes. He needs to know what the explanation is. It is difficult to decide which is correct and which explanation partner is going to assume. Far better to make sure of the agreement. The EBU, correctly in my view, insists that a TD must be called where there are MI-type issues so the TD can sort it out. The player did: the TD did not sort it out: whatever ruling we give is now to be based on Director Error, ie treating both sides as non-offending.

Several of the answers seem to believe that East knew their agreement. How on earth can anyone deduce that: from the fact that South answered stroppily? Perhaps North wrote out the SC. Even if you consider North's bid a misbid it certainly supports the idea that he thought their agreement was lowest two suits rather than diamonds and a major.

The TD should have taken North away from the table and found out exactly what their agreement was. He did not: there was MI.

[quote name='savphantom' date='Mar 26 2010, 04:04 AM']Do not consider that North's misbid of 2 lowest suits rather than "unbid" suits precludes EW receiving adjusted score?[/quote]
No.
Why?
How do you know it was a misbid when we have no real evidence of what their agreement was?

[quote name='savphantom' date='Mar 26 2010, 04:04 AM']Can EW have a prior agreement to adopt a spoken explanation not the written Convention card?[/quote]
No doubt they can. Perhaps they should write on their SC:

"If there is a disagreement between a spoken and written explanation, and if the TD, when summoned, fails to do his job, we agree to ..."

[quote name='savphantom' date='Mar 26 2010, 04:04 AM']Serious issue with UI available to NS players of their partner's misunderstanding.[/quote]
Yes, but there do not seem to be any doubtful actions by N/S.

[quote name='savphantom' date='Mar 26 2010, 04:04 AM']Given the situation should the Director declare which systemic agreement is the available to EW not merely that they know of confusion in the opponents?[/quote]
They need to find the agreement out: he should find it out, not just declare a guess.

[quote name='savphantom' date='Mar 26 2010, 04:04 AM']Was it director error, so should rectification should use L 82C ?[/quote]
Certainly.

[quote name='campboy' date='Mar 26 2010, 10:44 AM']If I understand the sequence of events correctly, East asked what 2NT was; South said "diamonds+major"; East said "that's not what it says on the CC"; South said "well, the CC is wrong then". So what's the problem? I don't understand why East would disbelieve South, and if he does that's his own problem.[/quote]
Why should he believe him? It is on the SC, isn't it? Perhaps North, who made the bid, wrote out the SC?

Of course there is a reason to disbelieve him!!!!!!!!

[quote name='jeremy69' date='Mar 26 2010, 02:05 PM']Why can't you check during the auction if the stated explanation differs from the convention card? In this case NS probably disagreed as to whether 1C was to be treated as natural or not. NS have caused the confusion by one of them answering differently from the card and if this was a correct statement bringing you wrong written information. I think that you are entitled to get information from the convention card, alerts or announcements and your opponents spoken explanations. Where they differ and cause a problem the presumption should be to adjust against the side that is doing this.[/quote]
While I agree up to a point, far better than getting a ruling at the end in such cases is for the TD to sort it out so we get a real result at the table.

[quote name='greenender' date='Mar 26 2010, 02:47 PM']1.  If he knew what was on the SC, why did he ask?  To make sure partner got the info?[/quote]
That's a very unfair presumption. You often get more information by asking. There are other possibilities: sometimes I have glanced at the card. I usually ask: I could easily imagine that an answer would trigger my memory and I would then check the SC again.

[quote name='greenender' date='Mar 26 2010, 02:47 PM']2.  Why on earth did he prefer the SC explanation to the very definite explanation he got from S?  Partners of mine who do that sort of thing are prone to become ex-partners with some degree of rapidity.  Which is why I don't buy hotShot's kudos for W: why on earth would a sane W assume that E had deliberately ignored the explanation?[/quote]
How does he know that his partner will believe the spoken explanation? Most answers seem to take this as a given, but if I was asked what North had, I would guess he had what was on the SC: after all, one of them must have written it.

He was put in a position by opponents not following the rules and the TD not doing his job and I dislike this view that he should suffer. What happened to punishing the guilty and not the innocent?

[quote name='greenender' date='Mar 26 2010, 02:47 PM']Off-topic: what is it with the craze for being able to show a two-suiter including [cl]s when RHO has opened 1[cl]?[/quote]
I do not think you understand the way the average player thinks. He picks up a two-suiter, someone bids,and his instinct is to bid something to show it. So if RHO opens 1[cl] and he has [di] + [he] he bids 2NT, saying to himself "lowest two suits". So if RHO opens 1[cl] and he has [cl] + [di] he bids 2NT, saying to himself "lowest two suits".

It is like Michaels over a short club. If RHO opens 1[cl] and he has [he] + [sp] he bids 2[cl], saying to himself "Michaels". If RHO opens 1[cl] and he has long [cl] he bids 2[cl], saying to himself "it's a short club".

[quote name='lamford' date='Mar 26 2010, 04:21 PM']Because the explanation was obviously drivel. Have you ever come across anyone playing 2NT over a short club as diamonds and a major?[/quote]
Yes, me. I dislike Michaels generally because there is a pair of suits you cannot show, namely other minor+[sp] over 1m. Matt Foster came up with the idea of playing 2NT as other minor plus a major, and I started to play that with most of my partners. A majority of my partners play the same defence to a short club as a natural club.

I do not play this method by choice, and I do not play it with my most regular partner. But I certainly play it with most partners.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Mar 26 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

I do not play this method by choice, and I do not play it with my most regular partner. But I certainly play it with most partners.

I am surprised, and enlightened. But I would recommend you give it up, as not knowing the major must surely be a big downside.