[jeremy69]

Quote

Because East-West are entitled only to knowledge of the North-South methods, not the North-South hands. If the Director is satisfied that 3♥ was not a transfer by partnership agreement (and he seems to have investigated the matter thoroughly and efficiently), then he should rule that there has been no misinformation and that there are no grounds to adjust the score.

I agree with what you say and am not suggesting that the investigation was anything but thorough however North has a. bid her suits in a canape order and b. suggested her bid was a transfer. It maybe that she is bonkers and her partner is right but I think the presumption should be that it is an agreement unless it can be demonstrated it is not. If it was so demonstrated to the TD then fair enough but given the mix up which NS started the standard of proof should, in my view, be high.

[gordontd]

jeremy69, on May 16 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

It maybe that she is bonkers and her partner is right but I think the presumption should be that it is an agreement unless it can be demonstrated it is not.

It was completely clear to me that her partner was right, and I think it also seemed so to the original poster and his partner (they can correct me if I'm wrong about that).

[TMorris]

Just to be clear I am sure that dummy didn't have a clue. For example she was genuinely quite insulted when I even suggested that there might have been a psyche (I was trying to think of possible reasons for her bidding) saying something to the effect that she was an honest upright citizen who wouldn't even consider pysching.

At the time with little opportunity to consider the hands I thought 4 spades would make so 3NT should be good for us. Well 4 spades makes double dummy but apparently rather less often in practice hence our 12% score on this board.

I am surprised that a substitute was allowed in such an event albeit that is not directly relevant to the case under discussion (I'd have thought a substitute pair would be allowed but not one player which is what I think Gordon said). It does rather sound like it had the effect of randomising the scores, when one played this pair, rather more than I would have thought appropriate in a final.

[bluejak]

campboy, on May 15 2010, 10:59 PM, said:

In particular, if we read Law 20F5 in full, it is talking about "a player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation [...] the player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous". The phrase "in his opinion" is a red herring; while he is required to add that caveat, there is in fact no legal requirement for him to do anything unless he is right in that opinion.

I do not think so. It gives valuable advice. If a player believes but is not sure that his partner has got it wrong, what should he do? The answer is that the Law is completely clear as to what he should do because of the phrase "in his opinion".

TMorris, on May 16 2010, 11:01 AM, said:

I am surprised that a substitute was allowed in such an event albeit that is not directly relevant to the case under discussion (I'd have thought a substitute pair would be allowed but not one player which is what I think Gordon said).  It does rather sound like it had the effect of randomising the scores, when one played this pair, rather more than I would have thought appropriate in a final.

The general rule is that if a substitute is allowed you criticise the TD for randomising or for giving the pair concerned an unfair advantage, dependent on the success of the substitute [not on his ability]. If a substitute is not allowed you criticise the TD for not allowing bridge to be played or for spoiling an all-play-all event. There is never any satisfactory solution.

[campboy]

It is clear as to what the best thing to do is, but I do not see how the player has committed an infraction by failing to disagree with an explanation which was, as it turns out, correct all along. If law 20F5 instead began "a player who believes his partner has given an incorrect explanation", then it would apply to this player.

[jeremy69]

Quote

with an explanation which was, as it turns out, correct all along.

That's the point. It isn't the correct explanation because South says so or the alternative is bizarre. What compelling evidence was there that it was not a transfer because that is where the onus lies?

[gordontd]

jeremy69, on May 18 2010, 08:52 AM, said:

It isn't the correct explanation because South says so or the alternative is bizarre.

No, it's the correct explanation because South says so and the alternative is bizarre, and their system card is consistent with it, and North says she was confused. Am I supposed to discount all of these factors to impose on them an agreement I do not for one moment believe they had (and nor do their opponents believe they had such an agreement)?

[jeremy69]

Quote

it's the correct explanation because South says so and the alternative is bizarre, and their system card is consistent with it, and North says she was confused. Am I supposed to discount all of these factors to impose on them an agreement I do not for one moment believe they had (and nor do their opponents believe they had such an agreement)?

Of course South says so because that is what they believed unlike North at the time. North was not perhaps entirely sure and as you determined confused but believed it to be right when she bid it. My working and not very knowledgeable theory is she believed 1D to be some sort of negative(0-7) and 3H to be transfer because it was system on over any natural 2NT. When partner was vehement that this was all rubbish she quickly gave in and said she was confused.
I've never seen any system card have anything referring to this situation so the absence of information I would dismiss. I'm not saying you weren't right about your assumptions, after all you were there and I wasn't, but I don't think you have to impose on them any agreement merely to say in the light of the available evidence it is not completely clear so will rule misinformation not misbid.

[Lanor Fow]

Quote

My working and not very knowledgeable theory is she believed 1D to be some sort of negative(0-7) and 3H to be transfer because it was system on over any natural 2NT. When partner was vehement that this was all rubbish she quickly gave in and said she was confused.

Quote

When I first saw the auction I thought it must be a strong club auction, because that would have made perfect sense.

But no, they were playing simple Acol and there was nothing to alert.

Wouldn't the CC give evidence that they weren't playing a strong club system with a negative 1d as in your working hypothosis?

I would also argue that the law doesn't ask for it to be 'completly clear', merely a lack of 'lack of evidence'

[jeremy69]

Quote

I would also argue that the law doesn't ask for it to be 'completly clear', merely a lack of 'lack of evidence'

I was arguing that it was not clear which it was and when it is not clear misexplanation rather than misbid is usually the presumption.

Quote

Wouldn't the CC give evidence that they weren't playing a strong club system with a negative 1d as in your working hypothosis?

Yes it would and it didn't. I was just theorising that North thought that they were playing a forcing club of some sort at the time she bid 1D. After all one is struggling to find an explanation of why 1D was the original chosen response.

She may have been confused but so were her opponents and it wasn't their fault!

[blackshoe]

jeremy69, on May 18 2010, 12:48 PM, said:

She may have been confused but so were her opponents and it wasn't their fault!

So? You still need a legal basis to adjust the score, and "there was MI" doesn't fit this case.

[wyman]

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

Is the player allowed to "wake up" to the fact that they are not playing transfers by virtue of partner not alerting the 3H call? [Certainly she's allowed to wake up, but when partner's actions suggest that she wake up, I don't know that she can...]

It seems to me that 4S is an LA to 3N, and that the failure to alert is UI that demonstrably suggests passing 3N.

Given that many tables played 4S-1, I think an adjustment (or at least a partial adjustment, if that's allowed in your jurisdiction) would be reasonable.

But I'm just learning, so if this is nonsense, I'd be interested in hearing why (rather than just "LOL" or "NO" )

[dburn]

wyman, on May 18 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

No. "Typically" 1♣-1♦-2NT does not deny a four-card major, so if you are playing this "bizarre" method (first described in the Bridge World circa 1983 and currently employed by, among others, Zia Mahmood and his partners) 3♥ shows four spades and 3N denies a like number.

[wank]

i find it amusing how you all think you can understand the north player's reasons for her actions better than the director who talked to her at the time.

some people just aren't very good. better players after the event have a tendency to foister their own logic onto players who employ none.

[gordontd]

wyman, on May 19 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

I don't think it would be typical for a player who is not yet very clear about when transfers apply. "Superacceptance" is likely not in her vocabulary.

Quote

It seems to me that 4S is an LA to 3N, and that the failure to alert is UI that demonstrably suggests passing 3N.

She thought she showed spades when she bid 3H. She then had UI from the lack of alert of 3H telling her that her partner didn't understand her to have shown spades. To now bid 4S would look to me to be using the UI, an example of what has been termed "unauthorised panic".

[bluejak]

wyman, on May 19 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

If they were playing transfers here, would it not be typical to treat 3H-3N as some kind of superacceptance?

Only typical for a certain type of player, and the evidence suggests this is not that type of player. In the clubs in which I play if the bidding went

1NT 2♥[transfer]
2NT

responder would be totally confused, and would shrug her shoulders and bid 3NT with any type of strong hand, and pass with any type of weak hand.

wyman, on May 19 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

Is the player allowed to "wake up" to the fact that they are not playing transfers by virtue of partner not alerting the 3H call? [Certainly she's allowed to wake up, but when partner's actions suggest that she wake up, I don't know that she can...]

No, the alert is unauthorised information, and she must make every effort possible not to gain from knowledge of the lack of alert.

wyman, on May 19 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

It seems to me that 4S is an LA to 3N, and that the failure to alert is UI that demonstrably suggests passing 3N.

I think it suggests passing, yes. But whether 4♠ is an LA is another matter.

wyman, on May 19 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

Given that many tables played 4S-1, I think an adjustment (or at least a partial adjustment, if that's allowed in your jurisdiction) would be reasonable.

When you decide what to do in a ruling case, you ignore what happens at other tables.

wyman, on May 19 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

But I'm just learning, so if this is nonsense, I'd be interested in hearing why (rather than just "LOL" or "NO" )

Not nonsense, no, and I have tried to answer. It is a common failing on forums [fora?] to say something is wrong without explaining why and your reminder is good.

[gerry]

If I was north I would explain my cock up before the lead. Whether technically required or not, at the table it is far better to steer a safer course through the ethical shoals. If I was EW I would be pissed off.

[bluejak]

I cannot see any reason why you should be pissed off. The evidence is that the lady sitting North was out of her depth. The ethics of the game - as against your personal ethics - do not require her to explain the cock-up. Complete lack of tolerance for lesser players, while common enough, is hardly beneficial to the game. Furthermore, personal ethics are just that: your own ethics, and it is unreasonable to expect others to follow them.

Why not just play the game to the rules as best you can, and when things go wrong leave it to the TDs [and ACs if necessary] and not get worried when lesser opponents do foolish things? Most such foolish things benefit you: it is greed that means you get upset the odd time the foolish thing rebounds in favour of the person perpetrating it.

[wyman]

gerry, on May 19 2010, 11:06 PM, said:

I would explain my cock up

Must be a British thing...

[campboy]

A quick google search gives six different possible etymologies, none of them obscene.