[garzahd]

---

The 3♥ bid was alerted by W.

S asks (prior to doubling) about the meaning of 3♥. W says he thinks it's a limit raise in clubs, showing 4 card support, but it's a new addition to the card, isn't sure, might be natural.

Result: E thought that agreement was only on over a major open. Nothing is on their CC to confirm or deny. E intended it as a stopper-showing probe for 3NT. 4♥ went down 3 for -800.

NS call the director about the misleading alert explanation, director decides that NS were damaged by the alert, and awards Av+ for NS and Av- for EW.
EW later talk to the director, accuse NS's bidding of being absurd at unfavorable vulnerability, regardless of alert/explanation, and director eventually switches EW's result to Av+.

This seems fishy to me. What's the correct ruling here?
Would the ruling be any different if the alert had been explained as definitely clubs with no ambiguity?

[bluejak]

It must be nice to have TD who whenever something goes wrong at the table gives both sides a good score which adds up to more than 100%. If I had that TD I would do something wrong every hand.

Yes, I am afraid the ruling is just awful, and that's being kind. I really did want to use worse words.

When the player was unsure of their agreement South should have called the TD immediately - though with this TD I suppose that must be somewhat dubious!

Anyway, now he has not, the TD has to rule according to the Laws. That means that if there is misinformation, he adjusts the score to another score. Dependent on where you are [we do always ask initial posters to say because it affects what the correct ruling is] more likely to a set of possible scores.

There is also a Law that says if the non-offenders have done something really dreadful they might lose part or all of their redress. None of this giving them Average plus because it might make them feel better.

What is the correct ruling? I am in a bit of a hurry, so I shall leave that to others.

[campboy]

What the director has done is completely illegal in two entirely different ways.

Firstly, he should not be giving averages. Instead he should be trying to work out what might have happened without the infraction (if there was one), and then adjusting to a bridge score. So if, for example, he decided that the incorrect information was the cause of N/S bidding to 4♥ -- with correct information they would have stayed out of the auction and in that case West will probably play in 5♣ and take 12 tricks -- then he might adjust the score to EW +420.

Secondly, if he judges that while N/S were damaged by the misexplanation, the damage was partly caused by their wild or gambling action(s), then what happens is that N/S do not get full redress, but E/W (the offending side) still get the full adjustment. So he might then adjust to, say, +420 for E/W while letting N/S keep their -800. But he has gotten this the wrong way round: instead of giving N/S a worse score because they were wild and gambling he has given E/W a better score.

Personally I would just rule result stands, as I see no connection between the explanation and South's bizarre double. But at least the adjustment in the previous paragraph would be legal.

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2010-October-29, 19:04, said:

Personally I would just rule result stands, as I see no connection between the explanation and South's bizarre double. But at least the adjustment in the previous paragraph would be legal.

South was probably showing secondary heart support and some values since that would fit with the subsequent 4H bid. Clearly if North was in possession of the correct explanation then pass would be the only logical action. Then, as you suggest, E-W would most likely finish in 5C. So I believe N-S have been damaged and there should be an adjustment. What is less clear is your assertion of 12 tricks. If the standard of the E-W players was very poor they could even go down here (H lead throwing a S, CAK, lose a D to South, draw dummy's last trump, H exit). I think the most likely result is +400 E-W in a non-expert game.

[mjj29]

Zelandakh, on 2010-October-30, 01:22, said:

South was probably showing secondary heart support and some values since that would fit with the subsequent 4H bid. Clearly if North was in possession of the correct explanation then pass would be the only logical action. Then, as you suggest, E-W would most likely finish in 5C. So I believe N-S have been damaged and there should be an adjustment. What is less clear is your assertion of 12 tricks. If the standard of the E-W players was very poor they could even go down here (H lead throwing a S, CAK, lose a D to South, draw dummy's last trump, H exit). I think the most likely result is +400 E-W in a non-expert game.

In which case, in a non-ACBL jurisdiction, one would award something like 20% 5C-1, 40% 5C= and 40% 5C+1 (or some other percentages).

[Cascade]

I find it hard to be convinced that there was an infraction.

It seems that EW did not have clear agreements. West said "limit raise" or "natural" and that he wasn't "sure". Given this was a "new addition" to their card it seems that they were not that experienced.

I don't think it is that reasonable to expect inexperienced players to have clear agrements in this sort of situation.

When this is further compounded by taking an unfavourable dive with soft values and less than half of the deck i have very little sympathy for north south.

Result stands.

[campboy]

Even if East has shown a heart stop, South has suggested competing in hearts and you have a sixth one; why would you not bid 4♥? It could easily make opposite even an awful hand like xxxx, ATxx, Qx, xxx.

[bluejak]

You need to be careful to distinguish between "There really was no infraction" and "I have no sympathy for North-South taking an unfavourable dive".

In th first case, the result stands for both sides. In the second case [over-simplifying somewhat] the result stands for N/S, but we still might adjust for E/W.

[campboy]

Well, there are four cases. No infraction; infraction but no damage; infraction, damage, but partly self-inflicted; infraction, damage, no reason to deny redress. I think we are in the second case here. Damage only exists if the bad score is "because of an infraction", not merely subsequent to one. I can't see any connection between the explanation and the double.

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2010-November-01, 06:58, said:

I can't see any connection between the explanation and the double.

Say that the hand was played under idealised conditions where each player was able to know the opponents' agreements perfectly. Now both North and South would know that East has hearts, if we can assume misexplanation. Then it is clear for North not to bid 4H (r/w) because of the bad break even with 6 hearts. Thus, if we can assume misexplanation, there is a clear link between the 4H bid and the explanation.

[mycroft]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-02, 15:48, said:

Say that the hand was played under idealised conditions where each player was able to know the opponents' agreements perfectly. Now both North and South would know that East has hearts, if we can assume misexplanation. Then it is clear for North not to bid 4H (r/w) because of the bad break even with 6 hearts. Thus, if we can assume misexplanation, there is a clear link between the 4H bid and the explanation.

I am not sure South does know that East has hearts - just "a stopper-showing probe for 3NT". That could be as little as Qxx or QJx - and is highly unlikely to be ace-fifth. I don't see what difference it really makes that East is the one with the missing top hearts rather than West.

I think that the 2NT call is the killer - yes, you're 6-5, but you're red on white, and *don't have spades*, and have 4 potential losers *in your suits*, only one of which is positional; never mind the other two cards. South has a problem, because she has nice support for both suits, and therefore should want to compete; once she does, it's reasonable to push (even though you really only have the strength for a minimum 5-5 unfavourable 2NT call). If it's in their system, then it's their system; if it's a "good bad 2NT overcall" (playing mini-maxi 2NT) at these colours, then South has to be quiet with Kx Qxx.

So, MI, but I'm not really sure that the "correct" explanation is going to avoid -800.