As someone who has just completed the EBU club directors course and will presumably start directing soon, I would appreciate some guidance on a misinformation issue that came up at our club recently in a "friendly" Swiss teams. The facts are as follows: The hands were: [hv=pc=n&s=saq8643h752d8ct95&w=sk9hj9643d962cqj4&n=s5haqdkj74cak8732&e=sjt72hkt8daqt53c6]399|300[/hv] NS vul against not. N opened 1♣, alerted as a strong club. E bid 1NT, alerted (incorrectly) as showing the minors (the EW system was for 1NT to show rounded or pointed suits). S bid 2♦, alerted as showing both majors with better spades. Before any card was played, dummy (South) stated that north's explanation of 2♦ was incorrect and that it showed non-game forcing values with a single suited major hand ie spades or hearts. And E drew North's attention to the relevant section of the EW convention cards, so North knew what the correct meaning of the 1NT bid was; I appreciate this is against the laws, but this was a friendly club game and E did not want N to be disadvantaged in the play. The lead was a 4th best diamond, and in attempting to make the contract, N went 3 off for - 300. I don't think the detail of the play is an issue here. For the record, although presumably irrelevant here, at the other table, NS reached 4♠ and went 4 off, so as scored at the two tables, the non-offending side gained 3 imps on the board. NS asked the director for an adjusted score on account of the admitted misinformation. They claimed that their bids would have been different if the correct explanation had been given (which is correct), and that they would or might have played in a part score of 3 or 4 clubs, likely making 10 tricks, or would have defended 2♦ (apparently undoubled) for a small plus score. So my question is how the director, and an appeal panel if required, should approach this problem. I will not say what the director actually ruled at the table, or what the appeal panel decided, as I don't want to influence any answers. I will try and set out how it might be approached in as neutral way as possible, but what I really want to know is the correct way to apply the laws here. Since the misinformation came to light at the end of the auction when it was too late for NS to change their calls, presumably Law 21B 3 is in point and the director is required to award an adjusted score if he judges that "the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity". Presumably here, the only advantage can be in the bidding, and the play (and actual hand layout) is irrelevant? So what does gain an advantage mean here? Some questions: 1. Looking at the NS hands alone, and the (correctly explained) bidding, 3NT by N does seem far and away the best contract vul at teams. It presumably figures to make 70+% of the time (absent double dummy defence etc). On that basis, is it correct to say there has been no advantage to EW because NS are in the right contract (despite of rather than because of the misinformation, one might say)? 2. In evaluating the contract actually reached (ie 3NT), is it legitimate to look at the layout of the EW hands? Here, the clubs do not break 2-2 (or stiff honour with E) and both major suit finesses fail, so the contract goes down. Is that a relevant factor? If it is, it seems to be including a play factor in evaluating advantage. 3. If that is not the right approach, should the director be looking at what might have happened had the correct explanation been given? Clearly there are numerous possibilities, most non-game contracts (or defending) giving NS a plus score and game contracts giving them a minus score. The claim that NS would have played a part score does not seem to hold up too well given that N bid game despite "knowing" the hand appeared to be a ghastly misfit. Are there any other factors to take into account, and what should the correct ruling be please? Thanks. Battermad.
