Director descision

[Shrike]

If I'd said what you think I said, I would indeed be wrong. I am not saying that East "has no right to pull," nor that he should know that the double is not penalty. He is entitled to believe the explanation -- as far as he ought to be concerned, South has a penalty double. What I said is that that penalty double is almost certainly not based on a diamond stack alone, and he knows it. For South to have a penalty double of diamonds, with his parner showing a weak hand with spades and (apparently) clubs, South also has to have hearts. Thus hearts is a dangerous bid -- but that's not my point either. My point is that hearts is no less dangerous a bid after this penalty double than after an "optional" double that North chooses to pass, or (less clear, I admit) an undiscussed double that North chooses to pass, and that East knows this.

 

You chose to quote my statement that pulling was no more likely, and then explain it as meaning that East might have pulled anyway (noting afterward that by "might" you mean "as likely" -- how delightfullly disingenuous). Again, if I'd actually said that I certainly would have been wrong. But I didn't say that. I believe, and stated, that the incorrect word "penalty" instead of the correct word, either "optional" or "undiscussed," did not change the likelihood of East's running from the double. No, not at all. And if the likelihood did not change, then the difference (the MI) did not cause any damage that may have resulted from the decision to pull -- East was going to pull anyway.

 

Why did he ask the question? I don't know. Maybe if he'd heard "takeout" he'd have left it in, even though then he'd know he was facing a diamond stack (on his right). Maybe he really would have sat for an optional double and a penalty pass, even though that looks like an even worse decision. I could be wrong in my assessment, I grant, but that is my judgment (you obviously disagree; and yes, I am judging that running is just as likely even after I give NOS the benefit of the doubt, as you correctly observe that I should). Moreover, this is how the analysis is done: (1) was there MI; (2) did the MI cause opps to do something different from what they would have done; (3) did the opps do worse as a result of their decision. Anyone who was analyzing it that way, doing each step, my knee comment wasn't about you, but too many responses hereon sounded to me like the analysts were jumping from "there was MI" to "what was the damage?" Some TDs in the US may have a tendency to be too hard on the nonoffenders (I've seen rumblings about that lately), but it's pretty easy to be too hard on the offenders, too. You don't adjust just because one side did something wrong and the other side wound up with a bad score.

 

On these facts, the MI did not cause E/W to do anything. Yes, Mr. McEnroe, I am serious, the ball was out.

 

(Seriously, try to be East for a moment. Be an East who would run from that diamond suit to that heart suit when he got doubled. As that East, wouldn't you also run if the double were optional and your RHO, who is known to have one minor, sat for it? Wouldn't you run if RHO, who again holds one minor, didn't know what it was and still sat for it? You wouldn't run? No, I know you wouldn't, and I wouldn't either, but that's because we're not being an East who runs from the penalty double -- that East was always running. You said in your first post that the pull "seems crazy" -- don't you think it was that insanity, rather than the question which one of the opponents had the unlikely-but-possible diamond stack, that made him do it? If so, you're on my side.)

 

The result looks very weird, but that's because South made a strange double (optional, penalty, whatever) and then East a possibly stranger one. If E/W were damaged, it was by one of those two choices, not North's explanation.

 

Finally, it's been suggested that the correct ruling depends on online versus face to face. That may be the case, I suppose; I only know in-person laws, and this is how I would rule in a tournament. I had been under the impression that online bridge was governed by the same lawbook; if that's wrong, could one of those who believe it changes things please tell me where I can find the Laws of Online Duplicate Bridge? It must have a different Law 40C.

[McBruce]

Sorry, cannot agree with this at all. The fallacy is a common one: it goes like this.

 

1. The offending side commits an infraction.

2. The non-offending side does something crazy.

3. Because the non-offending side does something crazy after getting the misinformation, the TD decides that this IN ITSELF is evidence that they would have done something crazy anyhow. No damage!

 

The idea that the non-offending side's crazy action might be a result (direct, indirect, remote, it hardly matters) of the infraction never seems to occur. And I don't understand why, when we are supposed to favour the non-offending side on any doubtful point. But no, that East "was always running."

 

My feeling is that it is complete folly to expect anyone to do the right thing given the wrong information. If this is matchpoints and 3♦ is a penalty double the likely downside of 3♥ is getting a zero instead of a zero. The upside is what happens when, as I mentioned below, you switch West's and South's minor suits and South really does have a penalty double:

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj543h32d32ca543&w=s96ht654dckqjt987&e=sk72hq987dkqj987c&s=sqt8hakjdat654c62]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Pulling turns a bottom into a top (assuming you play it right).

[Shrike]

Interesting that with your example hand, South would probably double whether North/South were playing penalty or optional doubles; thank you for supporting my point. I know it's confusing, but the question is not whether East should run, the question is whether East would (and relatedly but not dispositively, should) think he should run, depending on the explanation of the double. And yes, I know you could, now that you understand the issue, construct another hand that does prove your point, but you have to remember that the bottom line is what East would have done, not how often he would have been right.

 

You and others may feel that it is folly to try to figure out what would have happened if there had been no misinformation, but that's what the law requires: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." (Law 40C, emphasis added) That word "through" is about causation. You can't cause something to happen if it was going to happen anyway. As the director, you have to make this call, not just cave in to the plea for damages without conducting a proper analysis.

 

I am not "expecting" East to run anyway, I am determining that I believe, strongly, that that's what would have happened. You disagree. Fine. But what is not fine is that you seem not even to want to address the question. Your zeal for favoring the nonoffenders has you adjusting the damage without establishing causation, and that's not the way it's supposed to be done.