Misinformation in a club

[bluejak]

A correspondent writes:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakj432h952dak7ct&w=sq9765h8dj5c97652&e=s8hqjt6dt9632cj84&s=sthak743dq84cakq3]399|300|Scoring: MP

..W... ..N..... ...E... ..S

........ ........ ........ ..1♥

2♥#1 ..2♠... ...3♦. 4♣#2

..P.... 5♣#3 ....P.. ..6NT

..AP

 

#1 Not alerted

#2 Modified Roman Gerber

#3 Two Aces & Two Kings

 

Result: 6NT -1[/hv]

 

Please find 'Attached' a Duplicate Board that I would like a Ruling on; played at my local club last evening. The Bridge session was a normal night, i.e not a special event. The four involved players were all experienced, with N/S a more regular partnership than E/W.

 

The Bidding is as attached. I was called to the table (as Director, the Board having been Bid & Played) with N/S raising the point concerning Misinformation by East on the 2H Bid by West. The explanation given was that the 2H Bid was 'Strong'. South as a result, said that he felt damaged by East's explanation. On inspection of East's 'System Card' he had entered 'Michael's Cue Bid'. North or South did not ask to see East or West's 'System Card' during the auction or playing period. The Traveller for this Board had three entries of 660 N/S, one for 650, one for 600 and three going off in 6NT (including this Deal), -100. Has the offending side, in this case E/W gained a legitimate advantage from the irregularity and should N/S obtain an adjusted score.

 

Any views?

[helene_t]

I don't understand. The explanation that 2♥ was strong should, if anything, have helped NS stay out of the slam. But the bidding suggests that neither North nor South took the "strong" cuebid serious.

 

Was the claim that 6NT could make if declarer knew that W had a Michaels-hand (so there is an increased chance that both major finesses work)? I think he must have figured that out when he saw dummy (or rather, when he heard his p reporting two aces and two kings). He should just have looked at the CC.

[G_R__E_G]

The hand is makeable double dummy and if the declarer had the correct explanation it's possible that they would make it. That said, considering there were only 7HCP's outstanding it should have been obvious to declarer that there was some sort of error in the explanation. That coupled with the fact that the convention card was correct and not consulted and that it seems declarer didn't bother to ask for further details when a one word ("Strong") explanation was given for the bid I would say that declarer fixed himself. No adjustment.

[jnichols]

To me the convention card being correct is not relevant. When East said "Strong" the opponents should not be required to check the convention card as well.

 

It is clear from the auction that N/S didn't believe the explanation.

Once South sees the dummy any reliance on the "Strong" explanation is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

[Finch]

I realise all you know is what's in your correspondance, but it's sadly lacking.

As always with potential MI cases, I would like to know how NS think they have been damaged. If they say they wouldn't have bid to 6NT, I don't believe them unless they tell me why the auction have been different. If they say they would have taken a large penalty, I might believe them: how would they suggest the aucton go? If they say they might make 6NT I might believe them if they tell me how they would have played it differently.

 

At what point did N or S ask about the 2H bid? If North asked before bidding 2S, and was told 'Michaels, spades and another', perhaps he would not have bid 2S. Perhaps he would have suggested defending given that there were long spades on his right. Even if he didn't, perhaps South would have considered defending 3D.

 

While one might make 6NT knowing of a black 2-suiter in West's hand, that's irrelevant if the contract is 3Cx on a trump lead which will beat all the NS game contracts.

[JoAnneM]

I don't even understand the question or the answer. There is no point range for Michaels so why ask about it, and why would there be a specific answer?

 

And when dummy comes down you know the answer was wrong, so just ignore it. I think it was a frivolous director call.

[TylerE]

I don't think the director call was nessesarily frivilous, but I don't think N/S get an adjustment either, since the MI made bidding slam likely less successful than otherwise.

[blackshoe]

I don't even understand the question or the answer. There is no point range for Michaels so why ask about it, and why would there be a specific answer?

 

And when dummy comes down you know the answer was wrong, so just ignore it. I think it was a frivolous director call.

"Strong", without qualification, is an inadequate explanation in any case. As for the "range" of Michaels, some play it as any range, some play it as weak only, some play it as weak or strong, but not intermediate (with which they would overcall and hope to bid their second suit later).

 

When dummy comes down you know the answer was wrong. Which means it was MI. Maybe there will be no recourse, but that's the TD's decision, not yours. If you're ever going to ask for a ruling on the basis you were given MI, the time to do it is when you discover the MI, not after the hand is played and you got a bad score.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a frivolous director call, unless it was jokingly made and clearly not intended to involve the director. For example, made while smiling and in a low and conversational tone, so that clearly the director cannot have heard it.

[matmat]

I don't even understand the question or the answer. There is no point range for Michaels so why ask about it, and why would there be a specific answer?

 

And when dummy comes down you know the answer was wrong, so just ignore it. I think it was a frivolous director call.

while there might not be a specific point range for michaels in general, some pairs do restrict their values for this call, so asking the question is not unreasonable.

[Mbodell]

When dummy comes down you know the answer was wrong. Which means it was MI. Maybe there will be no recourse, but that's the TD's decision, not yours. If you're ever going to ask for a ruling on the basis you were given MI, the time to do it is when you discover the MI, not after the hand is played and you got a bad score.

How does this work without you giving AI to the opponents about your hand contents and the possible MI?

 

It is a little easier here since your auction kind of points out that you don't believe the opponents. But you don't even need to see it in dummy, you could call the director after your partner's 5♣ bid since you "know" he has 14 points. But in general, if opponents have explained something (say, shows 5 cards in S+C), and I know it is wrong (partner and I have 10 cards in C thanks to my 6 to go with dummy's 4), I don't call the director and disclose my club holding to the opponents. Is that wrong?

 

Also, in general it is possible (although unlikely) that you didn't have MI that the opponents just misbid. So you might not even have any recourse coming to you for exposing your hand either.

 

Also, on the hand in question, is it possible they are playing strong 2 bids and the opponent explained the bid as if it was an opening 2♥ bid. That would make most sense to me since "strong" for a michael's cue seems so weird as an explanation or even a forget.

[TimG]

Also, on the hand in question, is it possible they are playing strong 2 bids and the opponent explained the bid as if it was an opening 2♥ bid.  That would make most sense to me since "strong" for a michael's cue seems so weird as an explanation or even a forget.

When I read "strong" I assumed "strong takeout" rather than "strong two suited".

 

It sure looks like that's what East expected, how else to explain the 3♦ bid?

[TimG]

The hand is makeable double dummy and if the declarer had the correct explanation it's possible that they would make it.

Interesting (to me) that switching the ♥7 and ♥6 means that it is not a double dummy make.

 

But, as you said, surely by the time dummy was exposed, declarer was no longer under the illusion created by the mis-explanation. So, any claim of damage because declarer was misinformed must be rubbish.

[blackshoe]

I did say if you're going to call.

 

MI may or may not cause damage. If you suspect you were given MI, and that it has damaged you (by causing you to get to a wrong contract, for example), then calling the director may allow some rectification — a chance to change your partnership's last call, for example. It may not (it may be too late for the player who might have done something different to do so). If it's too late, the director might adjust the score. But he's less likely to do that if you wait until you see what the result on the hand is (the infamous "double shot").

 

Giving MI is an irregularity. You aren't required to draw attention to it (when it's the opponents who did it, or may have done it). If you don't think it will be to your advantage to draw attention to it, don't. It's certainly not wrong to not draw attention. Of course, if someone does draw attention to it, the TD should be called. The laws used to say "must", and I regret that I'm the one who pointed that out to Grattan Endicott, which led to the WBFLC changing it to "should" in 2007.

 

"Strong" could mean a lot of things. In the ACBL, there are currently (I think) two sort of official interpretations of the word, particularly wrt to a "strong" opening bid. One is that "strong" means whatever the player who made the bid thinks it means (I was once told by an ACBL TD that opening 2♣ on AKQJxxxx Jxx - Jx is not a psych "although it's close" - and Rick Beye, who was then ACBL CTD, confirmed that interpretation). The other, which may become enshrined in regulation if the C&C Committee ever gets off their collective butt, is that "strong" means 15+ HCP.

[hotShot]

The explanation "strong" does not imply "Michael's Cue Bid".

 

So there is definitely MI and at least incomplete disclosure.

 

But what is the damage?

North did not claim that he was damaged, so we can assume that a deviation in bidding can only occur after the 3♦ bid.

South did not claim that he would have dbled 3♦, stayed in 3NT or to make another bid..

South did not claim a different line of play.

 

South claims to be damaged, but does not tell us what he would have made differently. South does not even state if he thinks he would have bid or played differently.

If South can't tell how he was damaged, he most likely was not damaged.

 

No damage no score correction.

[shyams]

I am not a director and do not know the laws well enough.

 

In this case, I think the director will typically say:

* There is MI

* However, there is no obvious damage from the MI. Bridge knowledge would require South to know that "strong" is incorrect; and therefore ignore it.

* Therefore, the table results stand

* The director may think it appropriate to warn E/W for misinforming.

* The director could also warn declarer for not calling him at trick 1 (when it was evident there is MI)

[Finch]

I don't even understand the question or the answer. There is no point range for Michaels so why ask about it, and why would there be a specific answer?

 

And when dummy comes down you know the answer was wrong, so just ignore it. I think it was a frivolous director call.

The traditional meaning for a cue bid here was a 'strong hand' and that's clearly what East thought it meant.

[bluejak]

It is not normal in England nor recommended that players call the TD during the hand to point out a belief that there has been an infraction. This idea of losing rights because you do not do so is one of North America's poorer ideas. If you call the TD and point out what is wrong you are telling everyone about the hand. Why should you? You can tell there is a problem by adding your points to dummy's: do you really believe players should tell the TD in front of their opponents this information?

 

No, we do not criticise nor comdemn players for following sensible and recommended practice just because it gives ammunition to the "Let's support the offenders" brigade.

 

Note that since the TD will say "Play on" there is no gain whatever in calling the TD, you can only lose by it.

[blackshoe]

This incident happened in England, so English recommended practice is certainly germane. However, we have also discussed the ACBL approach to this, and Englis recommended practice does not necessarily have any weight in North America. Whether it should is of course a different question.

 

That said, I agree that in cases where calling the TD can only harm one's own side, it is better to perhaps defer a call until later or never. Sometimes, though (albeit not in this case, I think) the player will not know that this is the case. The first thing any player should know, IMO, is that the TD is there to sort out irregularities in the auction and play, and if a player thinks he needs the TD's help to do that, he should call. So while there can be no fault assigned to a player of the putative non offending side who does not call the TD during the auction, or when dummy comes down, or at whatever point he becomes aware that something strange has happened, there can be no fault assigned to a player who does call either. True, in an MI case where it is too late to allow a correction of call(s) the only thing the TD will do is say "play on" (same thing he would do in a UI case) that does not mean that a player should necessarily not call the TD. Suppose he isn't familiar with this aspect of the laws? Suppose he thinks (wrongly, as it happens) that the TD can do something other than say "play on". Suppose he knows that this TD is a member of David's infamous brigade, and will rule against him willy-nilly if he waits until after the hand is played? Granted, that's bad TD practice anywhere, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

 

All I'm saying is that while you can't fault a player for following English recommended practice (even if he's not in England) it does not follow that you can fault him for not following it.

[USViking]

A correspondent writes:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakj432h952dak7ct&w=sq9765h8dj5c97652&e=s8hqjt6dt9632cj84&s=sthak743dq84cakq3]399|300|Scoring: MP

..W... ..N..... ...E... ..S

........ ........ ........ ..1♥

2♥#1 ..2♠... ...3♦. 4♣#2

..P.... 5♣#3 ....P.. ..6NT

..AP

 

#1 Not alerted

#2 Modified Roman Gerber

#3 Two Aces & Two Kings

 

Result: 6NT -1[/hv]

 

Please find 'Attached' a Duplicate Board that I would like a Ruling on; played at my local club last evening. The Bridge session was a normal night, i.e not a special event. The four involved players were all experienced, with N/S a more regular partnership than E/W.

 

The Bidding is as attached. I was called to the table (as Director, the Board having been Bid & Played) with N/S raising the point concerning Misinformation by East on the 2H Bid by West. The explanation given was that the 2H Bid was 'Strong'. South as a result, said that he felt damaged by East's explanation. On inspection of East's 'System Card' he had entered 'Michael's Cue Bid'. North or South did not ask to see East or West's 'System Card' during the auction or playing period. The Traveller for this Board had three entries of 660 N/S, one for 650, one for 600 and three going off in 6NT (including this Deal), -100. Has the offending side, in this case E/W gained a legitimate advantage from the irregularity and should N/S obtain an adjusted score.

 

Any views? 

 

The hand is makeable double dummy... 

 

Intermediate player here.

 

How can the hand be made double dummy?

 

Only way I see is if H9 is led and East does not cover,

and CT is led and East does not cover.

 

Crazy defence does not = "makeable", does it?

[TimG]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakj432h952dak7ct&w=sq9765h8dj5c97652&e=s8hqjt6dt9632cj84&s=sthak743dq84cakq3]399|300|Scoring: MP

..W... ..N..... ...E... ..S

........ ........ ........ ..1♥

2♥#1 ..2♠... ...3♦. 4♣#2

..P.... 5♣#3 ....P.. ..6NT

..AP

 

#1 Not alerted

#2 Modified Roman Gerber

#3 Two Aces & Two Kings

 

Result: 6NT -1[/hv]

How can the hand be made double dummy?

 

Only way I see is if H9 is led and East does not cover,

and CT is led and East does not cover.

 

Crazy defence does not = "makeable", does it?

 

A low heart to the nine allows the hearts to be picked up for 4 tricks. As I pointed out in another post, switch the ♥6 and ♥7 and the hand is no longer a double dummy make.

 

(On a red suit lead, declarer can duck a heart and squeeze west in the black suits. But this does not work on a black suit lead because east can return the other black suit when in with a heart and break up the squeeze.)

[bluejak]

The reply that I gave to my correspondent was:

 

It is always more satisfactory to give opinions if I was at the table

so I can ask questions. For example, in this case, I would say to South

"In what way do you think you were damaged by the misinformation?" and

the answer might affect my ruling.

 

I should mention a few peripheral matters. The scores at other tables

do not affect a ruling, and if I had been there I would not have looked

at them before ruling. The fact that neither North nor South looked at

their opponents' system cards is irrelevant: alerting and questions, and

system cards are two different ways of letting opponents know your

agreements, and an opponent has a perfect right to rely on either

method.

 

It might be interesting to know whether West's system card mentioned

Michaels, but it is quite common for people in clubs to play with

different partners and not be sure whether they play a specific question

with any particular one. However, since West made the Michaels bid, and

East's card says Michaels, I think we can safely rule there was

misinformation.

 

The problem, as it seems to me, is that South went happily ahead to

slam when he believed West had shown a strong hand. If told correctly

that it showed spades and a minor, and not necessarily strong, I would

have thought he would have bid to slam just as happily, possibly more

so. Thus I cannot believe that South was damaged.

 

More interesting is North's bidding. Would he have bid 2S if he knew

West had spades? Perhaps, or he might have doubled. Either way, if he

shows reasonable strength I do not see why South would bid any

differently.

 

In view of the fact that North has not said how the misinformation

affects him, and since South's bidding seems unlikely to be different, I

believe that on this occasion the misinformation caused no damage so

there should be no adjustment.

 

:lol:

 

Having read some of the replies here it seems to me that some of the unsympathetic replies are assuming a level of sophistication that was in my view completely absent. For example, a lot of poor English club players describe an old-fashioned cue-bid as "Strong". They do not describe it more acccurately because they have no idea what Strong means, and when they pick up a hand it will either look Strong or it will not.

 

Secondly, if you are going to treat TD calls from mediocre players as frivolous you are going to move towards the awful state of TD rulings that my reading of RGB and IBLF suggest are common in all but the best ACBL clubs. We train our club TDs, and sympathy for the players is an essential part of that training. If a player is upset because his opponents tell him something which turns out to be wrong we want him to talk to the TD always, and not be subject to problems of being told it is frivolous.

 

You should never treat a call from an average club player as frivolous, and the evidence from the story is strong that these were poor club players.