1 minor opening

[o_fata]

Hello,

Directing a regional tournament I was called at a table for the following problem. Both pairs are experienced players.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sk9862h4dj8643c104&e=sqj75h8dak102cak62]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

          N          E          S          W

                    1♣          1♥         P

          P         DBL          P          P

          1♠      DBL          P          P

          2♦       DBL          2♠        P

          P        DBL          PASS GENERAL

 

Before bidding 2d North asks how they open 1 minor; the answers is “with 3-3 we always open 1cl with 4-4, 1dia”. He claims he wouldn’t bid 2d if he knew they play “best minor”. He knew hearts and spades are not breaking and he wanted to play a 5-2+ dia fit (the odds to find a diamond fit are better when E is denying 4 cards -> now he can have 4 diamonds only if his distribution is 4045).

 

In their CC they have “best minor” written; EW both say that they’ve discussed to open 1c with 3-3 and 1d with 44 but forgot to change in their CC.

The table result: 2!sx -1.

Your decision?

[blackshoe]

The explanation is MI, and the MI led to the 2♦ bid. If there was damage, adjust the score.

[aguahombre]

It is always nice to be able to find a ruling to help out when your bidding doesn't work out.

[blackshoe]

If, as a matter of law, you disagree with me, then provide a legal argument for a different ruling. Not-so-veiled insults will get you nowhere.

[aguahombre]

I can agree that your ruling is correct, without liking the fact that players get two bites of the apple in situations like this. I know you see this often. No need to be defensive.

[o_fata]

I am sure North wouldn't risk a big penalty just hoping E has 4-4 in minors and he can call the director afterwards.

He knew EW are good players and that they know what they are playing (they said they've forgot to change their CC).

[pran]

Misinformation is apparent.

Without seeing all four hands we cannot judge if there was damage.

 

Sven

[peachy]

MI is clear. Damage IMO is clear even without seeing the hands (since 2SX was down 1, assumedly 1SX would have made 7 tricks). Adjust to redress the damage.

[gwnn]

Why is MI so clear? East has better diamonds than clubs. And he has 4-4 in the minors. I have never encountered anybody in Romania playing that 1C is opened on 4-4. But I have seen people misbid or deviate from their agreements for no apparent reason. Of course that 'we agreed clearly that 4-4 we always open 1D' is in this case perfectly self serving but it's in this case quite likely true. I don't know who EW is but most experienced people in .ro are either always opening D or always opening their better m.

[jdonn]

I don't believe that it would have made a difference to north, it's a very slight difference. His partner can have a diamond void anyway if the opponents are 3-5. Bottom line he took a risky action and it didn't pay off.

 

So my legal argument is there is misinformation but it did not cause the damage.

[campboy]

What jurisdiction did the incident take place in? In some areas it is legal to give a weighted ruling. Here it is not clear whether North would bid differently with correct information, so a weighted ruling based on "with correct information, North would pass x% of the time" might be appropriate.

 

gwnn: the laws tell us to assume MI rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this case, all the evidence we have (ie the convention card) says that there was MI.

[gwnn]

I guess you're right but East had better diamonds than clubs actually. And in practice many people when they say 'better minor' they mean 'clubs always with 3-3 and diamonds always with 4-4'. But I'll stop because I'm not sure if I'm making any sense here.

[Poky]

Opening 1♣ with 3-3,

opening 1♦ with 4-4 and a weak hand, and

opening 1♣ with 4-4 and a strong hand is plain normal bridge, no matter of system nomenclature.

 

Result stays. No misinformation.

 

The player in cause didn't believe his partner, who passed 1♠x.

[campboy]

Don't be ridiculous. If a player says "we always open 1D with 44" when in fact they could open either, that is MI.

[iviehoff]

In Britain, if someone said they played "better minor", I would be aware of the possibility that they might think that "better" referred only to better suit length, not better suit quality when the suits are of equal length. So I wouldn't be sure that I had received any statement at all about how they opened minors when they are 33 or 44. If I wanted to know, I would ask further, though prefacing my question with words suggesting that there was inconsistent use of the words "better minor". In fact, if I heard what W said about the 33 and 44 situation, I would probably conclude that they were playing "better minor", with that restricted definition.

 

So I don't necessarily find what EW said here was inconsistent with what was on the card, nor that they necessarily denied playing "better minor". But that would depend upon what was the expected range of meaning for "better minor" in the country in question.

 

So, NS asked what was the style and possibly got a rather incomplete answer. I'm not convinced NS actually investigated whether EW were playing "better minor".

 

OP is from Romania, so I guess that might be the country where we need to know how the phrase "better minor" is used.

 

The TD has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that EW are playing what they say they are playing. The laws tell us that without evidence to the contrary we should assume misinformation rather than misbid. Probably in this case we say misbid. But we should listen to what EW say. Maybe they can point to earlier hands in the evening where they got it right and their opponents can vouch for them.

 

The next question is whether the MI they got is in fact relevant to changing NS bidding. NS is interested in whether EW are playing better minor, which was written on the card. But, depending upon what better minor means in that locality, it seems to me that EW didn't actually necessarily say anything inconsistent with it, and NS didn't necessarily seek to try and find it out.

 

Incidentally, all NS are entitled to is a description of what EW are playing, not the use of specific phrases such as "better minor" which NS might interpret differently from EW.

 

If ultimately we agree there was misinformation, and NS were actually misinformed on the fact they were interested in, then finally we need to decide whether we believe they would have done something different. If we aren't quite sure, and the probability method hasn't been locally disapplied, then we can apply a probability to it.

 

jdonn says there is no damage. But the definition of damage is that if, correctly informed, you would have taken a different action that would have had a different outcome (according to the method for evaluating that different unknown outcome), then you are damaged.

[Poky]

Don't be ridiculous. If a player says "we always open 1D with 44" when in fact they could open either, that is MI.

If that was the exact statement (which I doubt) - I could agree with you.

In any case, MI is not the reason why the bidding went higher than 1♠x. Not trusting your own partner - is.

[jdonn]

Don't be ridiculous. If a player says "we always open 1D with 44" when in fact they could open either, that is MI.

If that was the exact statement (which I doubt) - I could agree with you.

Why do people so often doubt facts which were clearly stated to us?

[Phil]

I wonder why North didn't xx.

[bluejak]

'Better minor' is unambiguous, and the fact that a large percentage of people in England say 'better minor' and play something else does not stop it being MI if the do not play better minor.

 

There seems to be MI here, I doubt it made much difference, rule it something like 2♠ doubled 75% of the time, 1♠ doubled 25% of the time.

 

In any case, MI is not the reason why the bidding went higher than 1♠x. Not trusting your own partner - is.

You mean if South had one spade, five hearts, four diamonds and three clubs, he would not have passed 1♠ doubled? Please explain why not.

[Sadie3]

What happened to the part about players having to explain their agreements but that doesn't mean they don't deviate occasionally on purpose or accidentally? The subsequent bidding certainly should have put the opponents on alert. Misinformation is giving out incorrect information regarding agreements. I see no laws regarding one having to tell when they have deviated from their agreements as long as their partner knows no more than the opponents do.

 

He could have just stuck a spade in with his clubs and said, "Opps, I thought I had 5 clubs and intended to make a reverse."

[bluejak]

Of course not: if there is no MI there is no adjustment. However, if E/W were claiming that I think it would have said so in the OP.

[jdonn]

There seems to be MI here, I doubt it made much difference, rule it something like 2♠ doubled 75% of the time, 1♠ doubled 25% of the time.

Our of curiosity, what is the lowest % chance of an action which the director should include in an adjusted score? I was told once on this forum 3% is too low. I only ask because my opinion is it would be something more like 5% to 95% in this case, so I wonder if the director (if he agrees with my estimates) should even bother.

[RMB1]

Our of curiosity, what is the lowest % chance of an action which the director should include in an adjusted score? I was told once on this forum 3% is too low. I only ask because my opinion is it would be something more like 5% to 95% in this case, so I wonder if the director (if he agrees with my estimates) should even bother.

I don't think we would do 95/5 or even 90/10 but we might use 5%/10% if there were multiple outcomes to be weighted. For example 60/20/10/10 or perhaps 40/40/10/5/5.

 

Even where there are multiple outcomes to be weighted I don't think we would go below 4%. For example, might reach 3NT 20% of the time, might make 10 tricks 20% of the time; giving 64% of +150, 16% of +180, 16% of +400, 4% of +430.

 

Robin

[blackshoe]

'Better minor' is unambiguous, and the fact that a large percentage of people in England say 'better minor' and play something else does not stop it being MI if the do not play better minor.

I had thought that the EBU had a regulation similar to the ACBL's "explaining by naming a convention is inadequate', but all I could find in the OB along this line is more specific than that. Ah well, that's life.