Year End C #11 [amended] - Swiss Pairs - MI/UI

[bluejak]

Amended: sorry!

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s98532h8d983caq42&w=skqht975dt7cjt965&e=s7haqj632dq64ck73&s=sajt64hk4dakj52c8]399|300|Scoring: MP

         1♥ 3♣

 P   P  3♥ 3♠

4♥ 4♠  P   P

 P

 

Result:

4♠/S +1[/hv]

The partnership agreement of 3♣ is spades and diamonds. It was not alerted since North had forgotten.

 

Well?

[helene_t]

Can I give a weighted result here, on the basis of the idea that South may or may not have received the AI that North forgot from North's pass, rather the UI from North's failure to alert?

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think I can. Further, if South says that he is allowed to bid again due to his extra values, I disagree. He can pass or he can double. Bidding 3♠ only served to wake up North. (It may not be relevant but I think he was confident that he would succeed in waking up North, since otherwise North may correct 3♠ to 4♣ or even 5♣).

 

So I will have to adjust to some weighted result based on 4♥ by EW. It may or may not be doubled. It may go 2 or 3 down.

 

45% 4♥-2

20% 4♥-3

25% 4♥X-2

10% 4♥X-3

 

Oops: If South doubles 4♥, N may bid 5♣. Then if West doubles (which he may not do if he smelled the misunderstanding), NS may land on the feed in 5♠, which also may or may not be doubled.

Edited January 4, 2010 by helene_t

[pran]

1: Is the 3♠ bid by South "suggested" by the UI from a missing alert by North?

2: Is North in possession of any UI?

3: Would the result have been different if South before the opening lead had called attention to the missing alert of 3♣?

 

IMHO the answer is NO to all these questions.

 

So far no cause for rectification.

 

4: Would East have made a different call instead of 3♥ if in possession of correct information at the time of this bid?

 

Yes, quite possibly he would have passed.

 

An adjusted score of something like 3♣ S -3 -150 to N/S seems appropriate to me

[helene_t]

Yeah Sven is probably right that E would have passed with the right info. That makes it easier as we don't have to consider all the umpteen things that might have happened if East still bids 3♥.

[Ant590]

From South's perspective hasn't partner just shown a hand with long clubs? In which case with extras south can make another move? If the pair have no agreement as to the difference between dbl and 3♠ what happens?

[jdonn]

For E/W it's so hopelessly awful to not pass out 3♣ by east that I really want to give them nothing. But it's likely west would have raised with the correct information and they would never have been in that spot. Then east might pass or might bid game. If east passed south might double or might pass, if he doubles partner pulls to 4♣ and gets doubled, playing it there (north has shown very long clubs in this auction!) If east bid game south would double but north would then pull to 5♣ (I won't allow him to be woken up by his partner's double, there are some creative players who would double there with a 'real' preempt. Plus I admit it, I want to punish N/S with their score, sorry if that is vindictive and not legal). I think most likely is east bidding 4♥ and south doubling. So I weight something like this.

 

3♥ -2, NS +100, 25%

4♣X -5, EW +1400, 10%

5♣X -6, EW +1700, 65%

 

That should kindly remind N/S to remember their agreements.

 

Also I don't buy that even if west wouldn't have raised, east would have passed with the right info. It's so bad not to pass with the wrong info too that I can't give him credit for that.

 

Edit: Can I split scores like this in mps? Sorry I'm not totally familiar with the rules in force. If I had to pick one score it would be the 1700.

[blackshoe]

A weighted score (some percentage of one score, another percentage of another score, etc.) is not the same thing as a split score (one side gets one score, the other side gets something other than the complement of that score). Weighted scores are the law in England, so yes, weighting the score is the way to go.

 

It is not legal to "punish" a pair via score adjustment. Since it's not legal, it would be unethical for a TD to do so.

[bluejak]

First, the legalities. You can weight a score [give percentages of various results] at any form of scoring when assigning, unless you are in a jurisdiction which uses Law 12C1E instead of 12C1C which, as far as I am aware, applies to the ACBL only. You may not weight [or split] a score when ruling on the number of tricks in a claim since that is not an assigned score. Nor may you weight [or split] a decision as to whether there was UI or not, nor any other decision as to facts.

 

You can split a score [give the two sides different scores] when Law 12C1B applies, or in a Law 12C1E jurisdiction only [ACBL] when you feel the two standards in Law 12C1E come to different results.

 

When adjusting for UI you may not include as part of a weighting any result that comes via a disallowed action, or an action that was not actually taken but which would have been disallowed if it were.

 

Note: the jury is out as to whether the last paragraph applies to other jurisdictions apart from the EBU and WBU. Notably a high level AC [WBF? EBL?] gave a Reveley ruling recently, but Regulations are not decided by decisions of ACs without official correlation. Some of us are looking forward to San Remo to see if we get an 'official' line on this.

 

Note: I am sure 'correlation' is not the word I mean but I cannot think of the correct word! :P

[iviehoff]

For E/W it's so hopelessly awful to not pass out 3♣ by east that I really want to give them nothing.

In various of these threads there are many proposals to split the score. I think we need to read what 12C1(:P says.

 

L12C1b: If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has

contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the

infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief

in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The

offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been

allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

Now the 3H bid was not subsequent to various possible UI irregularities that NS might have committed. So there are no grounds for splitting the score if making a UI adjustment.

 

So we can only possibly split the score on grounds of 3H being awful if making a misinformation adjustment, because 3H is subsequent to the misinformation. Now whilst you might argue it was a serious error, it was not unrelated to the infraction. Even if it was a serious error, it was an error much less likely to have been made on correct information. But whilst possibly a serious error, I don't think it comes into the wild or gambling category: it looks like an every day ordinary bad bid to me, as made by the kind of player who repeats his pre-empt. So actually there are no grounds for splitting the score at all, even if you think 3H a serious error.

 

I'm sure if Bluejak had got this right first time, he wouldn't have put it in simple rulings as we have quite tricky UI/MI points, and it occurs early enough in the auction that there are many possible outcomes.

 

When we have both MI and UI offences, we finally choose the one that gives the best score to the NOS. I agree with you that if NS were careful to avoid misuse of the UI they might end up doubled in a high level club contract (and I saw something like that happen to Auken/von Arnim at the Venice Cup - playing behind screens so it was an honest outcome), so I think something like what you suggest is in the right direction.

[jdonn]

To clarify, I only mentioned how bad east's reopening bid was to get it off my chest, I never intended to split the score. When I said "split" I meant "weighted".

 

 

It is not legal to "punish" a pair via score adjustment. Since it's not legal, it would be unethical for a TD to do so.

Luckily it was the exact same thing as "giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side" in this case (IMO), so what I consider the correct adjustment punishes them anyway. I won't apologize for letting it make me feel better.

[Finch]

Note: I am sure 'correlation' is not the word I mean but I cannot think of the correct word! :huh:

corroboration?

[blackshoe]

Note: the jury is out as to whether the last paragraph applies to other jurisdictions apart from the EBU and WBU.  Notably a high level AC [WBF?  EBL?] gave a Reveley ruling recently, but Regulations are not decided by decisions of ACs without official correlation.  Some of us are looking forward to San Remo to see if we get an 'official' line on this.

 

Note: I am sure 'correlation' is not the word I mean but I cannot think of the correct word!  :huh:

Corroboration?

 

LOL! Didn't see Frances' post. :P

[bluejak]

Yes, corroboration is the word I meant.

 

Why is 3♥ so awful?

 

When I put it in Simple Rulings I did so with the correct auction in front of me because I did not think legalities were involved. Latter posts suggest I was wrong: should I move it? Ed?

[blackshoe]

It seems clear it's not a "book" ruling, some judgement is involved. So yeah, I'd say move it. What the heck, I'll do it.

[campboy]

It seems very likely that with correct information both West and East would pass over 3♣. I don't think there is cause to deny redress.

[lamford]

<snip> South may or may not have received the AI that North forgot from North's pass <snip>

That might apply except for the fact that North is an unpassed hand, so he might well have a hand that wants to play in 3C opposite spades and diamonds.

[lamford]

Why is 3♥ so awful?

It isn't.

 

If the explanation is correct, which we are entitled to assume, then South has something like ♣ AQJxxxx (he is vulnerable) and North has five or six spades without enough values to bid anything. Partner probably has a hand just short of some action. A sensible layout, conforming to everything so far, is North ♠ KQxxxx ♥ Kxx ♦ Axx ♣ x West ♠ Axx ♥ Txx ♦ KJxxx ♣ xx South ♠ Jxx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ AQJxxxx. Passing is hopeless here, even though the layout is unashamedly self-serving (allowed on forums).

[bluejak]

The TD was of the view that 3♣ would be passed out if it was described as spades and diamonds. While 3♥ may not be the greatest bid ever, it seems considerably less likely if the opponents are known to have a misfit - which is presumably what a pass of a Ghestem 3♣ shows. So he adjusted to 3♣ going off several, and thus did not need to worry about the UI aspects.

[vigfus]

I agree with the ruling of 3♣, passed out, and a few tricks off.

1. E/W had MI, by not alerting the 3♣ bid

2. South had UI, when his partner did not alert 3♣

3. North realized that he had forgot the system, and raised to 4♠

 

N/S are the guilty side here.

[jdonn]

Why is 3♥ so awful?

It's completely awful. From east's perspective he has a minimum opener with Kxx of the suit preempted on his left. Partner is probably short in that suit so what does his failure to act tell us? That the opponents have more strength than we do, which is even a further hint that their fit won't be amazing, and neither will ours since partner doesn't need much at all to raise in competition here. 3♥ is really a beginner's bid.

 

I think the director found a very lazy way out. Just claim east wouldn't have made an even more terrible bid than the terrible bid he made and then I won't have to worry about UI. Piece of cake!

[bluejak]

I think the accusation against the TD is not worthy of you. You may think the ruling wrong, but suggesting it is lazy is pretty disgraceful. He ruled that way because he thought it correct.

 

While I do not think the 3♥ bid is very good, I think some other people would find it when 3♣ shows clubs, and it is hardly the job of th TD to teach bridge to the non-offending side.

[jdonn]

That is a pretty severe overreaction to an accusation no worse than that someone was lazy. Nonetheless I'm sure you are right, the ruling was honestly made on the basis that the director doesn't realize what a bad bid 3♥ was on the given explanation (to the point that claiming he would have passed with a different explanation is hardly credible.)

[jdonn]

Sorry double post.

[greenender]

So he adjusted to 3♣ going off several, and thus did not need to worry about the UI aspects.

Isn't that a non-sequitur?

 

It is routine to consider MI in a case brought to the TD's attention because of possible UI, and vice versa.

 

Is it not correct to consider both possible infractions and give the OS the worse of the possible MI adjustment and the possible UI adjustment? It should not make a difference that application of one adjustment (here the MI adjustment to 3♣ passed out) would have denied the OS the opportunity to commit the other infraction.

 

Here it seems clear that a possible UI adjustment would at least potentially involve some weighting of a high-level doubled ♣ contract, so that a UI adjustment is potentially better for the NOS. I therefore do feel that it was somewhat lazy for the TD to rule as he did. Not deliberately lazy, of course, but not ultimately quite as thorough as we have come to expect from most EBU TDs.

[lamford]

Here it seems clear that a possible UI adjustment would at least potentially involve some weighting of a high-level doubled ♣ contract

A good point. However, if you disallow the 3S bid by South, on the grounds that this uses the UI of partner's alert, then West will still bid 4H. The vulnerability will deter North from sacrificing in Five Clubs, and we will get something like the results Helene_t suggests, depending on whether South doubles this.

 

It seems hard to find a high-level doubled club contract. Certainly South will not be volunteering one, and North, who is vulnerable opposite what he thought was a weak jump overcall - although he did indeed wake up when South bid 3S - is unlikely to try a red sac.