Misinformation --> split score

[ICEmachine]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s97hqj10964da86caq&w=saq102hak3d1093ckj10&e=sj854h72dkj7542c2&s=sk63h85dqc9876543]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

West opened 1NT and North overcalled 2D which was alerted and explained as majors ( The real meaning was that it was MULTI, 1-suited in either major). Now East bid 2NT, his partner 3c, and he bid 3D (signoff) upon which West bid 3NT. This went -2 and EW called the TD and said they wanted the score to be changed to 3S making or maybe 4S making.

 

The TD ruled that EW kept their score (based on the fact that the 3NT bid wasnt because of NS misinformation) and that NS got a weighted score, 50% defending 3D +1 and 50% defending 3S =. Looking at the frequency table TD saw that nobody got 10 tricks in a spade partscore.

 

This is from Icelands biggest and strongest club, and what do you think about the ruling?

[bluejak]

Oh dear. :huh:

 

<mumble> <mumble>

 

How to lose friends fast. :(

 

Well, I am afraid the answer to your question

 

what do you think about the ruling?

would be the single word "illegal".

 

Sorry about that. ;)

 

Either they reached 3NT rather than 4♠ because of the MI, in which case you would adjust for both sides, or they did not, in which case you adjust for neither side.

 

Obviously I would also rule before looking at the frequency table. :wacko:

 

I am afraid the TD's reason for splitting just does not follow the Laws. :o

[jdonn]

How did E/W say the auction would have been any different if the explanation had been different? IOW what was the damage? Does east claim he wouldn't have tried to sign off in diamonds if the explanation had been correct?

 

Regarding the split score, could someone clarify this. I thought (paraphrasing from the laws) that the non-offending side could lose its right to a score adjustment if their own bad score was caused by a 'wild or gambling' action, but the offending side would then still have its own score adjusted. Is that not true? If so it would appear the director judged west's 3NT bid bad enough that it was responsible for the EW bad score, not the explanation.

 

I only ask the above out of academic interest, to me it's moot in this instance since I don't see any damage.

[bluejak]

It would be a fair question, but that is not what the TD said. It is true that if the non-offenders commit SEWoG [a serious error unrelated to the infraction, or wild or gambling action] then they lose that part of the redress that was caused by the SEWoG.

 

;)

 

Incidentally, in San Remo, Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC, said the words "unrelated to the infraction" were redundant: in fact he thought the words "wild or gambling action" were redundant. So I tactfully asked him why they were there. He said something under his breath, the only word that could be understood was "Grattan" said several times!!! :wacko:

[AndreSteff]

what do you think about the ruling?

would be the single word "illegal".

 

I do not think the ruling to be necessarily illegal, it contains a miscalculation.

 

The following reasoning, to which many will not agree, would surely be legal?:

• Without the misinformation EW could have reached a spade contract 50% of the time. (Law 12C1c)
  
• With the misinformation the normal result would have been 3♦+1
  
• The difference in MPs between these two scores is the damage for which EW are entitled to redress.
  
• EW contribute subsequently to their own damage by bidding 3NT, a serious error. (Law 12C1b)
  
• EW now get the score in MPs for 3NT-2 augmented with the difference in MPs between 3♦+1 and 50% of the MP scores of 3♦+1 and 50% of the MP score of 9 tricks in spades.
  

[AndreSteff]

Obviously I would also rule before looking at the frequency table.

 

I do not understand this objection for this particular hand: I find it quite difficult to judge the outcome of a spade contract. Making ten tricks is playing double dummy possible, but so is keeping the contract to nine tricks for the defenders.

Finding that the frequency table does not show ten tricks in spades would convince me not to weight this possibility in the case I would adjust.

[blackshoe]

I think that consulting the frequency table in aid of weighting an adjustment (or indeed of making a ruling in general) would be valid if and only if everyone was playing identical methods and of very similar expertise. Even then, differences in bidding and play can arise that would affect whether the end result at a particular table is or is not germane to a particular ruling, and yet those differences are not available to the TD just from an examination of the result.

[bluejak]

How do you play hands? Well, apart from anything else, it depends on the bidding, yes? How do you defend hands? Same answer?

 

A frequency table is valuable if the bidding was the same at all tables.

[ICEmachine]

Well, the reason I put up the frequency table is that I was sure somebody would want to know..

 

EW said that if 2D shows one major, East could have waited one round and made a t/o double of 2H or 3H and by that way reach a spade contract.

 

Is the ruling illegal if you say that EW reached 3NT on their own (and maybe by bidding same way, which is not unreasonable, they would probably play 3NT too?).

Lets assume that you think that 3NT is gambling and its their own infraction after the NS infraction, and not based on what NS did. Wouldnt you have to give a split score ruling?

 

If you decide to give a weighted score, isnt it sufficient to only consider a diamond partscore and a spade partscore as other alternatives arent likely?

 

I think in deciding number of tricks in weighted score, you cannot give 10 tricks if nobody in field who played a spade partscore got 10 tricks? I would understand it better if nobody in the field played a spade partscore.

[vigfus]

Hello David

 

I was the TD here.

 

I felt the 3NT bid was gambling, and that is why I gave E/W their actual result of that board.

But about N/S. They misinformed E/W. Should they get away with that, although E/W made gambling bridge bid ?

 

Let's look at it from another side.

 

Let's assume E/W have defence aganinst the 2 ♦bid. e.g. takeout double, and it does not show ♦here which I am not sure about. Then E/W are certanly damaged of not being able to reach 2 ♠contract. Reasoning that, my ruling should be 9 tricks in spades for both sides.

 

Another way to reach spade partscore can be...

1NT - 2♦ - Pass - 2♥

Pass - Pass - Double - pass

2♠ - All pass ( and West gambling partner having 4 ♠suit )

Is this perfect bidding sequence likely to happen, even at very experienced partnership ?

My ruling here should also be 9 tricks in spades for both sides.

 

Well it is easy to see perfect bidding sequence seeing all the cards. Btw. only 4 tables of 15 played in spade contract.

[jdonn]

I think that auction is pretty farfetched. It's hard to imagine EW ever reaching another contract than 3♦ (ignorring that west pulled it for some reason) after this start regardless of how 2♦ was explained.

 

And asking whether NS should "get away with" a misexplanation is the wrong question and a terrible way to think about the ruling.

[bluejak]

We are asked to give advice on a situation as posted. Now the OP said that the TD said

The TD ruled that EW kept their score (based on the fact that the 3NT bid wasnt because of NS misinformation) ...

which is not following the Laws. But saying that they kept their score because they gambled is rather different: whether I agree with it or not, at least it is legal.

 

But Vigfus, why if you are not sure do you not give lots of weightings? Far simpler than trying to justify one.

 

As it happens, I think the table score would be repeated a lot of the time with the correct information. But I expect the 3NT bid was based on four facts: excellent cards in spades - shown to his left - and hearts - the same - plus three diamonds plus maximum. I really do not see how that bid can be described as wild or gambling or a serious error. It is not "markedly worse than bad bridge". But I expect the bidding to be repeated often when three of the four facts still apply.

 

I would have asked E/W their sequence to spades. I doubt it is very credible, though of course if West is prepared to go on over 3♦ he might go on with 3♠. So I might rule

 

   40% of 3NT -2

+ 30% of 3♦ +1

+ 10% of 3♦ +2

+ 10% of 4♠ =

+ 10% of 4♠ +1

 

So I do not agree with your ruling, Vigfus, but at least it is legal, now I really know what it is!

 

I still have not seen the final appeal from the Iceland Express tournament. Perhaps you could send it, or post it in our Appeals forum.

[ICEmachine]

David

 

Lets make a hypothetical bidding sequence with the cards above. Instead of bidding 3NT, West decides to bid 6D and going some off. Would you also give him 40% of 6D going off (like you weighted 3NT?) or would you say that his bidding was so gambling that he will get the table score. What would you do with NS then?

[jallerton]

It is always better to consider the offenders' score first, as that will tell you whether there is any damage in the first place. Law 12B tells us that:

 

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred

 

Let says that a top is 20MPs and that at the table E/W played in 6♦x-2 for 20MPs to N/S, none for E/W.

 

Using, Bluejak's estimates of the probabilities of the various outcomes, you compute the matchpoints of the potential adjustment as follows:

 

40% of MP (3NT -2)

+ 30% of MP (3♦ +1)

+ 10% of MP (3♦ +2)

+ 10% of MP (4♠ =)

+ 10% of MP (4♠ +1)

 

where MP(...) signifies the matchpoints from the particular result.

 

Let's say this works out at 6MPs for N/S. This will be the score for the offending side (unless their result from the table score was worse, which is clearly not the case here).

 

E/W would normally receive the complement of this score, in this case [20-6] = 14MPs.

 

However, if 6♦ is judged to be a SEWoG action, E/W do not "receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted". In order to calculate this, we need to decide on E/W's expected score after the infraction has been committed but without the SEWoG action.

 

According to Bluejak's assessment, 3♦ would make 10 tricks most of the time, 11 the rest of time so to be consistent we compute:

 

75% of MP (3♦ +1)

+ 25% of MP (3♦ +2)

 

Let say: that this would give E/W 8 MPs.

 

So the part of the damage which is self-inflicted is the difference between what they might have got just before the SEWoG action and the table result 8MPs-0MPs= 8 MPs.

 

Because of the SEWoG action, the E/W assigned score is therefore their normal assigned score [14MPs] less the self-inflicted damage of 8 MPs, i.e. E/W end up with a final score of 6MPs. This is better than their table score so 6MPs is what E/W should get.

 

As you can see it is not necessarily correct to just give E/W their table score.

 

This calculation may seem complicated, but the saving grace for TDs, ACs and scorers is that 'wild or gambling' actions and serious errors are by definition very rare: unless weighted scores are disenabled, 99% of the time the TD should just be giving the same adjustment to both sides.

[AndreSteff]

How do you play hands?  Well, apart from anything else, it depends on the bidding, yes?  How do you defend hands?  Same answer?

 

A frequency table is valuable if the bidding was the same at all tables.

Of course!

But it is very likely that all EW declarers will have had knowlegde of a long heart suit in North. To me it would feel awkward to assign a percentage of ten tricks in spades and then to find that no one in the field has managed to collect that many, unless the auction on this table would be likely to be so different from the other ones to explain that.

[blackshoe]

The basis of what result(s) might have obtained at this table depend on the TD's assessment of what might be possible for these players, given their methods and the bidding and play to the time of the infraction. It does not depend at all on what other players, in other circumstances, and possibly playing different methods, did.

[bluejak]

I would prefer to back my judgement and the judgement of those with whom I consulted if the alternative is to refuse to follow recommended good TD practice.

[ICEmachine]

However, if 6♦ is judged to be a SEWoG action, E/W do not "receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted".  In order to calculate this, we need to decide on E/W's expected score after the infraction has been committed but without the SEWoG action.

 

I can understand this, but I just dont understand why West wouldnt bid 3NT (or 6D in the hypothetical case) as the misinformation has nothing to do with his decision to bid 3NT (IMO). So what Im saying is that 3NT -2 is the expected score EW would have gotten with the correct information.

 

What is troubling me now is that maybe then its correct to let NS keep the table score as the misinformation didnt cause any damage.

[aguahombre]

What is troubling me now is that maybe then its correct to let NS keep the table score as the misinformation didnt cause any damage.

Need to punish? :)

[bluejak]

As a matter of Law you do not punish by adjusting. If you consider a pair should be punished for MI, you give them a PP. However, it would be very harsh except in special circumstances, since it is not normal to punish for giving MI.

 

Procedural penalties

A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeals committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated.

 

In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage.

So if there is MI but no damage, generally you let it go.

[aguahombre]

Yes, david...my weak humor again.

[jallerton]

However, if 6♦ is judged to be a SEWoG action, E/W do not "receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted".  In order to calculate this, we need to decide on E/W's expected score after the infraction has been committed but without the SEWoG action.

 

I can understand this, but I just dont understand why West wouldnt bid 3NT (or 6D in the hypothetical case) as the misinformation has nothing to do with his decision to bid 3NT (IMO). So what Im saying is that 3NT -2 is the expected score EW would have gotten with the correct information.

 

What is troubling me now is that maybe then its correct to let NS keep the table score as the misinformation didnt cause any damage.

Maybe it is clearer if you look at the definition of "damage" used in the WBF Code of Practice.

 

Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction.

 

In the instant prior to the infraction, it could not be anticipated that West was about to make the 6♦ bid in your hypothetical case, so that is not taken into account for the offending side.

 

Once we have established that there is "damage", Law 21B3 tells us that an adjusted score ahould only be awarded "if the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity".

 

Back to the actual case, if you judge that, with correct information:

 

(i) the auction would still always have started 1NT-(2♦)-2NT-(P)-3♣-(p)-3♦-(P); and

 

(ii) it is equally or more attractive for West to bid 3NT if he had been given the correct explanation;

 

then you would indeed rule "no advantage from the irregularity" and both sides would keep the table score.

 

Bluejak suggests a weighted ruling because he is not sure whether the auction up to 3♦ would have been the same or not. The fact that he includes 3♦= and 3♦+1 in the weighting suggests that:

 

- he believes it plausible that West is less likely to try 3NT over 3♦ with correct information; and/or

 

- another route to 3♦ becomes more likely given correct information.