Feeling

[mink]

Germany, regional event, MP, nonvul all, dealer East, Bidding:

 

West____North___East____South

________________pass____pass

1 Club__x_______2 Dia___pass

2 NT____pass____3 Club__pass

pass____pass

 

No alerts.

 

Before his lead, North asked about the meaning of the auction and East told that his 2 Dia bid was meant to be an artificial raise of clubs with 6-9 points and at least 5 club cards and no 4 card major, not saying anything about the D suit. Immediately after the bid was made, East recalled that this convention had been dropped some time ago and changed to normal inverted minors. The correct bid would have been 3 Club now.

 

North called the TD. TD ruled that there was a misinformation and North may change his last pass, but has to live with the outcome if he does. Indeed North elected to change the pass to 3 Dia, and South bid 3 Heart which became the final contract, and went down yielding a zero for North/South.

 

The TD stayed at the table during the play, and when it was over he informed the players that he was not going to adjust because North changed his bid at his own risk and was told so before.

 

However, the TD felt that West should not have bid 2nt with her 11 points and balanced hand, and that he would have adjusted the score to the probable outcome of 2 Dia if North did not change his pass. Though there was no UI, West admitted that she felt that 2 Dia might have been bid because partner had forgotten that the convention had been dropped, just because a natural 2 Dia bid was not very likely to occur. There had been no history of erroneously bidding according to the old convention because it was only about 2 weeks ago when it was dropped.

 

The fact that East bid 3 Club over 2 NT was not discussed. The East hand was something like

 

Jx

xx

10xxx

AQxxx

 

 

Questions:

 

1. Should West have alerted the 2 Dia, and, if asked, tell that she felt that East might have forgotten that the old convention no longer existed? Problem is that this would mislead opps if East's 2 D bid was as natural as it should be, and she had no real clue (UI) that East had misbid.

 

2. Or should West ignore her feeling and pass the 2 Dia?

 

3. Should East talk about his misbid when asked about the bidding by North?

 

4. Should the TD allow North to change his last pass - what was the misinformation?

 

5. Was it ok that the TD refused to adjust? (North did not ask him to do so, btw.)

 

 

Karl

[Lanor Fow]

I must admit I dont agree with just about anything the TD did here.

 

To your questions:

 

1) I dont think that this partnership necessarly has an implicit agreement here. They have no history of forgetting this bid, and were we to explain everytime we changed a convention explinations would be a lot longer and a lot more confusing.

 

2) However if west bid based on the fact that his partner has probably forgotten the change and is bidding as per the prevoius agreement, this is definately a CPU and I would adjust accordingly.

 

3) East is not obliged to say anything, however many poeple feel that there personal ethics dictate that they should. If east wants to, this is the best time.

 

4) THere was no misinformation, so im my mind the TD is incorrect in allowing the pass to be chanegd.

 

5) The TD is incorrect in not considering an adjustment for the reason he gave (pass was changed). If there was misinformation, and if that misinformation would have affected an earlier call in the auction that could not be changed, a TD should adjust. In this case the TD seems to be suggesting he would have otherwise adjusted for a CPU (Fielded misbid specifically). This has nothing to do with the change of the final pass, and if the TD decides he would adjust, he should adjust in either case. The only reason where that would not be the case would be if the NOS got a better table result than the adjustment would give.

[greenender]

1. On the face of it, no, as W seems to have had no reason to think that E had forgotten the system change, apart from what seems to have been a mere hunch. However...

 

2. If W is going to act as if 2♦ had an alertable meaning, she would do well to let the opponents in on the secret of the agreement (or, here, former agreement) that formed the basis of that decision. What W should really do is to take the action indicated by her hand opposite whatever 2♦ is supposed to show in the new system (presumably, as a passed hand, natural and weak, although some would play it as fit). In that context 2N with a balanced minimum does seem a little odd.

 

3. Strictly, no. N/S are entitled to know E/W's agreements, not the contents of their hands. However, some players believe it to be actively ethical to say something along the lines of "whilst our agreement is actually that this is X, at the time I made the bid I was labouring under the misapprehension that it showed something else". Whilst no doubt well-intentioned, my experience is that these type of confessions tend to make life even more difficult for the NOS, and should be avoided.

 

4. No. N/S have had the information to which they were entitled.

 

5. The TD was right not to adjust for MI, since there was none. However the TD was wrong to say that changing N's call was at his own risk and precluded any further consideration of an adjustment. Had there been MI, the TD was right that if N changed his call, then there was no longer any basis for an adjustment on the basis that N might have taken different action at that turn with the correct information. However, offering a change of call to the NOS does not preclude an adjustment for earlier damage, if for example the NOS might have taken different action earlier with the correct information, or if the OS might have taken action tainted by UI. Here the TD should have investigated whether W had any UI (from body language, for example), rather than acting on a pure hunch. The fact that W found an unusual action opposite a misbid warrants an investigation of whether there was UI, or whether the misbid has been fielded, but does not justify a knee-jerk conclusion that there must have been an infraction on the basis of the discredited rule of coincidence.

[greenender]

Posted before I saw Lanor Fow's response. We seem to be largely in agreement.

[blackshoe]

[much deleted]

 

Agree with Greenender. B)

[VixTD]

It seems clear to me that EW have an agreement that the 2♦ response does not show clubs, so West should not act as if it does. He certainly should not explain to his opponents that East may be acting on an agreement they no longer have. If the default agreement is that 2♦ is to play and West has a hand that would normally pass 2♦, he should pass. If West takes some unexplained action that gets them out of trouble he may be judged to have fielded a misbid.

 

East is not obliged to explain to his opponents that he has misbid if he is satisfied that they have been given a correct explanation of their methods.

 

The only reason I can see for the TD to allow North to change his last call is if he judges that NS had been given a wrong explanation and that North would have bid differently at that turn given a correct explanation (L21B1[a]). Directors are encouraged to rule that an incorrect explanation has been given rather than that a player has misbid in absence of evidence to the contrary (L21B1), but in this case I think the evidence points clearly to the fact that the explanations have been correct rather than the bidding.

 

The TD's refusal to adjust for possible damage earlier in the auction is inconsistent with his allowing North to change his final call. He was right to say that if North changed his final call it would be at his own risk, but that applies only to that change of call. If misinformation had caused damage to NS earlier in the auction the TD should consider an adjustment for such damage. The only effect the decision of North to change his final call could have on such an adjustment is if the TD considers that change of call to be "wild or gambling, or a serious error unrelated to the infraction" (L12C1), in which case any thereby self-inflicted damage should be subtracted from the adjustment to the NS score.

 

So in short I think the TD should have come to a clear decision on EW's agreement about the 2♦ call when he was first called, and proceeded on that basis. I'm not saying he was definitely wrong to rule that there had been misinformation (the convention cards might have had something to say to support this), but on the information given I don't think I would have done.

[VixTD]

It seems we're all in agreement.