Appeal at the club

[Finch]

All this discussion about what 4D "ought" to mean is irrelevant, because obviously EW have never discussed the delicate inferences from this sort of auction.

[campboy]

If West had no business bidding 3♦, how do they get to 3♥?

By West bidding 3♦. There are two separate infractions; if I am adjusting the score because of one of them then law 12 says I adjust based on what might have happened without that infraction, not what might have happened without either infraction. So I could legally adjust because of the first infraction or because of the second infraction; since the second is better for NOS I do that.

[blackshoe]

I'm not at all sure that's legal. You have an infraction (the 3♦ bid). Law 81C3 requires you to deal with it. I don't see how you can base an adjustment on allowing a bid which was based on UI.

[campboy]

The rectification for the 3♦ bid is adjusting the score based on what would have happened had East passed at that point. The rectification for the 4♦ bid is adjusting the score based on what would have happened had East passed at that point. You can't do both.

 

It would, of course, be ridiculous if what I suggest was illegal (although that doesn't by itself mean it isn't!). Consider what could have happened. West* illegally bids 3♦, hoping East will pass. Sadly, it doesn't work; East bids 3♥. "Now I'm in a worse place than I was before," thinks West. "Aha! If I bid 4♦ now, partner is bound to get the message, and if the TD tries to adjust the score I'll tell him he has to roll it all the way back to 2♥."

 

*A hypothetical West, of course. I do not in any way intend to suggest that the player at the table was deliberately unethical.

[bluejak]

If there is no damage we do not adjust.

 

If the adjustment for 4♦ gets the non-offenders a better score than an adjustment for 3♦ then there is no reason to adjust for 3♦ since there is no damage.

[jeremy69]

Why? Partnership experience is not UI.

 

Isn't partner's propensity to forget agreements information which you should not take into account when making your decisions?

[RMB1]

Isn't partner's propensity to forget agreements information which you should not take into account when making your decisions?

It is information available to you before you start the hand so it is authorised (Law 16A1(d)).

 

Law 40A1 says partnership understanding may be reached implicitly by mutual experience or awareness. Partner forgetting an explicit agreement is mutual experience which creates an implicit agreement. Such implicit agreements should be disclosed.

[WellSpyder]

Law 40A1 says partnership understanding may be reached implicitly by mutual experience or awareness. Partner forgetting an explicit agreement is mutual experience which creates an implicit agreement. Such implicit agreements should be disclosed.

Suppose for a moment that the "either/or" nature of the hand created by such an implicit agreement is not a permitted agreement. Does that mean that every time you make such a bid that partner is liable to forget you are using an illegal agreement and the score should be adjusted accordingly?

[cloa513]

South should have bid with that hand before the 2D or after the transfer whether or not it was hearts or diamonds. South's failure to bid is simply poor judgement- The MI is irrelevant.