Novice director - help required!

[battermad]

As someone who has just completed the EBU club directors course and will presumably start directing soon, I would appreciate some guidance on a misinformation issue that came up at our club recently in a "friendly" Swiss teams.

 

The facts are as follows:

 

The hands were: [hv=pc=n&s=saq8643h752d8ct95&w=sk9hj9643d962cqj4&n=s5haqdkj74cak8732&e=sjt72hkt8daqt53c6]399|300[/hv]

 

NS vul against not. N opened 1♣, alerted as a strong club. E bid 1NT, alerted (incorrectly) as showing the minors (the EW system was for 1NT to show rounded or pointed suits). S bid 2♦, alerted as showing both majors with better spades.

 

Before any card was played, dummy (South) stated that north's explanation of 2♦ was incorrect and that it showed non-game forcing values with a single suited major hand ie spades or hearts. And E drew North's attention to the relevant section of the EW convention cards, so North knew what the correct meaning of the 1NT bid was; I appreciate this is against the laws, but this was a friendly club game and E did not want N to be disadvantaged in the play.

 

The lead was a 4th best diamond, and in attempting to make the contract, N went 3 off for - 300. I don't think the detail of the play is an issue here. For the record, although presumably irrelevant here, at the other table, NS reached 4♠ and went 4 off, so as scored at the two tables, the non-offending side gained 3 imps on the board.

 

NS asked the director for an adjusted score on account of the admitted misinformation. They claimed that their bids would have been different if the correct explanation had been given (which is correct), and that they would or might have played in a part score of 3 or 4 clubs, likely making 10 tricks, or would have defended 2♦ (apparently undoubled) for a small plus score.

 

So my question is how the director, and an appeal panel if required, should approach this problem. I will not say what the director actually ruled at the table, or what the appeal panel decided, as I don't want to influence any answers. I will try and set out how it might be approached in as neutral way as possible, but what I really want to know is the correct way to apply the laws here.

 

Since the misinformation came to light at the end of the auction when it was too late for NS to change their calls, presumably Law 21B 3 is in point and the director is required to award an adjusted score if he judges that "the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity". Presumably here, the only advantage can be in the bidding, and the play (and actual hand layout) is irrelevant?

 

So what does gain an advantage mean here? Some questions:

 

1. Looking at the NS hands alone, and the (correctly explained) bidding, 3NT by N does seem far and away the best contract vul at teams. It presumably figures to make 70+% of the time (absent double dummy defence etc). On that basis, is it correct to say there has been no advantage to EW because NS are in the right contract (despite of rather than because of the misinformation, one might say)?

 

2. In evaluating the contract actually reached (ie 3NT), is it legitimate to look at the layout of the EW hands? Here, the clubs do not break 2-2 (or stiff honour with E) and both major suit finesses fail, so the contract goes down. Is that a relevant factor? If it is, it seems to be including a play factor in evaluating advantage.

 

3. If that is not the right approach, should the director be looking at what might have happened had the correct explanation been given? Clearly there are numerous possibilities, most non-game contracts (or defending) giving NS a plus score and game contracts giving them a minus score. The claim that NS would have played a part score does not seem to hold up too well given that N bid game despite "knowing" the hand appeared to be a ghastly misfit.

 

Are there any other factors to take into account, and what should the correct ruling be please?

 

Thanks.

 

Battermad.

[battermad]

Sorry, I've just realised that the bidding I put into the hand diagram has not appeared in the message! After South bid 2♦, W passed and North's 3NT ended the auction.

[dburn]

If North-South allege that they have been damaged by an irregularity, correct procedure is for the Director to determine why they think they have been damaged and to allow redress if the damage was in whole or in part due to the irregularity.

 

That is: if North-South allege that absent the irregularity (MI from West as to the nature of the 1NT overcall) North-South would have played in a club part score, they must show plausibly how they might have achieved such a result. What would South have done over an overcall that showed round or pointed suits? What would North have done over South's action? And so on, and so forth.

 

If, for example, South says "I would have bid 2♠ to show about 4-7 points with spades", and North says "then I would have bid 3♣, natural and non-forcing", and South says "then I would have passed", and if the Director believes all of this (at first sight it is plausible but see below), then he should adjust to 3♣ by North making nine or ten tricks.

 

If they allege that they would instead have defended 2♦ - well, again the Director is in duty bound to listen to how they might have conducted the auction in order to achieve this, but I must say that any explanation would strike me as a lorry full of shoemakers. North opens a strong club, and South passes the opponents out in two diamonds? I hae, as they say north of the border, me doots. Whereas the benefit of doubt should be given to the non-offending side, they should not be presumed to operate with 20-20 hindsight.

 

The above follows the principle set out in Law 21B3 that if a misinformed player obtains a worse result than he would have done had he been correctly informed, the score should be adjusted in his favour. It does not really matter how good or how bad a contract 3NT was - if North-South would have reached a more profitable contract with the right explanation of 1NT, that is where they should be deemed to play.

 

Mind you, if North bid 3NT when he thought East had the minors, who knows what he might have done had he been told that East didn't have the minors? My guess is that he'd have bid 3NT anyway once he found that South had some spades and a few points, so I would not necessarily believe the "at first sight plausible" explanation outlined above. It is open to a Director to draw inferences from the actual auction that the proposed auction by the pair claiming damage would not actually have happened.

 

Finally, this is an impressive post from a Director who has just completed the Club Directors course, and I congratulate the original poster who will, I am sure, acquit himself nobly once he or she is given some actual directing to do. At any rate, I hope so.

[VixTD]

The above follows the principle set out in Law 21B3 that if a misinformed player obtains a worse result than he would have done had he been correctly informed, the score should be adjusted in his favour. It does not really matter how good or how bad a contract 3NT was - if North-South would have reached a more profitable contract with the right explanation of 1NT, that is where they should be deemed to play.

The only thing I would add to this is that they do not have to be "deemed to play" in any one particular contract, with any one particular result. It would probably be appropriate to adjust the score to various percentages of a number of results, including (among others) 3NT making and 3NT failing by North.

[battermad]

Many thanks for the answers, and for dburn's very kind words. What actually happened? Well, the director made a split ruling, changing the score to 50% 3NT -3 and 50% 4c +1, which made a small imp score difference in favour of the non-offending side. By the way, although Deep Finesse stated NS can make 11 tricks in clubs (the line has evaded me so far - no doubt my own poor analysis), it seems to me that unless you impose some sort of manic defence on E. all roads lead to 10 tricks.

 

On appeal, the result was changed to 40% 3NT -3 and 60% 2d -1 (undoubled) by W. This makes no difference to the score.

 

I may be very inexperienced in directing, but that seemed to me at the time (and still does) a very generous result for NS. At the appeal, they came up with all sorts of nit-picking (in my,opinion) arguments as to why they would not have bid game, including things like "we tend not to bid 23 point 3NT's" as if, Animal Farm like, all 23 point hands are the same, and in direct contradiction to their actual auction. When asked why he bid 3NT on the actual auction, N just shrugged and gave no explanation.

 

Oh well , we live and (hopefully) learn.

 

Battermad

[Coelacanth]

By the way, although Deep Finesse stated NS can make 11 tricks in clubs (the line has evaded me so far - no doubt my own poor analysis), it seems to me that unless you impose some sort of manic defence on E. all roads lead to 10 tricks.

 

Say E leads a ♠. N wins the ♠A in dummy and continues a small ♠, ruffing W's king. North now exits with the ♦K or ♦J. E wins and shifts to a trump. N plays low from dummy and wins cheaply in hand and trumps a ♦. Now the ♠Q is led from dummy; if W discards N discards a ♦, and if W trumps south overtrumps and trumps a ♦ back to dummy. Now another spade is (over)trumped to hand and N runs all the ♣. In the 3 card ending N will hold ♥AQ ♦K and E must come down to either ♥KT ♦A or ♥K ♦AT. Either way East makes only one more trick.

 

If, alternately, E leads a trump on opening lead (a red card gives away a trick directly) declarer can play a spade himself at trick 2.

[bluejak]

When a TD gives a weighted score he tends to lean slightly in favour of the non-offending side as a matter of principle. So if he believes two scores are pretty much equally likely it is normal to give 55% or even 60% of the one that gives the non-offenders the better score. It is also normal to give a weighted score unless it is very clear exactly what would have happened without the infraction.

 

For the reasons David Burn says I prefer the TD's ruling to the AC's: I do not really believe N/S will ever allow 2♦ to be played.

 

I think the ruling seems generous to N/S but there will always be differences over bridge judgement. When you direct, worry about getting the rules [Laws & Regulations] right for the particular case, and always consult others over any bridge judgement. It matters a lot less if people disagree with your judgement than if you get the rules wrong.

 

And finally, a matter of nomenclature: the ruling was 'weighted' not 'split'. Weighted means different scores with percentages adding up to 100%. Split means giving a different score to each side - not appropriate in this case. It is not unknown to give a split and weighted ruling.