Misinformation

[Cascade]

An interesting (at least to me) situation occurred tonight.

 

The hand is irrelevant so I will not include it.

 

(1NT) Dbl (2♠*) 3♥

(Pass) ?

 

* 2♠ was alerted as a range inquiry

 

I was the doubler and I suspected that 2♠ was intended as natural.

 

Under what circumstances would I be entitled to redress.

 

1. I bid 3NT and they run the spade suit

 

2a. I don't bid 3NT and we could have made 3NT.

 

2b. Like 2a but with the added problem that I do not have a spade stopper and now because of the misinformation I cannot cue-bid to ask for a stopper.

[nige1]

An interesting (at least to me) situation occurred tonight.

The hand is irrelevant so I will not include it.

(1NT) Dbl (2♠*) 3♥

(Pass) ?

* 2♠ was alerted as a range inquiry

I was the doubler and I suspected that 2♠ was intended as natural.

Under what circumstances would I be entitled to redress.

1. I bid 3NT and they run the spade suit

2a. I don't bid 3NT and we could have made 3NT.

2b. Like 2a but with the added problem that I do not have a spade stopper and now because of the misinformation I cannot cue-bid to ask for a stopper.

The insane "wild and gambling" regulation means that some directors are likely to damn you, either way. if you are right in your surmise, try 3N, but fail then directors will disagree as to whether you should be entitled to any redress. It is unjust that the (putative) victim of an infraction should be put in an impossible position. This is especially frustrating, if, because of the law, you fail to bid 3N, only to find that, although it is a poor contract, you would expect to make it, in practice (i.e. 3N really is a gamble but a gamble that you would have been prepared to risk, given correct information).

[awm]

Aren't the usual questions here:

 

(1) If their agreement is that 2♠ was range inquiry, then you get no recourse and the table result will stand, even if the 2♠ bidder "misbid."

(2) If their agreement is that 2♠ was natural, or they seem to have no agreement but the 2♠ bidder intended it as natural, then:

---> If you bid 3NT, it fails, and you can make a convincing case that you would not have bid 3NT if 2♠ was explained as natural (i.e. you have no spade stopper, or perhaps a very tenuous spade stopper) then your result will be adjusted.

---> If you don't bid 3NT, it would've made, and you can make a convincing case that you would've bid 3NT if 2♠ was explained as natural (i.e. perhaps you have a very minimum hand and chickened out because of the range ask) then your result will be adjusted.. however I think this is less likely than the opposite situation.

---> If you make a ridiculous bid (like bidding 3NT when you have four-card support for hearts, or blasting 6♥ for no reason) then you will keep your table result, although it is conceivable that the opponents' result will be adjusted.

 

I think when you actually ask about a bid and receive an explanation, you basically have to bid as if that explanation were correct. If you assume their explanation was "wrong" and bid accordingly then you're on your own as far as directors go.

[bluejak]

It is a delicate point, but if you suspect MI the EBU recommendation is always to call the TD immediately. Of course there are UI problems with this, but in a case like this the TD will investigate the agreement before you make your call.

[ggwhiz]

It is a delicate point, but if you suspect MI the EBU recommendation is always to call the TD immediately. Of course there are UI problems with this, but in a case like this the TD will investigate the agreement before you make your call.

 

The timing of the call in this scenario has nightmare (for the Director) written all over it.

 

From massive UI addressing bidding OR defense that might become AI due to subsequent bidding to the poor Director telling you "The explanation is correct, guess well or get fixed."

 

No solutions here other than to ask the Director to sit in for the player most at risk of screwing up to finish the hand. Might need a kibitzer or two as well.

 

I would probably examine their convention card, take my best shot and call the Director at the end of the auction unless the 2 spade bidder flinched upon the alert.

 

I'm not surprised if this route is against policy but would like to limit the UI issues.

[Cascade]

It is a delicate point, but if you suspect MI the EBU recommendation is always to call the TD immediately. Of course there are UI problems with this, but in a case like this the TD will investigate the agreement before you make your call.

 

Interesting solution. I am unaware of a similar regulation in any place I have played but maybe there are similar regulations.

 

Where do I find this?

[WellSpyder]

It is a delicate point, but if you suspect MI the EBU recommendation is always to call the TD immediately. Of course there are UI problems with this, but in a case like this the TD will investigate the agreement before you make your call.

I'm not surprised it is a delicate point. It is all very well if the opponent giving the explanation says "I'm not sure, but I think it shows...." Then they will probably be relieved if you call the TD who can ask their partner while they are away from the table.

 

But if the opponent gives no sign of uncertainty but nevertheless you call the TD on the basis that you suspect MI then most opponents are only human and are likely to resent the implication that you don't believe/trust them....

[Phil]

I'm surprised the EU's recommendation is the call the director. As a director, I feel like I am in an awkward position when a player calls me over because he 'suspects' UI. It delays the game, and there isn't anything I can do about it until the hand is played (or dummy is revealed).

 

I'm always sympathetic to the non-offenders (as I'm required to be), so other than taking notes or start thinking about adjustments, what else can I do?

 

AWM's #1 is the trickiest for me, but it seems if they announce 2♠ as a range inquiry, and they proceed to run the spade suit against my 3N, I better see some proof that their agreement is that 2♠ is indeed a range ask in competition, because it seems like a very unusual agreement to play this.

[Cascade]

Aren't the usual questions here:

 

(1) If their agreement is that 2♠ was range inquiry, then you get no recourse and the table result will stand, even if the 2♠ bidder "misbid."

(2) If their agreement is that 2♠ was natural, or they seem to have no agreement but the 2♠ bidder intended it as natural, then:

---> If you bid 3NT, it fails, and you can make a convincing case that you would not have bid 3NT if 2♠ was explained as natural (i.e. you have no spade stopper, or perhaps a very tenuous spade stopper) then your result will be adjusted.

---> If you don't bid 3NT, it would've made, and you can make a convincing case that you would've bid 3NT if 2♠ was explained as natural (i.e. perhaps you have a very minimum hand and chickened out because of the range ask) then your result will be adjusted.. however I think this is less likely than the opposite situation.

---> If you make a ridiculous bid (like bidding 3NT when you have four-card support for hearts, or blasting 6♥ for no reason) then you will keep your table result, although it is conceivable that the opponents' result will be adjusted.

 

I think when you actually ask about a bid and receive an explanation, you basically have to bid as if that explanation were correct. If you assume their explanation was "wrong" and bid accordingly then you're on your own as far as directors go.

 

Yes those are the questions.

 

Maybe I should have written "assume there is MI".

 

At the table it appeared the opponents had not discussed the bid and the 1NT opener assumed system ON while her partner assumed natural after interference. The actual words used were "natural after interference" by responder and "I don't consider double interference" by opener.

 

The actual hand I had a running minor with two small spades. So my problems were two fold

 

1. If 2♠ really was a range probe then maybe we didnt have the values for 3NT - we had no agreement about Lebensohl or the like in this sort of auction and i was a point or two light for my Double and

 

2. I had no way to enquire whether partner had a spade stopper

 

It was a social Christmas session with a playing director so I did not even bother to call the director although the result was particularly bad for us. The field played in 3♣ making an overtrick. 3NT was cold - not one single pair had bid it in a 13 table movement after about 10 rounds. Partner failed in 3♥.

[WellSpyder]

I'm surprised the EU's recommendation is the call the director. As a director, I feel like I am in an awkward position when a player calls me over because he 'suspects' UI.

Except in this case we are talking about suspecting MI not UI....

[Phil]

 

 

The actual hand I had a running minor with two small spades. So my problems were two fold

 

 

And you are doubling a weak NT because...?

[jallerton]

I'm not surprised it is a delicate point. It is all very well if the opponent giving the explanation says "I'm not sure, but I think it shows...." Then they will probably be relieved if you call the TD who can ask their partner while they are away from the table.

 

But if the opponent gives no sign of uncertainty but nevertheless you call the TD on the basis that you suspect MI then most opponents are only human and are likely to resent the implication that you don't believe/trust them....

 

Yes, indeed. In such situations, it would seems better to ask a follow-up question. For example, here when you are told that 2♠ is a range enquiry in response to the double, you could ask "Does that still apply even after the double?" In England, we have some guidance from the EBU Orange Book.

 

3 A 3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

 

So we could confirm our strong suspicion and avoid the MI by asking my suggested follow-up question, but would that count as "waking the opposition up"? If so, then Bluejak's suggestion of calling the TD might also wake the opposition up, so maybe we can get away without doing that either.

[mgoetze]

So we could confirm our strong suspicion and avoid the MI by asking my suggested follow-up question, but would that count as "waking the opposition up"? If so, then Bluejak's suggestion of calling the TD might also wake the opposition up, so maybe we can get away without doing that either.

 

Except that you aren't supposed to ask questions except when it is your turn to call, and partner may already have made a bid which was different under the originally described meaning, and then you are totally deprived of any systematic agreements.

 

If you want to encourage this kind of "are you really sure?" question then you need to provide some remedies for the players when the question does have an effect...

[Phil]

Except in this case we are talking about suspecting MI not UI....

 

My weekly typo (sorry). I meant MI.

 

The players around here are getting better at reserving their rights for UI. I still think calling the director for suspected MI is opening a can o' worms.

[Phil]

Except that you aren't supposed to ask questions except when it is your turn to call, and partner may already have made a bid which was different under the originally described meaning, and then you are totally deprived of any systematic agreements.

 

I would think partner has the same burden to ask. If partner bids before the alert comes, or after partner senses the same ambivalence, surely partner has the opportunity to change their call under L.21.

[bluejak]

The problems with the EBU approach have been pointed out well here. But think of the benefits: once the TD has established the situation you know the agreements so MI problems will normally disappear.

[dburn]

The problems with the EBU approach have been pointed out well here. But think of the benefits: once the TD has established the situation you know the agreements so MI problems will normally disappear.

If you have a solid minor and a spade stop, you bid 3NT without asking any questions. If on the other hand you have a solid minor without a spade stop, you ask a question and then bid 3NT. Partner will of course remove this without a spade stop of his own, and this will be all right because it was the opponents' infraction that caused you to be in this position in the first place (the "gnasher defence").

 

Should you fail to adopt this obvious solution, you will be held as an experienced player to have failed to protect yourself adequately against potential misinformation. You may object that the solution involves cheating, and you would be right, but I cannot help that. Certain regulations, in particular the EBU regulations regarding questions, are sufficiently ridiculous that the only way to defend against them is openly to defy them.