Case "it seemed rational at the table!"

[lamford]

I agree both sides were given different explanations and hence there was definitely MI. I don't see why the TD assumes MI "particularly from South to West". South actually had both minors, yet he explained his bid as potentially spades and a minor. I can't see any reason to do that unless he genuinely believed that was their agreement, and hence I can't see any reason to rule one explanation is right rather than the other. Which obviously makes this a rather difficult ruling.

As I stated, the first task of the TD would be to obtain evidence which was right. I would expect it would be difficult to find that evidence, or we would have been told in the OP that any two suits was the established method. The TD will decide on the balance of probabilities (Law 85A1). Let us say that he concurs with several posters on here that "usually minors" is the correct explanation. Now West was not told that, so he would not say that he would doubled if he had known that - it is only after the TD establishes the correct method that he would even think about it. If, as I think likely, the TD establishes that "usually minors" or something along those lines is the correct method, he then decides what would occur if West had the correct information. Do you not think double is the normal action then on the West hand?

[lamford]

Sometimes players don't realise exactly how they've been damaged <snip>

I agree completely, so I presume it is your belief that if it does not occur to them, they are denied redress. My understanding was that once MI was established, the TD decides on what action would have been taken with the correct information, by polling if necessary. Am I mistaken on this?

[bluejak]

There is no fixed rule. Suffice it to say, the better the player, the less the TD believes he should point out possible damage to him.

[lamford]

There is no fixed rule. Suffice it to say, the better the player, the less the TD believes he should point out possible damage to him.

And I presume that the TD always tells the potentially damaged player when the former has established what the actual agreement is and the latter can then decide whether they would have done anything different.

[dburn]

If I were the kind of person who opened 4♥ with the East cards, then I don't see why I shouldn't be the kind of person who bids 5♦ with the East cards having been told that 4NT was minors. Indeed, it might strike me as quite a clever call - maybe for once partner really will have ♠KQxxx and a singleton heart. Maybe he won't, and I'll go for another 1400, but I am probably used to that by now.

 

But any TD (or anyone else) who thinks that 5♦ was "a serious error, wild or gambling action" in the context of what East already did is... well, he has made a serious error, a wild and gambling misjudgement. To adjust on that basis is yet another decision that is not even wrong.

[dburn]

I am struggling to work out what the point of these references to asking jallerton to fill out the card is. As far as I am aware, Jallerton has never filled out a card in anything other than his handwriting, which would struggle to get down to 9 points.

It doesn't have to. He would never open the bidding with fewer than 10 points.

[lamford]

South actually had both minors, yet he explained his bid as potentially spades and a minor. I can't see any reason to do that unless he genuinely believed that was their agreement.

I agree. It would be unheard of. But he might have made a mistake.

[Mashadar]

I disagree about the "wild or gambling" aspect.

 

With such wild distribution, any action - pass, bid, even double - could win or lose a dozen IMPs. For me, it is by no means clear which action has the best chances to be successful; therefore, I can't judge any of these actions as wild or gambling. The fact that I wouldn't bid that way doesn't change that.