SEWoG ?

[jallerton]

The misinformation put North in a difficult position because the South hand was effectively unlimited. With correct information from the beginning, South's double would be limited to a hand too weak to double an unusual 2NT opening initially. Passing the double would then be less attractive.

 

I don't see why the the fact that North had a full explanation of the 2NT opening when he passed the double should necessarily prevent an adjustment after he chose to pass. The director can adjust if the misexplanation damaged the non-offending side in any way. Here it did so even if South would always pass 2NT.

 

I understand your argument, but 21B3 states: "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score." That implies that when it is not too late to change North's call, as here, he does not. If South would have bid differently, that is another matter, but North knows that South had incorrect information at the first turn, and correct information at the second, and he can use this information. That is all North is allowed.

 

The wording of Law 21B3 you quote might imply that 21B3 cannot be used when the non-offending side is damaged by the change of meanings of calls subsequent to the correction, but there is always Law 12A1. Unless of course some mystery "authorities" have issued secret guidance, known only by directors who have attended EBL TD training courses, to discourage the use of Law 12A1 in such cases.

[bluejak]

I am glad your statement wasn't what it looked like.

 

But are you claiming to a last straw here?

 

Why would I state a fact unless I considered it relevant? Usually when a player asks for a clarification of some agreement before selecting a call I consider it most likely that his selection depended upon the answer given.

It is normal to quote the facts when setting a problem.

 

It is normal to explain your reasoning.

 

If you do not explain your reasoning it is not obvious that your reasoning includes something you have not said, even if it does follow from a fact.

 

I believe that the evidence suggests that you missed this point otherwise you would have said it before Burn pointed it out.

[gnasher]

I can fully understand why Gnasher might have been persuaded otherwise. After all, it is highly unusual for you to not reiterate your opinion, on any thread.

 

Excuse me, but it wasn't me who thought Paul's views might be other than what he'd said they were. I always believe that Paul means what he says.

 

All I did was quote some fairly dismissive comments, commenting that they seemed fairly dismissive. Later I commented that none of the authors of these comments had disagreed that they've been intended as dismissive. Is that clear?

[lamford]

The wording of Law 21B3 you quote might imply that 21B3 cannot be used when the non-offending side is damaged by the change of meanings of calls subsequent to the correction, but there is always Law 12A1. Unless of course some mystery "authorities" have issued secret guidance, known only by directors who have attended EBL TD training courses, to discourage the use of Law 12A1 in such cases.

I share your concern that there may always be minutes of meetings not readily available that also need to be consulted. Here I think that 12B2 and 84B (or even 84A) should also be considered. They suggest that the TD cannot decide, when it is not too late to change the call, that 21B3 does not provide sufficient rectification. But I could be wrong. I think that 12A1 is for an infraction that is not covered at all.

[AlexJonson]

So, is the conclusion 'no Sewog' and we completely agree with Pran's decision?

 

This may be obvious to you all, but I thought I would just say it.

[Finch]

So, is the conclusion 'no Sewog' and we completely agree with Pran's decision?

 

This may be obvious to you all, but I thought I would just say it.

 

Yes and no.

 

Yes, the conclusion is 'no Se(utti)wog'

 

No, I not sure anyone agrees with Pran's decision, because no-one can think of an auction without MI which ends in 3H undoubled by North.

[pran]

So, is the conclusion 'no Sewog' and we completely agree with Pran's decision?

 

This may be obvious to you all, but I thought I would just say it.

Thank you.

 

And in case anybody find this interesting: My ruling was accepted by both sides without any grumble.

[dburn]

Yes and no.

 

Yes, the conclusion is 'no Se(utti)wog'

 

No, I [am] not sure anyone agrees with Pran's decision, because no-one can think of an auction without MI which ends in 3H undoubled by North.

I can think of one, and it was the one pran thought of: 2NT-double-pass(?)-3♥-all pass.

 

If one accepts that this would have been the auction had everyone been both honest and compos mentis, it might very well have happened (assuming that West's pass in an untainted auction was no more than "equal length in the minors").

 

But campboy has (quite correctly) introduced a new and important question: what is West supposed to do? After all, he was the fellow who caused the problem in the first place by explaining 2NT as natural. Does pran suggest that the information that 2NT was not natural is AI to West before the Director had been called? after the Director had been called? neither of the above?

 

Again: why did West bid 3♣ over 2NT? This might be the standard method in Norway when responding to a natural 2NT with 4-5 in the majors, but did anyone ask him? If not, why not?

 

This whole thing is a shambles, but one thing is clear: the ruling was not in any way as straightforward as pran makes it out to be. I might agree with his decision were there any evidence at all that he had extracted the necessary information from West, but there is not.

 

The most charitable interpretation I can put on the case was that West knew what 2NT actually meant, but had somehow become confused when he handed out his explanation (maybe to him, it was "normal" or "natural" that a 2NT opening showed both minors - maybe this was also "normal" to South, who did after all ask what 2NT meant). But this interpretation should not be assumed by a Director, nor should a Director rule on that basis. Once more, Sven: did you find out why West bid three clubs?

[pran]

I can think of one, and it was the one pran thought of: 2NT-double-pass(?)-3♥-all pass.

 

If one accepts that this would have been the auction had everyone been both honest and compos mentis, it might very well have happened (assuming that West's pass in an untainted auction was no more than "equal length in the minors").

 

But campboy has (quite correctly) introduced a new and important question: what is West supposed to do? After all, he was the fellow who caused the problem in the first place by explaining 2NT as natural. Does pran suggest that the information that 2NT was not natural is AI to West before the Director had been called? after the Director had been called? neither of the above?

 

Again: why did West bid 3♣ over 2NT? This might be the standard method in Norway when responding to a natural 2NT with 4-5 in the majors, but did anyone ask him? If not, why not?

 

This whole thing is a shambles, but one thing is clear: the ruling was not in any way as straightforward as pran makes it out to be. I might agree with his decision were there any evidence at all that he had extracted the necessary information from West, but there is not.

 

The most charitable interpretation I can put on the case was that West knew what 2NT actually meant, but had somehow become confused when he handed out his explanation (maybe to him, it was "normal" or "natural" that a 2NT opening showed both minors - maybe this was also "normal" to South, who did after all ask what 2NT meant). But this interpretation should not be assumed by a Director, nor should a Director rule on that basis. Once more, Sven: did you find out why West bid three clubs?

I didn't ask specifically because:

Over a 20-21 2NT opening (pass) 3♣ is obvious in order to find a major suit fit. (With transfers West will normally first bid 3♦ and then after the expected 3♥ response bid 3♠ to show 4-5 in majors and strength for game.)

Over a weak 5-5 in minors 2NT opening (pass) 3♣ is obvious with no preference for either minor suit.

 

Had no irregularity taken place then West would have known that 2NT was weak with both minors, and after an intervening double he has every reason to pass because of no fit and the danger of a disaster if he bids anything.

 

Therefore I ruled as if the auction had been 2NT - X - pass - 3♥ - AP

[campboy]

Had no irregularity taken place then West would have known that 2NT was weak with both minors, and after an intervening double he has every reason to pass because of no fit and the danger of a disaster if he bids anything.

This is not how we rule in MI cases. We rule according to what would have happened if NOS were correctly informed, but that the player who had forgot the system continued to be unaware of the correct meaning (until it became obvious from the auction), since forgetting is not itself an irregularity.

 

What does double of 2NT show? If, as some have suggested, it shows a balanced hand of roughly those values then South will certainly double -- but I see no reason why North will bid over it, since he cannot be sure of a heart fit but 2NT should be easy to defeat as he has diamonds stopped. Conversely, if it shows enough in the majors for North to expect to find a fit then I don't think it describes South's hand very well.

[lamford]

I didn't ask specifically because:

Over a 20-21 2NT opening (pass) 3♣ is obvious in order to find a major suit fit. (With transfers West will normally first bid 3♦ and then after the expected 3♥ response bid 3♠ to show 4-5 in majors and strength for game.)

Given that you established that the system was that 2NT was 5-5 in the minors, they clearly would not be playing transfers over that. However, I assume you established that they had methods to show a balanced hand of 20+, and whether or not they were playing transfers over that.

 

And were you of the opinion that West knew what 2NT was, but misexplained it when asked, for reasons best known to himself? It does seem odd not to ask West why he bid 3C.

[bluejak]

I didn't ask specifically because:

Over a 20-21 2NT opening (pass) 3♣ is obvious in order to find a major suit fit. (With transfers West will normally first bid 3♦ and then after the expected 3♥ response bid 3♠ to show 4-5 in majors and strength for game.)

It is obvious? Maybe to you and your regular partner, but to this pair?

 

You then go on, somewhat confusingly, to tell us why it is not obvious at all. Or are you saying this pair does not play transfers? Did you ask? Do pairs in Norway normally play 2NT without transfers?

[pran]

I didn't ask specifically because:

Over a 20-21 2NT opening (pass) 3♣ is obvious in order to find a major suit fit. (With transfers West will normally first bid 3♦ and then after the expected 3♥ response bid 3♠ to show 4-5 in majors and strength for game.)

It is obvious? Maybe to you and your regular partner, but to this pair?

 

You then go on, somewhat confusingly, to tell us why it is not obvious at all. Or are you saying this pair does not play transfers? Did you ask? Do pairs in Norway normally play 2NT without transfers?

I don't know of anybody, not even beginners, who don't use some sort of a search for possible 4-4 major fits after a strong 2NT opening bid. And I have seen many players using some sort of Stayman rather than transfers also with 5-4 or even 5-5 in majors, but the question of whether this pair was one of them is IMHO completely irrelevant (unless I intend to accuse them of cheating). So I still cannot see why asking West specifically about his 3♣ bid should be of any interest.

[Finch]

The reason the 3C response was brought up is as campboy has explained.

 

If West believed East had a strong balanced hand, then any auction ending in 3H undoubled is impossible.

If West had a slip-of-the-brain when explaining, or suddenly wasn't sure after being asked then he might have a rethink on this (putative) 2NT x auction.

 

The idea is that if 3C was the normal way of looking for a major suit fit, then the first of these is the case.

If he says 'I was suddenly uncertain what we played so bid 3C as a sort of hedge' that's different. Unfortunately it doesn't actually help us, because he could equally well have bid 3D as a 'hedge'

[pran]

The reason the 3C response was brought up is as campboy has explained.

 

If West believed East had a strong balanced hand, then any auction ending in 3H undoubled is impossible.

If West had a slip-of-the-brain when explaining, or suddenly wasn't sure after being asked then he might have a rethink on this (putative) 2NT x auction.

 

The idea is that if 3C was the normal way of looking for a major suit fit, then the first of these is the case.

If he says 'I was suddenly uncertain what we played so bid 3C as a sort of hedge' that's different. Unfortunately it doesn't actually help us, because he could equally well have bid 3D as a 'hedge'

It seems to me that we have a completely different understanding on how to rule MI cases?

 

My approach is this: What would be the likely outcome if there had been no MI, no misunderstanding, i.e. no irregularity at all?

 

Then the 2NT opening bid would have been understood, alerted and explained by West as a weak opening with (at least) 5-5 in minors.

South would have doubled.

West would have passed.

North would have bid 3♥.

and all would have passed.

Result two down.

 

Of course I cannot be sure this is what would happen, it is my judgement from facts and probabilities as I see them. But it is the foundation on which I must rule whether there was any damage - which I found there was, and on which basis I must rule rectification.

 

My judgement could of course have been disputed and appealed, it was not. To me that was the end of story, except for the possibility that I should have considered the extra damage from the 3♣ bid being doubled rather than just passed possibly SEWoG and not a (reasonable) consequence of the irregularity.

 

I ruled that it was not SEWoG and feel that I have the majority here agree with this part of my ruling.

[campboy]

It seems to me that we have a completely different understanding on how to rule MI cases?

 

My approach is this: What would be the likely outcome if there had been no MI, no misunderstanding, i.e. no irregularity at all?

That approach is not correct, because the misunderstanding is not an irregularity. The only irregularity is the MI; you should therefore rule based on what might have happened if the correct explanation was provided to North and South, but not to West.

[pran]

That approach is not correct, because the misunderstanding is not an irregularity. The only irregularity is the MI; you should therefore rule based on what might have happened if the correct explanation was provided to North and South, but not to West.

The irregularities include discrepancies between actions taken because of the misunderstanding and actions taken in spite of the misunderstanding (including actions that would have been taken had there been no misunderstanding). One of the actions taken because of the misunderstanding is the infraction of Law 20F by giving incorrect information to opponents.

[Finch]

It seems to me that we have a completely different understanding on how to rule MI cases?

 

My approach is this: What would be the likely outcome if there had been no MI, no misunderstanding, i.e. no irregularity at all?

 

 

This is just wrong.*

 

Here is a nice clear example for you.

 

East opens 1NT, which is systemically 12-14. West announces it as 15-17. West bids 3NT on a nice 9-count. Their agreement is clearly that they play weak NT, West just had a temporary aberration.

NS misdefend, and the contract makes. If NS had known that opener had at most a 14-count, they would have defended differently and the contract would have been one off.

 

In Sven-world, you say "what.. if there had been no MI, no misunderstanding i.e. no irregularity at all?"; 1NT would have been passed out and made 8 tricks, so you adjust to EW +120

In rest-of-the-world we adjust to 3NT-1.

 

*sometimes it's useful to consider that question but only when deciding if there has been damage from MI and/or use of UI

[gordontd]

My approach is this: What would be the likely outcome if there had been no MI, no misunderstanding, i.e. no irregularity at all?

No, you are not there to protect the offending side from its own errors.

[dburn]

South opens 1NT, and North announces "15-17". West has enough to double a weak no trump, but his double of a strong no trump is not for penalty so he passes, as do North and East. The cards lie poorly for declarer and the defence is accurate, so the contract is down two.

 

In fact, North-South play a weak no trump at this vulnerability, so the Director is summoned.

 

"If I'd been correctly informed, I'd have doubled" says West. "So you would", says the Director, and adjusts the score from EW+100 (a bottom) to EW+300 (a top).

 

"Wait a minute", says North. "If I'd known it was a weak no trump, I'd have used our patent rescue manoeuvre when West doubled, and we'd have reached two clubs which is down only one even on double-dummy defence."

 

"Irrelevant", says the Director. "You had a balanced six points; you'd have passed a strong no trump doubled, not tried to run to what might be a 4-3 fit. You're not allowed to tell them it was a strong no trump and then bid as if it was a weak no trump. But they're allowed to know what you actually play."

 

You are the Appeals Committee. Do you:

 

uphold the Director's ruling? (as campboy and I would); or

adjust the score to EW +140 in two hearts, the best they could achieve if North ran from 1NT doubled? (as, presumably, pran would).

[bluejak]

Much as I hate to agree with Burn ... :lol:

 

Sadly, I feel I have to, since he is obviously correct. :(

[pran]

This is just wrong.*

 

Here is a nice clear example for you.

 

East opens 1NT, which is systemically 12-14. West announces it as 15-17. West bids 3NT on a nice 9-count. Their agreement is clearly that they play weak NT, West just had a temporary aberration.

NS misdefend, and the contract makes. If NS had known that opener had at most a 14-count, they would have defended differently and the contract would have been one off.

 

In Sven-world, you say "what.. if there had been no MI, no misunderstanding i.e. no irregularity at all?"; 1NT would have been passed out and made 8 tricks, so you adjust to EW +120

In rest-of-the-world we adjust to 3NT-1.

 

*sometimes it's useful to consider that question but only when deciding if there has been damage from MI and/or use of UI

If there had been no misunderstanding and no MI then I shall accept that North/South would have defended differently provided their statement to this effect has any foundation from what they see during the play. But it is not my duty to protect OS from their own failures so I would upheld the 3NT contract and adjust to 3NT down one.

 

The only exception from this ruling is if the misdefence was a serious error under the circumstances known to North/South.

[pran]

South opens 1NT, and North announces "15-17". West has enough to double a weak no trump, but his double of a strong no trump is not for penalty so he passes, as do North and East. The cards lie poorly for declarer and the defence is accurate, so the contract is down two.

 

In fact, North-South play a weak no trump at this vulnerability, so the Director is summoned.

 

"If I'd been correctly informed, I'd have doubled" says West. "So you would", says the Director, and adjusts the score from EW+100 (a bottom) to EW+300 (a top).

 

"Wait a minute", says North. "If I'd known it was a weak no trump, I'd have used our patent rescue manoeuvre when West doubled, and we'd have reached two clubs which is down only one even on double-dummy defence."

 

"Irrelevant", says the Director. "You had a balanced six points; you'd have passed a strong no trump doubled, not tried to run to what might be a 4-3 fit. You're not allowed to tell them it was a strong no trump and then bid as if it was a weak no trump. But they're allowed to know what you actually play."

 

You are the Appeals Committee. Do you:

 

uphold the Director's ruling? (as campboy and I would); or

adjust the score to EW +140 in two hearts, the best they could achieve if North ran from 1NT doubled? (as, presumably, pran would).

This is a matter of judgement, and I noticed that bluejak wrote: Sadly, I feel I have to, since he is obviously correct. (My enhancement)

 

My experience is that judgement rulings hardly ever are obvious, in particular never when they next go to appeal, that is one of the reasons we have the appeals institution.

 

If North/South can show that the rescue escape to 2♣ from a doubled (weak) 1NT opening bid is more or less automatic I would vote for an adjustment to 140, otherwise I would vote for the 300 assigned by TD in the first place.

[dburn]

Well, let us try as far as possible to remove judgement from the equation.

 

An uncontested relay auction concludes: South 4♥; North 5♣; South 7♦; all pass.

 

West, on lead, asks several questions and is inter alia told: (correctly) that South has shown five diamonds and North four; (correctly) that 4♥ was keycard Blackwood with diamonds agreed; and (incorrectly) that 5♣ showed two key cards and the queen of diamonds (the actual agreement is "two key cards without the queen of diamonds").

 

West, who has three unguarded queens and a singleton trump, leads a diamond in the belief that this will be safer than any alternative - it cannot pick up his partner's queen, because his partner cannot have it.

 

As it happens, West could have led from any of his queens without affecting the result at all. Assuming that South did not pick up East's ♦Q105, which he would not do unaided, the contract would fail. Instead it makes, so the Director is summoned.

 

"If I'd been correctly informed, I would not have led a trump" says West. "No, you wouldn't", says the Director, and adjusts the score from EW-2140 (a bottom) to EW+100 (a top).

 

"Wait a minute", says South. "If I'd known partner didn't have the queen of diamonds, I'd have stopped in six, and I'd have made that whatever West led."

 

"Irrelevant", says the Director. "You must bear the consequences of your own failure to remember the system; but I must adjust the score on the basis that West made his opening lead with correct information."

 

You are the Appeals Committee. Do you:

 

uphold the Director's ruling? (as campboy, bluejak, gordontd, FrancesHinden and I would); or

adjust the score to EW-1370 in six diamonds, the result they would have obtained if North-South knew the system (as, presumably, pran would).

 

To see that the latter position is wrong, consider that if you believe it correct, you would also adjust the score to EW-1390 in six diamonds if the trumps had in fact divided 2-2. East-West could claim, justifiably according to pran, that this is the result they would have obtained "without the misinformation".

[AlexJonson]

So we object to 3H-2 because we want 2NT redoubled -2(?).