More UI and LA

[schulken]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk9haq9dat863ck53&w=s765h5dkqj542cq72&n=sat2hj76d97cjt986&e=sqj843hkt8432dca4&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1n2c2spp3dppdppp]399|300|1NT announced as 15-17. 2C overcall alerted as a single suiter.[/hv]

 

After N's 2♠ response, E asked S what the bid was. S told him he thought it was natural.

 

After the hand was played with W off 3 for -500, N called me and told his opponents that their agreement was systems on after an overcall and his bid was a transfer to 3♣.

 

The three directors noodled on this a while, committee'd it by a top-level player, and I have since inquired of two other top-level players. If I had gotten consistent answers, I wouldn't be posting here. Among the responses are adjusted score for N/S of 3♣ making 3 (+110), 3♠ by E/W off 2 (+100 for N/S), and no adjustment. At the game, we settled on 3♠ off 2. Since this was a team game, there is no difference in the scoring between 3♣ by N/S making 3 and 3♠ by E/W off 2, but 9 IMPs when compared to 3♦X by E off 3.

 

As always, I enjoy picking the brains of this august group and eagerly await your thoughts.

[Trinidad]

This is not a difficult case. But it is about misinformation (MI) rather than UI or LA.

 

If West would have known that 2♠ showed clubs, would he have bid 3♦? Or would he have let the vulnerable NS play 2♠ after what seems to be a misunderstanding?

 

I think it is clear that West would have passed and the score should be adjusted to 2♠ by North. Analyzing the possible play may be a little more difficult, but when I analyze this very quick I think this would go down 2.

 

The AS would then be -200 for NS and +200 for EW.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

I do not think it is as simple as you suggest, Rik. Rulings are given as though there was no infraction - but that does not mean the non offenders know there was a misunderstanding. So consider this: you hold the West hand: 1NT by RHO, you bid 2♣, 2♠ by LHO, alerted and described as transfer to clubs, pass, pass to you. What do you bid?

 

My first instinct is to give a weighted score. I checked the OP, but it does not give the jurisdiction, though I feel there is some evidence that it is the ACBL, in which case no weighted score [please give the jurisdiction, please, pretty please].

 

Of course, without the MI East might take some action, but it is not obvious what he will do: after all he has six hearts! If I was East my instinct would tell me I had a void in partner's suit in which case I should pass, yes?

 

The one thing that is completely certain is that there is no way that a score of 3♣ is correct: whoever suggested this really does not understand adjustments: you adjust assuming E/W know the N/S methods, but not that N/S do.

 

Another possibility is that without MI East is more likely to run from 3♦ doubled since spades becomes a likely possibility. But since he did not run to his six-card heart suit it seems unlikely, though redouble seems possible.

 

So I would rule as follows:

 

Outside the ACBL, for both sides:

 

. 20% of 3♦ doubled -3, NS +500

+ 10% of 3♠ doubled -2, NS +300

+ 70% of 2♠ -2, NS -100

 

Inside the ACBL, for both sides:

2♠ -2, NS -100

 

You may ask why I come to the same answer as Rik if I am worried about his approach. Two points: first, we do not know the jurisdiction, and he might have suggested his ruling outside the ACBL, which I consider wrong for the rulings given. Inside the ACBL, as explained I do not think it so obvious that West will pass, but the standards in Law 12C1E come to the same conclusion even if it is not certain he will.

[sailoranch]

Rulings are given as though there was no infraction - but that does not mean the non offenders know there was a misunderstanding.

 

I thought West was entitled to both the correct information about the agreement and the AI he received from South's pass on the actual auction. After all, the irregularity is the non-alert, not the misunderstanding. I think "had the irregularity not occurred" in 12C1e(i) means "had West been correctly informed," not "had South remembered their agreement and properly alerted."

 

I guess what I'm implying is the fact that South didn't alert is still AI to East-West. Maybe you can say that South is still required to correct his explanation after he passes and before West bids and adjust using some 73F Law 23 argument?

[blackshoe]

OP gives his location as Washington, D.C., and his IP address belongs to a Maryland ISP, so I think it's safe to say the jurisdiction is ACBL.

 

The legal basis for MI adjustment lies in Laws 20F6 and 21B3.

[Cascade]

There is UI.

 

West bid 3♦ after a question from east. It seems the UI did not damage NS but I don't feel that west was carefuly avoiding taking advantage of the information from the question.

[Trinidad]

I do not think it is as simple as you suggest, Rik. Rulings are given as though there was no infraction - but that does not mean the non offenders know there was a misunderstanding. So consider this: you hold the West hand: 1NT by RHO, you bid 2♣, 2♠ by LHO, alerted and described as transfer to clubs, pass, pass to you. What do you bid?

You can poll, but I think it is pretty clear cut to pass. As a rule of thumb, it is clear cut to pass it out if the opponents pass an artificial and forcing bid. This is even more true when they are vulnerable. And that is even more true at IMPs.

 

If they are extremely lucky, the opponents are in a 5(opener)-3(responder) spade fit and 2♠ is their best contract. But it is about as likely that they are in a 5-0 fit. It is also possible that they have a misunderstanding. And to top it of: They may well belong in 3NT or 5♣ (or 6♣, or 7♣). (And if they indeed have a 5-3 spade fit they might even belong in 4♠.) For West to make any call other than pass is a silly error. It can't win and it can only lose. Anybody who thinks bidding is right will probably also think that the famous Fredin double¹ was correct.

 

When I assign adjusted scores, I try to avoid weighting in results that are based on a blundering NOS.

 

Rik

 

¹ At some high level championship, BB or EC, or something like that, Peter Fredin's RHO passed his partner's 4♠ cuebid in a convoluted slam auction. Peter had something like ♠KQT9xx. He had a brain fart. Instead of passing it out, he doubled and the opponents promptly bid the cold slam. (I even think it was a grand.)

[Sjoerds]

In Dutch jurisdiction I think you should poll west's hand with the correct explanation.

There might be players that would bid 3♦ but I agree with Rik that most players will pass.

A (weighted) score then can given easily.

[Trinidad]

David is right: this case is not as easy as I thought. There is still another, unaddressed issue: What would one do with the North hand after 3♦ and 3♦X in the absence of UI?

 

South has just explained 2♠ as a transfer to clubs but passes. RHO bids 3♦. South has either psyched or he has a 15-17 5=3=3=2 hand, probably with small clubs. North has undisclosed spade support. (Remember: North can have 0-3 spades on this auction.) I think it is an LA for North to show the spade support at some point. That leads to 3♠, doubled by East, down 3 for 800 to EW.

 

Do we think that North's passes of 3♦ and 3♦X are carefully avoiding using the UI that South most likely doesn't have the five spades that he advertised?

 

Rik

[c_corgi]

... South has either psyched or he has a 15-17 5=3=3=2 hand, probably with small clubs....

 

The former seems unlikely at this vulnerability and the latter unlikely given that partner can probably have a variety of GF with primary clubs. I think the misunderstanding is exposed.

[Trinidad]

The former seems unlikely at this vulnerability and the latter unlikely given that partner can probably have a variety of GF with primary clubs. I think the misunderstanding is exposed.

If the misunderstanding is exposed to North (which I think is fair), then it seems fair to assume that it is also exposed to the NOS. What West will bid 3♦ in the knowledge that NS have a misunderstanding and that they are likely to end up playing in a "sub-Moysean fit" if he simply passes?

 

Rik

[lamford]

I cannot imagine a West, with an 8-count over a strong NT, having a second bite at the cherry with the correct information after 2S comes round to him. But then I cannot imagine what possessed this West to have a second bite at the cherry after a natural 2S came round to him. But given that his action was not SeWoG, he gets 100% of 2S-2 by North, the result that would have occurred all the time (well, all the time with a sane West) without the infraction. The second bites at the cherries are not the same. The one with correct information is extremely unlikely to have been taken and is too small to include in an adjusted score.

[c_corgi]

... But given that his action was not SeWoG, ...

 

Maybe not SeWoG, but perhaps it was itself an infraction as Cascade suggests. Is this addressed by the laws or regulations?

[lamford]

West bid 3♦ after a question from east. It seems the UI did not damage NS but I don't feel that west was carefuly avoiding taking advantage of the information from the question.

Surely the bid that is suggested by the question is Pass, not 3♦? The fact that East asked a question and passed suggested that he wanted to bid over some other meaning of 2♠ than natural. I presume double of 2♠ would be "bid your suit", or just takeout, so 3♦ is certainly not suggested by the UI.

[chrism]

Is it not credible that East, given a correct explanation of 2♠, would double? And after two passes, with partner ostensibly offering a choice between 2♠X and 3, North has a strong enough desire not to play 2♠X that he can bid 3♣ despite the UI from partner's misexplanation. That would lead to the suggested contracts of 3♣ by North or 3♠ by West.

[bluejak]

I thought West was entitled to both the correct information about the agreement and the AI he received from South's pass on the actual auction. After all, the irregularity is the non-alert, not the misunderstanding. I think "had the irregularity not occurred" in 12C1e(i) means "had West been correctly informed," not "had South remembered their agreement and properly alerted."

Sure. But that does not mean the opponents have had a misunderstanding. Players have passed forcing bids before now. Yes, West may make deductions from the pass of a forcing bid, but that does not necessarily mean a misunderstanding: it may be a deliberate pass.

 

So when deciding how to adjust, you are allowed to know that South has passed a forcing bid, but you are not allowed to use the original MI to decide why he passed a forcing bid.

[sailoranch]

So when deciding how to adjust, you are allowed to know that South has passed a forcing bid, but you are not allowed to use the original MI to decide why he passed a forcing bid.

I want to find a reasoned basis to disagree with this, because it doesn't seem to be restoring equity. At his turn, West is entitled to base his call on AI from what's happened so far and on North-South's actual understandings. Then it would be clear that they made a boo-boo so West would insta-pass, but he was deprived of the opportunity because of the MI. Perhaps it's correct, but it's certainly weird to adjust by giving West proper knowledge of the opponents' methods, but also saddling him with the (false) inference that South knows what he's doing, causing West to misjudge and blow up 30% of the time.

 

The best solution I can think of is to designate West's call based on MI as the irregularity we're adjusting for, rather than the explanation itself, but someone with more experience can tell me if this is veering into "wrong forum" territory.

[Trinidad]

The point is that there is a difference between what West is allowed to do as a player and what the TD is supposed to do when assigning an AS.

 

Suppose that South explains 2♠ as natural and passes. Now West bids 3♦. South remembers suddenly that 2♠ was a transfer to clubs. He calls the TD and explains that he has given MI. He corrects the MI. West is allowed to change his last bid. In that case West has an easy pass. He knows that the original explanation was wrong and he knows there was a misunderstanding. This is all AI for West.

 

The situation is different for the TD. He needs to assign an AS, based on a situation where the infraction did not occur, i.e. where South immediately explained 2♠ as a transfer. Despite this explanation South has decided to pass. Now the TD must figure out what West might do. That is fundamentally different.

 

Rik

[sailoranch]

The point is that there is a difference between what West is allowed to do as a player and what the TD is supposed to do when assigning an AS.

 

Suppose that South explains 2♠ as natural and passes. Now West bids 3♦. South remembers suddenly that 2♠ was a transfer to clubs. He calls the TD and explains that he has given MI. He corrects the MI. West is allowed to change his last bid. In that case West has an easy pass. He knows that the original explanation was wrong and he knows there was a misunderstanding. This is all AI for West.

 

The situation is different for the TD. He needs to assign an AS, based on a situation where the infraction did not occur, i.e. where South immediately explained 2♠ as a transfer. Despite this explanation South has decided to pass. Now the TD must figure out what West might do. That is fundamentally different.

 

Rik

 

Exactly, South failed to correct the MI before/after the 3♦ call pursuant to 20F4. Why can't we use Law 23 to adjust?

[schulken]

Thanks all for the input. I'll add some clarification and some of our deliberations, which I deliberately withheld as I would when polling other players.

 

First, this is ACBL, as some surmised. I forget due to the infrequency of my posts that there are many other jurisdictions represented. I'll try to remember to specify in the future.

 

While much of the discussion in this forum has centered on what W should do in the passout seat with the auction at 2♠ by N, we considered that E, having received an accurate explanation of transfer to ♣, may have taken advantage of the clearly artificial ♠ bid and doubled. Reasonably anticipating that W holds ♦, he expects a free bite of the apple to show an alternative place to play. E doesn't have a bad hand and should reasonably expect W to have a little more, favorable vulnerability notwithstanding. That gives E/W half the deck and N being broke. Then, the question becomes what does W do when 2♠X gets passed around to him. Expecting eight cards in the opponents' trump suit (assuming he figured that out) is certainly exhilarating and pass seems reasonable. Because of the points addressed by others, N probably pulls to 3♣, where the contract is played. We felt that N could bid ♣ without using the UI. S could have a 5-card ♠ suit, prompting him to pass, and had promised at least 2 ♣ for his opener. Since the opponents seemed eager to let him play in 2♠X, he might as well try somewhere else.

 

Several of my contacts had little sympathy for any of W's actions. Indeed, given his bidding, one might not be surprised to see him bid 3♦ even with the sequence back to him being properly alerted and followed (i.e., 2♠-(transfer to ♣)-X-3♣). As a result, they said to let the table score stand. Even with the MI from S, bidding again is bold at best.

[Trinidad]

Exactly, South failed to correct the MI before/after the 3♦ call pursuant to 20F4. Why can't we use Law 23 to adjust?

Because we are supposed to use Law 12. That means that we remove the infraction, which was the misinformation at the point in the auction where it was given.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

While much of the discussion in this forum has centered on what W should do in the passout seat with the auction at 2♠ by N, we considered that E, having received an accurate explanation of transfer to ♣, may have taken advantage of the clearly artificial ♠ bid and doubled.

That would be nice, if the double would show spades. But it only does if you have specifically agreed that it shows spades. For most pairs it would tell West to show his suit, which is exactly what East doesn't want, since he can see that West will bid diamonds.

 

Rik

[barmar]

That would be nice, if the double would show spades. But it only does if you have specifically agreed that it shows spades. For most pairs it would tell West to show his suit, which is exactly what East doesn't want, since he can see that West will bid diamonds.

I think many pairs have a default agreement that doubling an artificial bid shows something in that suit. Either 2NT or cue bidding the suit that the opponent was transfering to would be a better way to tell partner to bid his suit.

[sailoranch]

Because we are supposed to use Law 12. That means that we remove the infraction, which was the misinformation at the point in the auction where it was given.

 

Rik

If there are two irregularities, one being the misexplanation and the other being the failure to correct it, where does Law 12 say that we have to adjust for the earlier one rather than the later one?

[Trinidad]

If there are two irregularities, one being the misexplanation and the other being the failure to correct it, where does Law 12 say that we have to adjust for the earlier one rather than the later one?

The failure to correct it is not an irregularity. It only is an irregularity once the partner of the explainer doesnot correct the explanation at the appropriate time.

 

Giving misinformation is something that occurs "instantaneously". That is the infraction. It is not an ongoing, "continuous" infraction for the time that he MI hangs over the table. Maintaining the misinformation is only an infraction if you become aware that you gave misinformation and then don't correct it.

 

Rik