Misinformation

[Xiaolongnu]

The player's perspective.

 

Your hand is Q KJ109 AQ943 1083, fourth seat in south (effectively). The bidding goes, WNES, (1S) X (3D) P (P) 3H (3S) 4H (P) P (4S) to u.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqhkjt9daq943ct83&w=sakj52hq5d8752c75&n=s873ha643dt6caqj2&e=st964h872dkjck964&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1sd3dpp3h3s4hpp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Table result, down 2 NS +200.

 

Before the lead came down, dummy admitted that declarer should have alerted 3♦ as Reverse Bergen 6-9. South called the Director and requested to insert a double of the 4♠ at the end.

[Vampyr]

Did anyone ask about the 3♦ bid during the auction? What would be the unalerted meaning?

 

Do NS have some weird agreement about South's pass at his first turn?

[Xiaolongnu]

Yes it was explained as natural weak real diamonds. No extraordinarily weird agreement about the pass, eg no pass forcing double or whatever.

[blackshoe]

In the first instance South is not permitted to "insert a double" because he's not the last member of his pair to have called (see Law 21B). North can change his final call, in theory, but if South actually mentioned doubling out loud, then North has UI that South wants to double for penalties, so I think for North to double would result in a score adjustment removing the double, absent any other considerations (Law 16, Law 12). However, there are other considerations, but for the moment, I would rule the auction stands and tell them to play it out, reserving further consideration for after a result is obtained. I would caution the players not to make "extraneous" remarks like "I want to double" because of the UI problems.

[Xiaolongnu]

Oh no I meant South requested for an adjustment of the score after the result came out, on the grounds that he would have doubled with the correct information. Sorry for the poor English by me.

[barmar]

I don't understand the player. When he thought East was weak, he didn't double, but he says that he would double if he were properly told that East has moderate values?

 

I don't understand why South isn't looking for slam, given the huge hand North implied by doubling and then bidding freely on the 3 level. That seems like a serious error unrelated to the offense. I think this is what Vampyr was alluding to when she asked about an agreement about South's pass -- does it show values, so that North can bid with a minimum hand for the double?

[Vampyr]

The UI issues E/W are interesting here too. Presumably when W passes 3♦, E has AI that W has forgotten the agreement, and so is permitted to bid his hand again?

[Zelandakh]

How many down is 3♦? North might want to pass this out without MI.

[pran]

How many down is 3♦? North might want to pass this out without MI.

Can you honestly imagine North be given the possibility to pass out 3♦ without the misinformation?

 

Don't you think that West would bid something after giving correct information on 3♦?

[Zelandakh]

21B3 clearly works differently in Norway to other parts of the world.

[Trinidad]

Can you honestly imagine North be given the possibility to pass out 3♦ without the misinformation?

Yes, with the right information he would pass.

Don't you think that West would bid something after giving correct information on 3♦?

NS are entitled to a correct explanation of the EW methods. West is not entitled to a correct explanation of the EW methods. He is supposed to remember them by himself. So, sure West would bid something if he had the correct information, but he is not entitled to get that information from any other source than his own memory, so West won't do anything.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

How many down is 3♦? North might want to pass this out without MI.

The biggest problem I have with this is that North already has only one call at that point and it is pass. I really don't understand how he could think of bidding 3♥.

 

Rik

[PhilKing]

I'm guessing that South doubled 3♦. Occamaments.

[ArtK78]

I'm guessing that South doubled 3♦. Occamaments.

South doubling 3♦ begins to make some sense out of this auction. Otherwise, South's actions are absurd (his failure to double 4♠ is pretty bizarre anyway).

[RMB1]

Occamaments.

?

[ArtK78]

Occamaments.

 

?

I am hoping that there were some random keystrokes involved.

[lamford]

I am hoping that there were some random keystrokes involved.

No, I think PhilKing suggested that the simplest explanations were the most likely. But I think Ockhamaments would be better.

 

However, I would expect most pairs to play double of 3D (weak) as takeout, but maybe South doubled anyway and North then bid 3H. I do not know why South did not double 4S anyway, although by then he knows East cannot be weak with diamonds, having taken two further bids. I would want South to explain why he would have doubled 4S with correct information.

[pran]

Yes, with the right information he would pass.

 

NS are entitled to a correct explanation of the EW methods. West is not entitled to a correct explanation of the EW methods. He is supposed to remember them by himself. So, sure West would bid something if he had the correct information, but he is not entitled to get that information from any other source than his own memory, so West won't do anything.

 

Rik

Hasn't anybody grasped the significance in that if North had the correct information on the 3♦ bid (by East) that information must have been given by West?

 

Now, who will maintain his position that West would have passed out the 3♦ bid by East after giving the correct information on this bid???

 

Consequently I cannot imagine 3♦X as a contract that is relevant for judging an adjusted score.

[lamford]

Hasn't anybody grasped the significance in that if North had the correct information on the 3♦ bid (by East) that information must have been given by West?

No, because that is not the way to rule, and I am surprised that as experienced a TD as you should make this mistake. We assume that West gives the correct information to North, but continues to act on his mistaken belief that 3D is weak with diamonds. Alternatively we could assume that North has access to all the EW system notes, and we can also assume that for South, so both will pass out 3D undoubled if it is in their interest to do so. On this occasion they can make 4H, so they may not.

 

But I agree that 3Dx is not a plausible score, as East will just assume that Pass of the double is either encouraging or discouraging, and will bid 3S.

[billw55]

South's statement makes no sense really. Why on earth would he be *more* likely to double 4♠ after east showed a fit, than after he showed a weak hand with diamonds?

 

Well, no matter. NS were obviously damaged. Adjust to 3♦ down some number, not doubled.

[RMB1]

Hasn't anybody grasped the significance in that if North had the correct information on the 3♦ bid (by East) that information must have been given by West?

 

As others have pointed out, North being correctly informed does not mean West correctly informed him. This is certainly not the assumption when we rule.

 

But even in real life, North may be corrected informed:

1. He might have read the E/W convention card.
   
2. He might ask West, after West's pass, and West may now remember and give the correct alert/explanation.
   

[pran]

Hasn't anybody grasped the significance in that if North had the correct information on the 3♦ bid (by East) that information must have been given by West?

 

No, because that is not the way to rule, and I am surprised that as experienced a TD as you should make this mistake. We assume that West gives the correct information to North, but continues to act on his mistaken belief that 3D is weak with diamonds. Alternatively we could assume that North has access to all the EW system notes, and we can also assume that for South, so both will pass out 3D undoubled if it is in their interest to do so. On this occasion they can make 4H, so they may not.

 

But I agree that 3Dx is not a plausible score, as East will just assume that Pass of the double is either encouraging or discouraging, and will bid 3S.

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred but see C1(b).

(My Enhancement)

 

North could of course have obtained the correct information in several ways but he didn't.

 

He was damaged because of the infraction that West gave misinformation.

Could this infraction have occurred if West had given the correct information?

Of course not, the infraction is giving the misinformation as such, and the only way West could have passed without committing this infraction is if he had a brain damage.

 

Can North claim damage on the ground that he would have passed with correct information for instance from looking at opponents' system notes or making another question to West? No, he didn't take any such action so that damage in case is the result of his own failure to do any such thing.

 

So the judgement must be based on what could likely have happened had West given correct information (in which case he himself obviously would have bid something over 3♦).

[lamford]

North could of course have obtained the correct information in several ways but he didn't.

 

He was damaged because of the infraction that West gave misinformation.

Could this infraction have occurred if West had given the correct information?

Of course not, the infraction is giving the misinformation as such, and the only way West could have passed without this infraction is if he had a brain damage.

 

Can North claim damage on the ground that he would have passed with correct information for instance from looking at opponents' system notes or making another question to West? No, he didn't take any such action so that damage in case is the result of his own failure to do any such thing.

 

So the judgement must be based on what could likely have happened had West given correct information (in which case he himself obviously would have bid something over 3♦).

Clearly they do things differently in Norway. Is it irrelevant how North obtains the correct information. West is deemed to give the information and still pass with gritted teeth. Had the infraction not occurred means "if North had not been misinformed".

 

Now I think jallerton would rule as you would, but only with screens.

[pran]

Clearly they do things differently in Norway. Is it irrelevant how North obtains the correct information. West has to give the information and still pass with gritted teeth. Had the infraction not occurred means "if North had not been misinformed". West has no right to remember his methods from the opponent's question. To do so would be a breach of 73C.

 

Now I think jallerton would rule as you would, but only with screens.

True if North receives the correct information after West has passed. But that is not the situation.

 

Without the irregularity West would have remembered the correct agreement when he gave the information (alert) and bid accordingly.

[lamford]

True if North receives the correct information after West has passed. But that is not the situation.

But you rule as though both North and South did receive the information before West passed, and West still passes. At least every other TD in the world, without exception, does.