Misinformation and damage - but adjusted score?

[gnasher]

Trinidad is right, although I upvoted Frances's post before I realised that.

 

WBFLC minutes 2003-11-09#2:

When there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received.

If given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation.

In adjusting the score, we determine what would have happened if EW had been given only the correct information, but North still thought 2♦ was natural. At West's first turn to bid, he would have known that 2♦ showed the majors, and he would have bid. It's not possible to reach a position where East is able to pass out 2♦ with the knowledge that 2♦ showed the majors.

[gnasher]

This doesn't make any sense. West received incorrect information. She should be assigned a (probably worse) score because we pretend she received no misinformation?

I expect Trinidad meant that in determining what score we can assign we pretend that EW received correct information. If that leads to a worse score than EW actually got, we leave the table score unchanged.

[Vampyr]

I expect Trinidad meant that in determining what score we can assign we pretend that EW received correct information. If that leads to a worse score than EW actually got, we leave the table score unchanged.

 

But the correct information leads (probably) to West signing off in diamonds over South's 2♦ overcall. East's call was based on the MI, but with correct information West has likely already acted. So E/W can play in hearts or diamonds, but can never defend 2♦. Is this what we want?

[lamford]

WBFLC minutes 2003-11-09#2:

When there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received.

If given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation.

In adjusting the score, we determine what would have happened if EW had been given only the correct information, but North still thought 2♦ was natural. At West's first turn to bid, he would have known that 2♦ showed the majors, and he would have bid. It's not possible to reach a position where East is able to pass out 2♦ with the knowledge that 2♦ showed the majors.

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West. So, this appears to be a situation where, given the correct information, West might be aware that a misunderstanding has occurred, from the AI. Therefore West will draw the logical conclusion that Pass could be a successful action here.

 

And am I the only person who thinks that the WBFLC minutes are generally poorly worded, and one has to guess at their meaning?

[Vampyr]

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West. So, this appears to be a situation where, given the correct information, West might be aware that a misunderstanding has occurred, from the AI. Therefore West will draw the logical conclusion that Pass could be a successful action here.

 

And East will be certain of it.

 

And am I the only person who thinks that the WBFLC minutes are generally poorly worded, and one has to guess at their meaning?

 

No.

[WellSpyder]

Geez! <ducks and covers> Stop shooting already!!!

 

I envisioned that the player in question did as you described in your second paragraph, and that North then said something like 'oh, yeah, the card is right".

 

And no, I'm not suggesting a TD should rule that way.

Oops! Sorry - I didn't mean to keep firing when you already had your hands in the air...

 

Looks like we are actually on the same wavelength for a given set of facts.

[Trinidad]

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West. So, this appears to be a situation where, given the correct information, West might be aware that a misunderstanding has occurred, from the AI. Therefore West will draw the logical conclusion that Pass could be a successful action here.

The AI about the misunderstanding is only relevant at the table, but not in assigning an AS.

 

Sorry, as I said, I didn't invent this.

 

And am I the only person who thinks that the WBFLC minutes are generally poorly worded, and one has to guess at their meaning?

No. :(

 

Rik

[gnasher]

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West.

The lack of an alert is on a par with the explanation: it's AI at the table, but it's also MI. In determining what the auction would have been with correct information, we assume that the non-offenders had the correct information only, without the MI.

[Trinidad]

This doesn't make any sense. West received incorrect information. She should be assigned a (probably worse) score because we pretend she received no misinformation?

No. The table result was EW +100. There was an infraction.

 

According to the WBFLC (as I understand it) we are now going to look what would/could/might have happened -starting from the point of the infraction- if the infraction did not occur and there was no information other than from bids and plays.

 

If this result is worse than the table result, then there is no damage (and, therefore, no AS).

 

Rik

[gnasher]

Is this what we want?

It's what we've got.

[Trinidad]

Making a few assumptions about the agreements both pairs have (that obviously need to be checked, but my assumptions are as good as any other, until we know more facts), and using my bridge judgement (which is as good as anybody's), I would reach an AS of 3♦-5. How did I get there?

 

The auction started

1NT-2♦ (♥+♠)

 

We (the TD or AC) are now going to look what West would have done with this information and this information only.

 

Let's assume that EW play Lebensohl. (Assumption)

I would (bridge judgement!) think that West would bid 2NT, aiming to sign off in 3♦.

 

Now it gets interesting. We now need to determine what North does. North is allowed to know:

- that South is showing natural diamonds (because that is what North thought at the table)

- that West has bid 2NT

- and, hence, what 2NT means if South shows natural diamonds. (Lebensohl, signing off in clubs, invitational in a major or Stayman/3NT with a stop)

 

What would I do as North with that information? I am looking at QJx in "partner's suit", so I would (bridge judgement) raise and bid 3♦. (I would even do that if I would pass over a pass by West, as this North did.)

 

Now, we go on to East. He is entitled to know what 2♦ means (♥+♠) and what 3♦ means when 2♦ shows ♥+♠ (I don't know, but South should know: Let's assume natural). And East - of course - is entitled to know that West bid Lebensohl, probably intending to sign off in a minor, obviously most likely clubs, since North has bid diamonds naturally. East is wondering what happened to the spades. They must be 2533 around the table. East will chose to defend 3♦.

 

We get to South. He knows he has shown the majors and North has shown natural diamonds. That is an easy pass.

 

We get to West. What is he going to do after 3♦ is passed out to him? Would West double, knowing that NS are somehow missing a good spade fit and that they might run? Would double be penalty?!?

 

At MPs, for me (bridge judgement) this is an easy pass. 3♦ will go down a bundle and we will get a better score than we could dream. We are absolutely certain to beat the field if I pass, and we might not if I do anything else, so I will take my 95%.

 

So, these assumptions, added to my bridge judgement, would lead to 3♦-5.

 

I feel very strongly that a TD should step through each player's decision like this, though -in practice- you rarely see this (and I fail there too from time to time).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Wear is under no obligation to bid as if she had received the correct information, and no adjustment should be made on that basis.

 

EDIT: Crossed Sven's fuller explanation.

At the table that is true. But West's pass occurred after the infraction. So, the adjustment is based on West's action with the correct information (and only the correct information). (This may well lead to an even better score, see my previous post.)

 

Don't shoot the messenger. ;)

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

The lack of an alert is on a par with the explanation: it's AI at the table, but it's also MI. In determining what the auction would have been with correct information, we assume that the non-offenders had the correct information only, without the MI.

 

I draw completely the opposite conclusion from this part of the minute:

 

WBFLC minutes 2003-11-09#2:

and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received.

If given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation.

[ emphasis mine]

 

The "information received" might include MI, and in fact, I don't think that the phrase can be interpreted any other way, considering that it is paired with "entitled to know the partnership understanding". And "if given the correct information" confirms that the "information received" might be incorrect.

 

No. The table result was EW +100. There was an infraction.

 

According to the WBFLC (as I understand it) we are now going to look what would/could/might have happened -starting from the point of the infraction- if the infraction did not occur and there was no information other than from bids and plays.

 

The table result was EW -100, adjusted to +110, but whatever.

 

I do not see how you can conclude that one assumes that "the infraction did not occur and ... bids and plays", since the minute clearly admits the possibility of misinformation being given, and just as clearly applies when determining an adjusted score.

 

It's what we've got.

 

It doesn't look like it to me.

[Vampyr]

 

What would I do as North with that information? I am looking at QJx in "partner's suit", so I would (bridge judgement) raise and bid 3♦. (I would even do that if I would pass over a pass by West, as this North did didn't.)

 

FYP

[schulken]

No. The table result was EW +100. There was an infraction. The table result was EW -100.

 

According to the WBFLC (as I understand it) we are now going to look what would/could/might have happened -starting from the point of the infraction- if the infraction did not occur and there was no information other than from bids and plays.

 

If this result is worse than the table result, then there is no damage (and, therefore, no AS).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

FYP

I think you misread my -admittedly not very clear- sentence. I will clarify:

 

- North did pass 2♦

- I would not pass 2♦ (if I thought it was natural). I would raise to 3♦.

- If West bids 2NT (Lebensohl) I would (obviously) still bid 3♦, and I would expect North to do that too, despite the fact that North passed the 2♦ in reality.

 

Rik

[RSliwinski]

I am a litle bit surprised that people quote minutes from 2003 when there are more recent Minutes regarding the same question, namely

Minutes of Laws Committee meeting in Sao Paulo on Tuesday, 8th September 2009 link

12. The committee returned to the subject of the status of information arising when a misexplanation is corrected.

There was lengthy discussion following which it was determined:

(a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call “could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player”. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3.

[sailoranch]

There was a similar discussion some time ago here.

[lamford]

There was a similar discussion some time ago here.

That discussion was mainly about whether a player would pass out the hand given correct information, but no earlier bid came under scrutiny. I think we should adjust for the non-offenders, if, working back from the final call, they would have done better with correct information. I think FrancesHinden is correct here. East had the opportunity to pass out 2♦ and should not be denied that right because West would not have passed earlier with correct information. East was in a position to get a good score if he had a correctly completed NS system card, and I think that 2D-4 is the correct ruling.

[Trinidad]

That discussion was mainly about whether a player would pass out the hand given correct information, but no earlier bid came under scrutiny. I think we should adjust for the non-offenders, if, working back from the final call, they would have done better with correct information. I think FrancesHinden is correct here. East had the opportunity to pass out 2♦ and should not be denied that right because West would not have passed earlier with correct information. East was in a position to get a good score if he had a correctly completed NS system card, and I think that 2D-4 is the correct ruling.

Why not 3♦-5? Do you think that North will pass after 1NT-2♦-2NT (Leb.)-?? when he thinks South has shown a lot of diamonds?

 

Rik

[lamford]

Why not 3♦-5? Do you think that North will pass after 1NT-2♦-2NT (Leb.)-?? when he thinks South has shown a lot of diamonds?

 

Rik

I agree that you give the non-offenders the better of the two results from passing it out or bidding immediately on the West hand. However, if West was looking at a correctly completed NS system card, he would pass, as would North. This particularly North did not think he was worth 3♦ so we should not adjust as though he did.

[Trinidad]

I agree that you give the non-offenders the better of the two results from passing it out or bidding immediately on the West hand. However, if West was looking at a correctly completed NS system card, he would pass, as would North. This particularly North did not think he was worth 3♦ so we should not adjust as though he did.

It makes a big, no ... a huge difference to North, whether the auction is 1NT-2♦-Pass-?? or 1NT-2♦-2NT-??. In the first case North is in the contract he likes to be in, so he passes. In the second case, the opponents will get to a contract that North doesn't want to defend and he has the possibility to do something about that by bidding 3♦, the strain that he wants to play in.

 

I don't consider it very "active" bridge when North passes after 1NT-2♦-pass-??. But if North would not bid 3♦ after 1NT-2♦-2NT-??, it is time to start CPR.

 

Furthermore, the phrase "If North was looking at a correctly completed NS system card" does not apply. We are (supposed to be) beyond this stage: We are assigning an AS, all information about misunderstandings between NS is off and we are deciding what West would do when he has the information that 2♦ shows the majors, and nothing more. Of course, it depends on the EW agreements what West would bid, but west will try to show diamonds, e.g. by a Lebensohl 2NT. (The case gets even more interesting if EW play Rubensohl.)

 

Rik

[lamford]

I don't consider it very "active" bridge when North passes after 1NT-2♦-pass-??. But if North would not bid 3♦ after 1NT-2♦-2NT-??, it is time to start CPR.

Rik

I don't consider it very "active" bridge for West, holding a 1-1-6-5 hand to LEB to diamonds when South has shown the majors. In fact I consider it barking; not revealing any suit when the auction is likely to be bounced. West is cold for 6D opposite ♦ Axxx ♣ Ax and a major suit ace. What is he supposed to do if it goes 4H or 4S back to him? He might instead double 2D intending to compete on the next round. He might try 4NT, presumably the minors. The possibilities are numerous. 3D and pull 3NT to 4C is another shot. I think that the route to 3D-5 is somewhat unlikely. There is some clause somewhere about awarding an average plus when the possibilities are too numerous, and this may fall into that category. Your AS is just one of many possible auctions, and an unlikely one in my opinion. Of course, none of the players are that good, which makes deciding on what they would do harder. But it is hard for EW to do better than 2D-4, which is why I would stick with that.

 

And I note that it is MPs, and would be surprised if there was any difference between 2D-4 and 3D-5. And I would expect the former to be better than average plus for EW.

[Trinidad]

There is some clause somewhere about awarding an average plus when the possibilities are too numerous, and this may fall into that category.

[]

And I would expect the former [2D-4] to be better than average plus for EW.

Fortunately, it is irrelevant whether 2♦-4 would be better or worse than average plus. There is no clause to award an "average plus" when possibilities are too numerous.

 

There is a clause that allows for an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C1d) if the possibilities are too numerous. So, if the table result leads to, say, a score of 80%, and we expect that without the infraction the score would have been even better -but we can't assign a bridge result since the possibilities are too numerous- then we are allowed to give an AS of e.g. 90%.

 

Unfortunately, lots of directors are unaware of this and they are awarding average pluses left and right when they should award 90-10's or 50-50's.

 

Rik

[lamford]

Fortunately, it is irrelevant whether 2♦-4 would be better or worse than average plus. There is no clause to award an "average plus" when possibilities are too numerous.

 

There is a clause that allows for an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C1d) if the possibilities are too numerous. So, if the table result leads to, say, a score of 80%, and we expect that without the infraction the score would have been even better -but we can't assign a bridge result since the possibilities are too numerous- then we are allowed to give an AS of e.g. 90%.

 

Unfortunately, lots of directors are unaware of this and they are awarding average pluses left and right when they should award 90-10's or 50-50's.

 

Rik

I think those directors are using the EBU White Book about artificial adjusted scores, where it states:

Such a score is average plus (AVE+) if the side is not at fault, average (AVE) if the side is partly at fault and average minus (AVE-) if the side is fully at fault. This usually translates into 60% or +3 IMPs for AVE+, 50 % or 0 IMPs for AVE, 40% or -3 IMPs for AVE- (see §4.1.2 for other forms of scoring).

 

So, directors are indeed unaware that they can award an artificial adjusted score of 90-10. I think we need someone such as RMB1 to advise us whether you are right and the White Book is wrong.