Wagar final

[nige1]

We are doing a lot of guessing. I am mildly curious why during the auction both K & L answered when only one opponent asked anything. I also speculate from experience playing against Kerry that SHE was actively ethical with an unsolicited "means nothing" to her screenmate, prompted by her actual holding, which she might not have bothered to do behind screens if she had some 3-3-4-3.

It's hard to explain partnership style:

• If South's explanation was related to her actual holdings, it's more likely to help North than East.
• Similarly, if North's attempt to emphasise "usually" is based on inferences from the South's lead and the contents of her own hand, it's more likely to help South than East.
• East seems to have taken the emphasis on "usually" to mean that South was very unlikely to hold a 4-card major so that a holding of both majors was even less likely.
• Better for both North and South to give similar full and accurate explanations e.g. "Pass shows no immediate preference, for example, 44(xy), 42(xy), 33(xy), 32(xy)" (or whatever was their actual understanding). But this can be hard to do.

[aguahombre]

It's hard to explain partnership style:

• If South's explanation was related to her actual holdings, it's more likely to help North than East.
• Similarly, if North's attempt to emphasise "usually" is based on inferences from the South's lead and the contents of her own hand, it's more likely to help South than East.
• East seems to have taken the emphasis on "usually" to mean that South was very unlikely to hold a 4-card major so that a holding of both majors was even less likely.
• Better for both North and South to give similar full and accurate explanations e.g. "Pass shows no immediate preference, for example, 44(xy), 42(xy), 33(xy), 32(xy)" (or whatever was their actual understanding). But this can be hard to do.

I don't see how those first two bullets are relevant to screen play; and the first one wouldn't even apply to regular play, since Kerry would have remained mute.

[nige1]

I don't see how those first two bullets are relevant to screen play; and the first one wouldn't even apply to regular play, since Kerry would have remained mute.

Good points :)

[jallerton]

But in this case there clearly was no understanding (implicit or explicit) since the explanation was significantly different on the two sides of the screen. There was not even an "Oh, I misbid" remark from South. So, it seems that the idea that South's pass (usually) denies a 4 card major came out of nowhere and was not the partnership agreement.

 

Rik

 

This raises the question of what constitutes a partnership understanding. When I go through hands we have played with partners/team-mates we might well discuss what we would call on certain hands after the sequence that has cropped up. If I recall a conversation from last year involving my partner I might well feel that we have a partnership understanding - which the opponents are entitled to know. If partner does not recall the same conversation, does this mean that we have an agreement or not?

 

By the way, on the Wagar hand it's quite possible that North and South had much the same idea as to which hands pass over the redouble, just that they explained it rather differently. Perhaps North was thinking that the most common hand type which passes has no 4-card major.

[Trinidad]

Perhaps North was thinking that the most common hand type which passes has no 4-card major.

That may be true (and I think it is). But that doesn't make it close to "usually no 4 card major".

 

Rik

[Fluffy]

Only those partnerships where both members know the rules very well are prepared to give the same expanation for a simple bid that is not alerted. Anytime my partner explains one of those I realice I would explain it very differently. Yet we understand the same.

[helene_t]

North's 2♣ bid suggests that she is actually not catering to South having 4-4 in the majors. 2♣ would be a bit silly if South is 4441. Maybe North's explanation was correct?

[barmar]

Only those partnerships where both members know the rules very well are prepared to give the same expanation for a simple bid that is not alerted. Anytime my partner explains one of those I realice I would explain it very differently. Yet we understand the same.

My partner and I have a convention that we always explain slightly differently. After partner opens 1NT, if we want to show a minor, we first bid a puppet to the corresponding major; after partner accepts that putative transfer, we bid the next suit to transfer to the minor.

 

I explain it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be the beginning of a sequence to transfer to <the minor>."

He explains it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be a transfer to <the minor>."

[gordontd]

I explain it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be the beginning of a sequence to transfer to <the minor>."

He explains it as: "Usually a transfer to <the major>, but could be a transfer to <the minor>."

I wouldn't understand his explanation - I'd have to ask him for more information.

[cherdano]

This hand produced a lot of hot air on Bridgewinners. Most of the comments focused on the alleged fact that North did nothing wrong (I broadly agree). But the main point for me is that had North explained better or not at all, declarer WOULD have made the contract, and surely that is what matters.

This point should really put an end to any discussion about grave injustice towards pro-actively ethically players. But then again, we are on the internets...

 

In any case, the most interesting aspect of this hand to me is that North and South clearly were not 100% on the same page. Seems a good example for the difference between a very good partnership and a great one - I would bet 10:1 that Meckwell would know their partner's action with 4432 in the auction (1D) X (XX).

[jallerton]

North's 2♣ bid suggests that she is actually not catering to South having 4-4 in the majors. 2♣ would be a bit silly if South is 4441. Maybe North's explanation was correct?

 

Would South risk passing with 4=4=4=1? Should South have run to 1♥ on her actual shape, planning to follow up with redouble if doubled?

 

I agree with Cherdano: whilst most partnerships play pass as 'neutral' here, few have discussed what each hand is going to call on every possible shape.

 

On this ruling, the TD/AC ought to have attempted to establish the extent of the N/S agreement: was North explaining their just the partnership understanding, or something more than that?

[lamford]

In Europe, North is not allowed to lower the screen and give some comment, even if trying to be helpful. I presume that the screen regulations are different in the US, and we have enough eminent US posters who can tell me if that is the case.

 

However, the misexplanation did not cause the contract to fail. Its failure was unrelated to the infraction and caused by an inability to think clearly about the diamond suit. If North had been dealt KT doubleton in diamonds, I would adjust.

[blackshoe]

In Europe, North is not allowed to lower the screen and give some comment, even if trying to be helpful. I presume that the screen regulations are different in the US, and we have enough eminent US posters who can tell me if that is the case.

 

However, the misexplanation did not cause the contract to fail. It was unrelated to the infraction and caused by an inability to think clearly about the diamond suit. If North had been dealt KT doubleton in diamonds, I would adjust.

At first reading, I thought for a second that the antecedent of "it" is "the misexplanation". I suspect though that you intended the antecedent to be "the failure of the contract".

[gordontd]

However, the misexplanation did not cause the contract to fail. It was unrelated to the infraction and caused by an inability to think clearly about the diamond suit.

You think that if the misexplanation had not occurred, she would have played the diamond suit the same way?

[lamford]

You think that if the misexplanation had not occurred, she would have played the diamond suit the same way?

You are right, and I completely missed an important point.

Edited August 3, 2014 by lamford

[lamford]

At first reading, I thought for a second that the antecedent of "it" is "the misexplanation". I suspect though that you intended the antecedent to be "the failure of the contract".

You are correct, and I have tried to amend my post!

[Finch]

In Europe, North is not allowed to lower the screen and give some comment, even if trying to be helpful. I presume that the screen regulations are different in the US, and we have enough eminent US posters who can tell me if that is the case.

 

However, the misexplanation did not cause the contract to fail. Its failure was unrelated to the infraction and caused by an inability to think clearly about the diamond suit. If North had been dealt KT doubleton in diamonds, I would adjust.

 

The ACBL (and USBF) screen regs are different in a number of ways from the WBF/EBL ones (on which the English ones are modelled).

[lamford]

The ACBL (and USBF) screen regs are different in a number of ways from the WBF/EBL ones (on which the English ones are modelled).

Yes, I gathered that from the Helgemo-Helness v Auken-Welland appeal, where I recall that HH could have checked whether the correct explanation was received on the other side of the screen.

Edited August 3, 2014 by lamford

[jallerton]

No. But she had no reason to play the diamond suit this way with the mis-explanation. "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." The misexplanation did not cause the damage. Her own blunder did. I would adjust if North had ♦ KT doubleton, as I said. Now the misexplanation has potentially caused damage.

 

This is a common theme in misinformation cases. A player takes a sub-optimal line in the face of the explanation she was given, but the TD believes that she would have taken a successful line had she received a correct explanation. In such cases, the damage was caused by a combination of two factors: (i) the misexplanation and (ii) the sub-optimal play (or call) made by the non-offender in the light of the explanation supplied at the table.

 

So it could be argued, as you do, that (ii) was the cause of the damage so no redress is due; or it could be argued as other have done, that (i) was the cause of the damage, so a misinformation adjustment is in order.

 

How should we approach such cases? I think we should listen to the Chief TD!

[aguahombre]

This is a common theme in misinformation cases. A player takes a sub-optimal line in the face of the explanation she was given, but the TD believes that she would have taken a successful line had she received a correct explanation. In such cases, the damage was caused by a combination of two factors: (i) the misexplanation and (ii) the sub-optimal play (or call) made by the non-offender in the light of the explanation supplied at the table.

 

So it could be argued, as you do, that (ii) was the cause of the damage so no redress is due; or it could be argued as other have done, that (i) was the cause of the damage, so a misinformation adjustment is in order.

 

How should we approach such cases? I think we should listen to the Chief TD!

Please explain how (ii) is not related to the infraction? Or am I misreading SEWog?

[lamford]

Please explain how (ii) is not related to the infraction? Or am I misreading SEWog?

It depends on what is meant by "related to". It is probably not the right phrase, but it does not mean "consequent to". I think some cause and effect element is needed, but I guess jallerton is right. It is up to the Chief TD to decide. This one seems to be a clear point of law.

[aguahombre]

Connected in some way=related, I believe. Her play of the suit, however badly it sucked was connected in some way to what she thought was the disclosure; so, even if it occurred after the alleged infraction all the TD seems to have to do is decide whether there was in fact an infraction. That part is the tough one. I am not as sure there was an infraction, but the AC thinks so, and they are better placed.

[barmar]

I wouldn't understand his explanation - I'd have to ask him for more information.

I agree that it's not as clear as my explanation (which is why I don't describe it that way), and you're certainly entitled to ask for clarification, but his description is not wholly incorrect. The Bridge World definition of "transfer" is "a bid that shows length in a different suit". It doesn't necessarily have to be the next suit up; e.g. Namyats openings are transfers.

[wank]

people concentrating too much on declarer's play. declarer wasn't taking a totally pointless line - she very possibly needs exactly 4 diamond tricks. if she strips south of outside cards, she can make 4 diamond tricks by a first round deep finesse then conceding to the king and waiting for a diamond return at the end

 

as some others have now said, the director should have put more effort into finding the real extent of north/south's agreement or experience to ascertain how accurate north's description was. of course the word 'usually' is rather grey, but if it turned out north effectively means south won't have a 4 card major unless she has 2 of them, i would say that's not 'usually' enough.

[blackshoe]

My dictionary says of "related" "associated with the specified item or process, especially causally". So I would say that "related to the infraction" in this law means "caused, at least in part, by the infraction" and "not related to" means "not at all caused by the infraction".

 

Some posters seem to think that declarer would have played the diamonds the same way with or without the MI. I'm not so sure the evidence shows that.