MI Case

[Coelacanth]

ACBL club game

matchpoint scoring

players not of the highest standard (N is a decent player, S less so, EW are new/novice)

 

[hv=pc=n&e=skq763hqt2da7ckj6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1c1s2c2dppp]133|200[/hv]

 

1♣ is standard american style, 3+ cards

2♣ was alerted by North

West did not enquire about 2♣; at East's last turn he asked and was told "inverted" by North

 

2♦ made 4 for a surprisingly good matchpoint score (EW are cold for 3NT)

 

At the end of the hand, EW realized that S's hand does not correspond to an inverted raise (she had 3HCP including Q-empty fifth of clubs).

 

NS are an occasional partnership; S's CC is not marked with inverted raises while N's is so marked. In conversation with the players it was established that N thought this was an inverted raise and S did not.

 

N's explanation of "inverted" thus constitutes MI.

 

E is adamant that if he had known S could be weak he would have bid.

 

Two questions:

Do you adjust?

Do you take E's statement about what bid he would have made into account when considering likely/at all probable outcomes?

 

Edited for clarity.

[hrothgar]

Would have been better to present this as a poll, showing the East hand and asking how many people would have bid over an inverted 2!C

[billw55]

East's actions as you give them are not really consistent with a novice.

 

Also, south explained his own bid?

 

I am not really sure what happened here.

[Coelacanth]

East's actions as you give them are not really consistent with a novice.

 

Also, south explained his own bid?

 

I am not really sure what happened here.

Sorry, whoops, North explained 2♣ as inverted. Will edit the OP.

[sanst]

I presume the score was surprisingly good for NS.

NS have different ideas about the 2♣ bid, so there is misinformation. I don't see the need for a poll; you can't expect E to bid on with a partner who has little if any strength at all and nothing else but a handful of diamonds. The EW level is described as novice, but even from an experienced player you can't expect anything but pass with the given explanation. Bidding 3♦ could already be terribly wrong.

Based on the facts In the OP, I would give both parties 3NT made for EW, and tell NS to get their agreements in line.

[blackshoe]

Several things have gone wrong here. It's not just the mis-explanation. "Inverted" is an illegal explanation - the legal explanation, had that been their agreement, would have been to state the point range and shape of the bid. Just barely possible is "we agreed to play inverted minor raises, but we did not discuss what that means". IAC MI was presented during the auction. It is thus required of South that she first call the director and then explain, in the director's presence, that she disagrees with her partner's explanation of the meaning of 2♣. After investigation shows that "inverted" was indeed not their agreement, the TD will require South to give a correct explanation. Then the director will give East the opportunity to withdraw his last pass and substitute another call, explaining to all the UI ramifications and any other ramifications of such a withdrawal. The auction will then proceed from that point.

 

The requirement to call the director as above is a "must" law (20F5), which means that it should draw a procedural penalty "more often than not". It's not clear how experienced South is, but I see no good reason not to give a PP, save "it's a club, we don't give PPs" which IMO is the wrong approach. If it's clearly something they aren't at all familiar with, as it might be given how many players have no clue about this aspect of law, I'd give a warning, but if they should know better (probably because I gave 'em a warning last week, or two weeks ago) they get a standard PP.

 

In the circumstances, the director not having been called when he should have been, Law 21B3 comes into play: if the TD judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score. That would be done under Law 12, most likely Law 12C1, which deals with assigned adjusted scores.

 

I would be inclined to adjust, if the criteria are met. I would want to see all four hands first. And yes, I would take into account East's statement about what he would bid. It may be self-serving, but it's still evidence. How much weight I would give it would depend on "table feel" basically.

 

BTW, if South had complied with Law 20F5 in the first place, the TD wouldn't be in the position of having to judge whether to adjust or whether to accept or how much weight to give to a statement by East. Seems to me that's yet another good reason for a PP.

[Coelacanth]

Several things have gone wrong here. It's not just the mis-explanation. "Inverted" is an illegal explanation - the legal explanation, had that been their agreement, would have been to state the point range and shape of the bid. Just barely possible is "we agreed to play inverted minor raises, but we did not discuss what that means". IAC MI was presented during the auction. It is thus required of South that she first call the director and then explain, in the director's presence, that she disagrees with her partner's explanation of the meaning of 2♣. After investigation shows that "inverted" was indeed not their agreement, the TD will require South to give a correct explanation. Then the director will give East the opportunity to withdraw his last pass and substitute another call, explaining to all the UI ramifications and any other ramifications of such a withdrawal. The auction will then proceed from that point.

 

 

Surely, as the defending side, South should not call until after play is completed.

 

As to the nature of the explanation, I don't know if she just said "inverted" or described the likely holding (she said "10 or so points with clubs" to me, but I'd already established that there was no agreement and thus MI)

[blackshoe]

Surely, as the defending side, South should not call until after play is completed.

 

As to the nature of the explanation, I don't know if she just said "inverted" or described the likely holding (she said "10 or so points with clubs" to me, but I'd already established that there was no agreement and thus MI)

You're right, I missed the 2♦ bid. Sorry about that.

 

I gather that even though "end of the play" is the right time for South to call the TD, it was actually East that did so at that time?

 

IMO you should always confirm what was actually said at the table in cases like this.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=skq763hqt2da7ckj6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1c1s2c2dppp]133|200| ACBL club game. Matchpoint scoring. Players not of the highest standard (N is a decent player, S less so, EW are new/novice). 1♣ is standard american style, 3+ cards

2♣ was alerted by North. West did not enquire about 2♣; at East's last turn he asked and was told "inverted" by North. 2♦ made 4 for a surprisingly good matchpoint score (EW are cold for 3NT). At the end of the hand, EW realized that S's hand does not correspond to an inverted raise (she had 3HCP including Q-empty fifth of clubs). NS are an occasional partnership; S's CC is not marked with inverted raises while N's is so marked. In conversation with the players it was established that N thought this was an inverted raise and S did not. N's explanation of "inverted" thus constitutes MI. E is adamant that if he had known S could be weak he would have bid. Two questions:

Do you adjust?

Do you take E's statement about what bid he would have made into account when considering likely/at all probable outcomes?[/hv]

IMO, "yes" is the answer to both questions.

[barmar]

If East were an experienced player, this might be one of those "protect yourself" situations -- most people who play inverted minors don't play them after interference, and he could inquire about that.

 

But since East is a novice and NS are more advanced, it's perfectly normal for him to take the explanation at face value. And in that context, punting is reasonable, and he was damaged by the MI.

 

I don't think the specific wording of the explanation is too relevant. Any explanation that implies South has strength will shut East up. I don't see how the specific point range makes a difference. If you want to throw on a PP for a poorly worded explanation that's a separate issue.

[Coelacanth]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj984h85d54cq9732&w=s2hak74dqj8632c84&n=sat5hj963dkt9cat5&e=skq763hqt2da7ckj6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1c1s2c(Alerted)2dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Here's the whole hand. 2♦ made 10 tricks for 130 EW, a 75% matchpoint result.

 

I think it's clear that there was MI and that EW are entitled to an adjustment if they were damaged. This is where it gets tricky.

 

East stated (paraphrased) "If I had known 2♣ could be that weak I would have bid 2♠."

 

Now, if E bids 2♠ there is no way EW will find NT. E has failed to bid NT twice now and W will never bid NT with two small clubs. A 2♠ call by E will result in a final contract of 2♠ (making some number of tricks less than 9) or 3♦ (making the same 10 tricks they made in 2♦). Thus, no damage, no adjustment.

 

East volunteered his statement about bidding 2♠; I didn't ask him what action he would have taken. If he had said "I would have done something different" I think you have to consider a NT contract, but when he makes a specific statement you have to take that at face value. Don't you?

[aguahombre]

We have a problem. OP presented certain "facts"/conditions and asked what to do about them.

 

Then OP changes the facts from "East stated he would bid" to "East stated he would bid 2♠", and then provides the answer to his own question.

 

We used to call this a shaggy dog story. I call it Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, then yanking it at the last minute.

[Vampyr]

East volunteered his statement about bidding 2♠; I didn't ask him what action he would have taken. If he had said "I would have done something different" I think you have to consider a NT contrbact, but when he makes a specific statement you have to take that at face value. Don't you?

 

Yes, I think so. But the problem, of course, is that East couldn't know that by specifying his alternative action he would be damaging his case; so it seems a bit unfair.

[gordontd]

Yes, I think so. But the problem, of course, is that East couldn't know that by specifying his alternative action he would be damaging his case; so it seems a bit unfair.

Are you suggesting that if he had known that he might have said something different?

[gordontd]

Do you adjust?

If they were damaged. It seems from your later post that they weren't.

[Vampyr]

Are you suggesting that if he had known that he might have said something different?

 

Well, the OP stated that if the player had not said what he would bid, but instead "I would have done something different" he would have been entitled to an adjustment. I am doubtful, actually, this this is a correct approach. Either all players need to be pinned down as to their alternative action, or all actions need to be considered. Since the former is a) difficult for a novice player and b) any player may be influenced by the result even if not on purpose, I don't think that a player's un-self-serving remark should be taken into account, and the latter procedure should be followed. Well, this is what I think,but what is more interesting is how you see it, Gordon. Please tell.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I think so. But the problem, of course, is that East couldn't know that by specifying his alternative action he would be damaging his case; so it seems a bit unfair.

 

Are you suggesting that if he had known that he might have said something different?

My gut feeling is that for a player to deliberately withhold pertinent information from the director is at least borderline unethical. I say "gut feeling" because I haven't researched the laws to see if I can confirm it. But if I'm right, it can't be unfair for East to get the ruling the director should give having obtained all the facts. What would be unfair would be to withhold that information, resulting in an undeserved favorable score adjustment.

 

If they were damaged [you adjust]. It seems from your later post that they weren't.

Yes, exactly.

[Coelacanth]

Either all players need to be pinned down as to their alternative action, or all actions need to be considered.

 

Well this is the gist of why I posted the hand in the first place.

 

In the ACBL, we must consider outcomes that are "at all probable" or "likely" when assigning an adjusted score. It's clear to me that for THIS player, who wanted to bid 2♠, a NT contract was not even at all probable. But in the abstract (Among all players who would bid 1♠ originally, and who received an explanation of 'no agreement' for the 2♣ call, would some of them find their way to 3NT?) it probably is.

 

I think in general it is unfair to ask players what they would have done differently. Their thoughts are clouded by having seen the hand played out and by the result. It's difficult for them to think back to what information they had at the critical moment. Once the TD establishes MI and that there were alternative actions possible, he should then move directly to the consideration of possible outcomes (possibly by polling other players, etc.) But when the player blurts out, unprompted "I would have taken (what turned out to be) the unsuccessful action!", should we take that into account?

[Coelacanth]

We have a problem. OP presented certain "facts"/conditions and asked what to do about them.

 

Then OP changes the facts from "East stated he would bid" to "East stated he would bid 2♠", and then provides the answer to his own question.

 

We used to call this a shaggy dog story. I call it Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, then yanking it at the last minute.

My intention here was to spark discussion. I didn't change any facts; I withheld facts from the OP so that the discussion of 'do you take into account what the player said he would bid?' could be more general. I didn't want to get bogged down in "2♠ is a terrible call; he's not getting an adjustment from me if he is going to bid like that!"

[blackshoe]

But when the player blurts out, unprompted "I would have taken (what turned out to be) the unsuccessful action!", should we take that into account?

Should we not? It is, after all, evidence.

[nige1]

Then OP changes the facts from "East stated he would bid" to "East stated he would bid 2♠", and then provides the answer to his own question. We used to call this a shaggy dog story. I call it Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, then yanking it at the last minute.

:) What East blurted out is evidence. IMO, however, it isn't conclusive or final. When a player judges that opponents have gained by breaking the law, he often becomes flustered and confused. The director should take that into account when assessing damage and give the benefit of the doubt to EW. Whatever he rules for EW, is the director allowed to rule 3N for NS?

[VixTD]

Now, if E bids 2♠ there is no way EW will find NT. E has failed to bid NT twice now and W will never bid NT with two small clubs. A 2♠ call by E will result in a final contract of 2♠ (making some number of tricks less than 9) or 3♦ (making the same 10 tricks they made in 2♦).

You mustn't forget that North and South are still at the table when you are assigning scores. Presumably North passed over West's 2♦ bid because he had no descriptive bid to make, but he was expecting to hear more on that round from South. If East were to bid 2♠ and South pass, North surely is not allowed to pass this out in any system with inverted minor agreements.

 

If you're dreaming up a sequence that gets EW into 3NT you also need to consider the likelihood that North is going to double, expecting a much stronger hand from South.