An old appeal - Clarification wanted

[weejonnie]

This hand (and appeal)happened back in 2003. As someone trying to learn to improve on how to handle such problems, I await comments.

 

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st9hjda632caqj752&w=sk762ha43dj75ck94&n=saq8h62dkqt984ct3&e=sj543hkqt9875dc86&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(Could%20be%20short)p1d3c(Explained%20as%20natural.%20Systematically%204%2BS%2C%206%2BH)p3nd4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Result at Table : 4♥ made NS -420

 

Director Adjustment : 5♦ made NS + 400

 

The TD felt that South would always bid 3♦ over 3♣

 

Appeal Decision : Split verdict 50% 5♦ NS (NS + 400), 50% 5♥X -1 EW (NS + 100)

 

The appeal panel felt that West would bid 4♣ over 3♦ (leading to 5♦ and 5♥X)

 

However South, presumably, in addition to knowing that East is showing the Majors (having full view of their system notes) is also allowed to know that EW are having a bidding misunderstanding. Wouldn't he therefore pass sometimes?

 

If South does pass then West obviously bids 3NT and North Doubles. Is East allowed to bid hearts now, having shown their hand earlier (swap AK of S and KJ of Diamonds and 3NT walks home)

Edited June 13, 2015 by weejonnie

[pran]

My immediate reaction is that we face a Director's error here when assessing the likely result absent any irregularity:

 

As it is a fact that South (fully aware of the misinformation from West) passed over the 3♣ bid from East the Director shall not include any other call in this position when judging possible outcome of the auction.

 

East has UI that (and how) West misunderstood the 3♣ bid, and the first question for TD to resolve is whether East shall be allowed to bid 4♥. My impression is that PASS is no LA for East here even with the UI, and that the 4♥ bid should be allowed.

 

The second question is whether (with correct information) North and/or South would have called differently over 3NT from West or 4♥ from East. Frankly I doubt it but am open to an argument that North/South somehow might find their way to 5♦.

[Finch]

Why do you believe that South is "fully aware of the misinformation from West" ?

He may suspect that EITHER he has been given misinformation OR that East has the methods wrong, but he certainly has no reason to be certain of either.

All we know at the table is that South passed over what he was told is a natural 3C bid.

[pran]

Why do you believe that South is "fully aware of the misinformation from West" ?

He may suspect that EITHER he has been given misinformation OR that East has the methods wrong, but he certainly has no reason to be certain of either.

All we know at the table is that South passed over what he was told is a natural 3C bid.

Because I trust OP when he wrote: South, presumably, in addition to knowing that East is showing the Majors (having full view of their system notes) [...]

[RMB1]

Because I trust OP when he wrote: South, presumably, in addition to knowing that East is showing the Majors (having full view of their system notes) [...]

The OP was not at the table and is reviewing a 12 year old appeal.

The OP is saying that we should adjust on the basis that South knew the explanation and the agreement; Frances may be suggesting that if it is more favourable to the non-offenders, we should adjust on the basis that South discounted the explanation when he knows the real agreement.

[RMB1]

At the time, I think we were persuaded that there was no logical alternative to East bidding hearts (I was always going to show the seventh heart). Note that this was before the latest law book: the EBU interpretation of logical alternative was still 70%/30% rule.

[campboy]

I don't think that it is normal to rule on the basis that South knows there has been a misunderstanding here. We rule on the basis of what might have happened without the infraction. The infraction is the MI, so we think about what might happen if South never received misinformation, rather than what might happen if there was MI that was immediately corrected.

 

There are some situations where we do assume NOS know there has been a misunderstanding, though. OS are required to correct the MI before the opening lead (if they will be declaring). If that doesn't happen, then there are two irregularities. We can adjust based on the first irregularity (NOS would do something different if they had correct information throughout), or based on the second irregularity (if NOS had been told at the end of the auction they would have known both the correct information and that there had been a misunderstanding, and they might use this information to change their final pass, or choose the opening lead).

[lamford]

We rule on the basis of what might have happened without the infraction.

Exactly so. South does "know" that somebody has the system wrong (where are all the hearts and spades if 3C is natural?), but that does not matter. Without the infraction, he would surely bid 3♦. I agree that West would compete with 4♣ and North will double as a game-try in diamonds but I then think pass is an LA for East. He has two clubs more than he might have had, a side-suit void, and he has shown 6+ hearts and 4+spades, but his partner still wants to play in clubs. I think there should at least be some 4Cx-8 (on a trump lead and continuation) for EW to add to their collection. East has UI that his partner thinks 3♣ is natural, and he must carefully avoid taking any advantage, even, I presume, 12 years ago. Minus a couple of grand is exercising that care.