Adjust score after mistaken explanation?

[zenbiddist]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqthk32dat9863ca&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1d2n(%22Majors%22)p3s]133|200[/hv]

 

What are logical actions for a club player sitting South here?

What would they be if West's bid had been alerted as "Minors"?

 

The ruling hinges on whether North-South have been damaged by a mistaken explanation, because East-West's agreement for 2NT is "minors". (Yes - that's a poor agreement but that's what it is.)

 

Thanks!

[blackshoe]

I don't understand why you're concerned with South's bidding, unless you think he's done, or is about to do, something crazy.

 

I would pass, btw.

[zenbiddist]

I don't understand why you're concerned with South's bidding, unless you think he's done, or is about to do, something crazy.

 

I would pass, btw.

 

South's call over 3♠ was 4♦. I guess I'm wondering how to interpret the Laws - I'm not sure if the mistaken explanation damaged South so much as their own bid did :)

[gordontd]

South's call over 3♠ was 4♦. I guess I'm wondering how to interpret the Laws - I'm not sure if the mistaken explanation damaged South so much as their own bid did :)

What would South do with the correct explanation? Would they have got a better result in that case?

[sfi]

Well, I've been looking at this hand on and off today and I still don't know what I would do. The one thing I do know is that 4D would be in consideration when 2NT shows the majors but not when it shows the minors.

[gordontd]

I wonder what the player said they would do.

[sanst]

With the explanation given, 4♦ is probably not very clever, certainly not given the vulnerability, but it's not a serious error as defined in the commentary to the 2007 Laws: "When considering the damage related to an infraction, a player should not be punished for making such a mistake unless this is considered to be really unacceptable".

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqthk32dat9863ca&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1d2n(%22Majors%22)p3s]133|200|

What are logical actions for a club player sitting South here?

What would they be if West's bid had been alerted as "Minors"?

The ruling hinges on whether North-South have been damaged by a mistaken explanation, because East-West's agreement for 2NT is "minors". (Yes - that's a poor agreement but that's what it is.)[/hv]

South's call over 3♠ was 4♦. I guess I'm wondering how to interpret the Laws - I'm not sure if the mistaken explanation damaged South so much as their own bid did :)

If South knows that 2N shows minors, then he wouldn't bid 4♦. He'd probably pass.

If 4♦ resulted in a poor score then NS were damaged by the failure to alert and the director should adjust, unless he's certain that South would still embark on some costly Balkan adventure, with correct information.

[barmar]

Logical Alternatives only apply when discussing a player's action after receiving UI, not misinformation. The Law that's relevant to this case is 21B:

1. (a) Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) and provided that his partner has not

subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side

when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been

influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent. Failure to alert

promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed

misinformation.

...

3. When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an

advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score.

I think it's pretty clear that the 4♦ bid was influenced by thinking that West has majors rather than minors. It might not be a great bid (the ♠Q and ♥K are likely to be useless, although West might lead a spade because East bid them), but he obviously wouldn't have bid it with the correct explanation.

 

So if South bids 4♦ and the explanation is corrected before North calls, South can change his call (and the fact that he wanted to bid 4♦ is AI to his partner, UI to the opponents). If the explanation isn't corrected in time for South to change his call, the score should probably be adjusted to whatever happens to 3♠.

[steve2005]

EW are both passed hands. I would have doubled 3♠ .

[Zelandakh]

EW are both passed hands. I would have doubled 3♠ .

Does that make a difference to the case of damage caused by the MI?

[ggwhiz]

4♦ isn't my first choice either but would never happen without the infraction so imo protection is due. Chances are pretty decent that 2nt was a wilder more gambling action than 4♦ and I might take that into account if I knew the west hand.

 

However, with the correct info south would certainly double(maybe?) and if the score for 3♠ undoubled is not enough compensation say, if 3nt made a few times n/s, I would go with avg+, avg-.

 

Not at all sure but it feels like too many hoops to jump through to divine any other result.