MI case with screens

[szgyula]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8642h865dk8cqj6&w=sk7hkj2d9432ckt52&n=sjt95ht9daqjt75ca&e=sq3haq743d6c98743&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1d3cp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Screens are used. East explains to North "two suiter, clubs and hearts". West explains to South "Ghestem, two suiter, hearts and spades". It is established (CC, etc.) that EW plays Ghestem and it is a two suiter, hearts and spades.

 

North argues that HE (North) did not reopen spades because of the infraction of EW. He assumed that his partner got the same explanation (C and H). As the partner did not bid spades, he (S) can not have spades.

 

Now I strongly disagree. In my opinion, there was a clear bidding error and a clear misinformation to North. On the other hand, South got the correct explanation from West. Sure, this explanation provided the partnership agreement, not the actual hand of East. Thus, the auction is not affected up to the point of p-p-1D-3C-p-3H. The only question is what could North do differently, knowing the acutal partnership agreement, i.e. H and S. One can argue 4D but in this case it would be 4D=, which is worse than the actual table score of 3H-3.

 

The TD ruling was "we can not figure out so AVG+/AVG-". In my opinion the ruling should have been bidding error (irrelevant) and MI to North. Since North could not use the correct information, no damage, result stands. E made a bridge error and EW was lucky.

 

It was an IMP event, if that matters. Typical result was 4S=.

 

Gyula

[pescetom]

I fear you are right, much as I would like to assign 4S= to NS and forbid EW to use non-natural inteference for the remainder of the tournament.

[VixTD]

The TD ruling was "we can not figure out so AVG+/AVG-".

I'm surprised at this ruling at an event played with screens. Screens are normally restricted to tournaments where both the players and directors are very experienced. If the TD decided that North had been misinformed and damaged, they should at least be able to point to what different action they may have taken initially. If the possible continuations from there are too difficult to work out then the ruling given would be legal, but I'm still surprised it was chosen rather than a weighted assigned score. Or did the TD decide that EW were playing an unlicensed convention (Ghestem-without-knowing-what-it-is)?

 

I would have allowed the score to stand.

[barmar]

North argues that HE (North) did not reopen spades because of the infraction of EW. He assumed that his partner got the same explanation (C and H). As the partner did not bid spades, he (S) can not have spades.

He need at least 5 spades; and if 3♠ would be forcing, a decent hand as well. So the pass doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a spade fit. This is the whole point of balancing, and it's hard to imagine an argument like this from someone playing in an event that uses screens.

[lamford]

If South had the explanation that 3C shows hearts and spades, why did he not double? His side has the balance of points, and he can double spades? Why did North not double 3H for takeout? He is happy to play in 3S or 4D? It doesn't sound like the OP is correct to me, or NS are beginners.