Please help me to understand the

[ArcLight]

RHO opened 1NT

I bid 2♦ DONT showing ♦ and a higher ranking suit.

Pard alerted it (INCORRECTLY) as showing the majors, (I was 1-4 in the majors)

LHO passed, pard bid 2♥, the opponents went to 3NT and I bid 4♥.

After the bidding I explained the alert was incorrect.

The director was called.

 

We played the hand 4♥ -2 X ( a great score)

 

Other teams were playing in 4♠ making. Te director changed the score to 4♠ making.

 

The director said that since we declared they were damaged.

 

 

But on a different hand, pard misgrouped their cards and made an erroneous splinter bid in response to my 1♥ opener. Turns out pard had 2 trumps, not 4, and instead of a ♦ void had a small doubleton. Plus pard bid 3♠ instead of 4♦. I made 4♥ despite the 5-2 bit and all that.

 

Could the opponents have called the director there as well?

 

Is it always the case that if pard forgets your system and gives a wrong explanation that the opponents always get the average plus?

 

My question really is:

 

If pard forgets what your bid means and gives mistaken information (not deliberate, they forgot) what are the consequences?

You are not allowed during the bidding to tell the opps. You have to wait till the bididng is over.

They can complain and automatically get an average plus?

[luke warm]

my understanding is that first the td has to determine whether there was mi or not... here, yes there was... next, did the mi harm the opps... possibly it did, in that your partner's explanation of 'majors' might have (probably did) prevent the opps from bidding and making 4s

 

i think the mi must harm the opps for the result to be changed

[david_c]

The director said that since we declared they were damaged.

That's ridiculous. Perhaps they were damaged, but it certainly doesn't follow automatically from the fact that they ended up defending.

 

But on a different hand, pard misgrouped their cards and made an erroneous splinter bid in response to my 1♥ opener.  Turns out pard had 2 trumps, not 4, and instead of a ♦ void had a small doubleton.  Plus pard bid 3♠ instead of 4♦.  I made 4♥ despite the 5-2 bit and all that.

 

Could the opponents have called the director there as well?

There's nothing wrong with calling the director, because it's clear that something has gone wrong. I think the director would want to ask your partner a few more questions before making a ruling, but if it's just a misbid/mis-sort, then there shouldn't be any adjustment.

 

My question really is:

 

If pard forgets what your bid means and gives mistaken information (not deliberate, they forgot) what are the consequences?

The director will decide whether the result would have been different if the correct explanation had been given. If so, then he will adjust to that result. [Well, I've left a few things out there, but that's the basic idea.]

 

In face-to-face bridge the director also needs to consider whether the incorrect explanation created a UI problem for the explainer's partner.

 

You are not allowed during the bidding to tell the opps.  You have to wait till the bididng is over.

They can complain and automatically get an average plus?

No way! The director must not adjust the score "automatically". Furthermore he should not adjust the score to average plus in this sort of MI case.

[Winstonm]

I think there was clear cut damage here. First, for many there is a distinct difference to approaches when the opponents intervene in a NT auction depending on the opponents' system. Unusual verses Unusual can be used if the opponent's bidding shows two known suits, but as in DONT when only one of the suits is known this cannot be accomplished. So immediately an explanation of "majors" has altered the responses to this interference for many pairs. (They more than likely now have set Unusual verses Unusual in motion).

 

The next thing is partner's 2H bid. If he thinks you have majors, you now have UI that he has a preference for hearts over spades or equal length, hence the opponents likely have at least a 4/4 spade fit.

 

But IMO this particular explanation automatically damages the opponents as there is no reason to adopt methods to uncover a 4/4 major suit fit when the opponents have announced a hand holding both majors. For the opponents, the explanation has virtually ruled out 4S as a viable contract. Bridge logic says this is a reasonable assumption. That is clear damage.

 

Winston

[pigpenz]

lets see the hands and the actual auction.....true there may have been misinformation but sometimes uncovering 4-4 spade fit might not be that easy on any type of auction where there is a two suited overcall B) So yes there may have been information, the question is did partners explanation also have an influence on your bid. Ethically you should bid your hand just as if partner knew exactly what your call was even though you know he didnt. Until one see the hands that would be hard to determine

[Winstonm]

I wonder what would happen if one knowingly gave misinformation?

 

1D-2D-?

 

Knowing it is Michael's and holding Qx, AJxxxx, xxx, xx the opp explains the bid as top and bottom for spades and clubs and then bids 4H anyway. It would be hard to ever prove he knowingly gave inaccurate information and the explanation would damage opponents in the bidding, both opponents assuming rather short hearts in dummy and each probably anticipating a bad heart break for declarer.

[LH2650]

I wonder what would happen if one knowingly gave misinformation?

 

1D-2D-?

 

Knowing it is Michael's and holding Qx, AJxxxx, xxx, xx the opp explains the bid as top and bottom for spades and clubs and then bids 4H anyway.  It would be hard to ever prove he knowingly gave inaccurate information and the explanation would damage opponents in the bidding, both opponents assuming rather short hearts in dummy and each probably anticipating a bad heart break for declarer.

Assuming you had a Convention Card marked "Michaels", the director has sufficient grounds to adjust the score, and insufficient grounds to get you suspended from the ACBL.

[Rebound]

I don't know if this particular question has been answered clearly, but regarding the differences in the way the 2 situations described by the original poster are handled:

 

It is important to understand that you must ensure that your opponents are properly informed of the agreed meaning of your calls but that your hand can deviate from that agreed meaning at any time provided your partner is in the dark as much as the opponents are.

 

In the event you misinform the opponents of your agreements, the director must determine if they have been damaged by the misinformation. No damage = no penalty. It is reasonable to conclude there has been damage in this case so an adjusted score is permitted. But as stated by others, no, it should never be automatic.

[jikl]

I have a simple question...

 

Did partner alert to the whole table? Surely he/she did not, then they should know that partner has it wrong when your partner explains the 2♥ bid.

 

Sean