[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-12, 09:20, said:

* There is this nice name for a "conventional defense vs 1NT" where everything is natural, but I forgot the name. Who can refresh my memory?

Mosher.

[tabaresort]

.
It maybe useful to read the EBU's "Director's Training Book" which says on page 12;

Opponents have the right to know your system not what is in your hand. If the contents differ then
1) the explanation is wrong = misinformation and opps may be damaged.
OR
2)you have departed from your system, either accidentally (a misbid) or deliberately (a psyche).

Unless there is evidence that partner made allowance for the forgetfulness then the score should stand irrespective of the damage.
..
South clearly did not know what to bid faced with 6 clubs. North correctly bid and passed believing south to have 5 clubs.

[blackshoe]

tabaresort, on 2012-January-12, 12:30, said:

.
It maybe useful to read the EBU's "Director's Training Book" which says on page 12;

Opponents have the right to know your system not what is in your hand. If the contents differ then
1) the explanation is wrong = misinformation and opps may be damaged.
OR
2)you have departed from your system, either accidentally (a misbid) or deliberately (a psyche).

Unless there is evidence that partner made allowance for the forgetfulness then the score should stand irrespective of the damage.
..
South clearly did not know what to bid faced with 6 clubs. North correctly bid and passed believing south to have 5 clubs.

If partner made allowance for a misbid, that is evidence of an implicit and presumably undisclosed agreement. So the infraction is of the disclosure rules. If however there is no such evidence, or the implicit agreement was disclosed, there is no infraction of law, and so no adjustment. I just don't want a reader to think that the "either.. or..." premise leads directly to your "unless..." The TD must investigate and determine which of your "either...or..." applies. If there was a misexplanation, then the score should be adjusted if there was damage.

In the instant case, of course, your "unless.." is correct.

[DaveB]

The facts as I was able to obtain them

(1) North stated that 2C shows Hearts plus another
(2) The System Card showed 2C shows Hearts plus another
(3) South stated that to show her Clubs (she believed) she should bid 2C

So after the event South did not believe she had deviated from the
System either deliberately or accidentally.

So at least in my opinion that removes option (2) leaving option (1)
ie a misexplanation. You cannot have a partnership agreement upon which the
members of the partnership disagree.

[RMB1]

If the TD finds that the partnership understanding was the South thought 2C showed H+another or clubs and North thought 2C showed H+another then there should be an adjustment on the basis of misinformation. Formally, East/West are entitled to know that N/S agree that 2C showed H+another but N/S disagree as to whether 2C can also show (just) clubs.

A practical adjustment based on such an explanation is to allow West to bid hearts naturally some of the time, and so for EW to play in 3H some of the time.

[blackshoe]

I have no problem with an adjustment for MI in the instant case. All I'm saying is that the correct explanation depends on what, precisely, they agreed. If the discussion went (as it did with my Brozel example upthread) "Asptro, partner?' "Sure," then the correct explanation is "We agreed to play Asptro, but did not discuss it further".

[Vampyr]

tabaresort, on 2012-January-12, 12:30, said:

.
It maybe useful to read the EBU's "Director's Training Book" which says on page 12;

Where did you get this book? It was not offered to me on the club or county director courses.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-12, 18:34, said:

Where did you get this book? It was not offered to me on the club or county director courses.

I have not seen it either, nor is it listed among the EBU Laws and Ethics publications at

http://www.ebu.co.uk...ublications.htm

A search on Amazon also proved fruitless.

Its advice seems sensible however, and in this case the results stands. I think I overheard David Burn explaining, in this or a similar case, why South could bid what she liked. I suspect South may have forgotten that 2C was conventional, but 3C still seems the only LA.

[tabaresort]

DaveB, on 2012-January-12, 15:16, said:

The facts as I was able to obtain them

(1) North stated that 2C shows Hearts plus another
(2) The System Card showed 2C shows Hearts plus another
(3) South stated that to show her Clubs (she believed) she should bid 2C

So after the event South did not believe she had deviated from the
System either deliberately or accidentally.

So at least in my opinion that removes option (2) leaving option (1)
ie a misexplanation. You cannot have a partnership agreement upon which the
members of the partnership disagree.

Compare the following:

South North east south west north
s 82 s93 1nt 2c* p 2h
h64 h952 All pass
dAQJ d7432
cKJ8754 dQ 10 32 *2c alerted as showing majors

2h goes 5 off n/s -250. However every other e/w makes 4h or 4s so e/w have a complete bottom.
The ruling here is that south has made a misbid, but north has bid quite normally so the misbid has not been fielded. The score stands.
How does this example differ from the one under discussion?
At worst it is a psyche which although unpopular are permitted by law 40A provided partner makes no allowance for the psyche. In the event partner was as much in the dark as the opps. and in fact with 3 or more hearts would have ploughed on to 4 hearts and a resounding bottom!

[tabaresort]

lamford, on 2012-January-13, 08:12, said:

I have not seen it either, nor is it listed among the EBU Laws and Ethics publications at

http://www.ebu.co.uk...ublications.htm

A search on Amazon also proved fruitless.

Its advice seems sensible however, and in this case the results stands. I think I overheard David Burn explaining, in this or a similar case, why South could bid what she liked. I suspect South may have forgotten that 2C was conventional, but 3C still seems the only LA.

Book is Club Director Training - Judgment Rulings. EBU Oct 2003

[tabaresort]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-12, 18:26, said:

I have no problem with an adjustment for MI in the instant case. All I'm saying is that the correct explanation depends on what, precisely, they agreed. If the discussion went (as it did with my Brozel example upthread) "Asptro, partner?' "Sure," then the correct explanation is "We agreed to play Asptro, but did not discuss it further".

Unfortunately with new partnerships it is hard enough to agree a convention without realising that further problems can arise or indeed what those further problems will be until they occur. ( as in the event )

[blackshoe]

Sure, but that just emphasizes that the correct explanation is as I said.

[barmar]

tabaresort, on 2012-January-14, 11:25, said:

Compare the following:

South North east south west north
s 82 s93 1nt 2c* p 2h
h64 h952 All pass
dAQJ d7432
cKJ8754 dQ 10 32 *2c alerted as showing majors

Please use the hand diagram tool, this is totally unreadable (the icon with the spade symbol).

[blackshoe]

---

I may have got it wrong, it is, as barmar said, practically unreadable.

[DaveB]

Well I believe it all depends on why South bid 2C.

If South forgot they were playing 2C is Hearts and another then result stands.

If South believes they are playing 2C is natural then there is a misexplanation
and a (probable) rectification.

[aguahombre]

DaveB, on 2012-January-14, 15:35, said:

Well I believe it all depends on why South bid 2C.

If South forgot they were playing 2C is Hearts and another then result stands.

If South believes they are playing 2C is natural then there is a misexplanation
and a (probable) rectification.

I was under the impression it is not what the bidder believes, but rather what their actual agreement is, that determines misinformation.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-14, 15:44, said:

I was under the impression it is not what the bidder believes, but rather what their actual agreement is, that determines misinformation.

What matter is the agreement/understanding.

What South believes is some evidence of what their agreement is. What North explains is also evidence of their agreement. But Law 21B1b instructs us to favour South if he believes he got the system right.

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2012-January-14, 15:58, said:

But Law 21B1b instructs us to favour South if he believes he got the system right.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary. The CC is such evidence.

[tabaresort]

barmar, on 2012-January-14, 15:09, said:

Please use the hand diagram tool, this is totally unreadable (the icon with the spade symbol).

South

Bidding<br>east south west north<br>1nt 2c* pass 2h<br><br>*alerted as Majors

---

Many thanks, hope this works

[Trinidad]

The tool can also be used for the auction.

Rik