[VixTD]

National mixed pairs championship:

---

Result: 4♦(W)-1, NS+50.

North asked about the 3♦ bid before bidding 3♥ and was told that it was forcing. I was called at the end of the auction play by South who said that the hand did not match the description and that if she had been told it could be this weak she would have bid 4♥. I asked EW and I don't think they had any firm agreement, East was just making an assumption.

Do you think NS are due any redress?

[Vampyr]

Yes.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2014-March-24, 13:15, said:

<snip>if she had been told it could be this weak she would have bid 4♥. I asked EW and I don't think they had any firm agreement, East was just making an assumption.

Do you think NS are due any redress?

So we poll a few peers of South and establish whether they would bid 4H with the explanation "no agreement". My guess is that most would. We assume MI in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Note that it is not relevant why South chose not to bid 4H with the wrong information.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2014-March-24, 19:19, said:

So we poll a few peers of South and establish whether they would bid 4H with the explanation "no agreement". My guess is that most would. We assume MI in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Note that it is not relevant why South chose not to bid 4H with the wrong information.

This I did, and most of them would have bid 4♥. Only one or two asked about the strength of 3♦ and thought they might be more likely to pass if it was strong. Most would have bid whatever 3♦ meant.

I'm not sure whether your last sentence is correct, though. Given these poll results, would you adjust the result to:

• 100% of 4♥(N)= to both sides
  
• 70 or 80% of 4♥(N)= and 30 or 20% of 4♦(W)-1 to both sides
  
• 50% of each of the above contracts to both sides
  
• no adjustment

[campboy]

Those who would have bid 4♥ even if told 3♦ was forcing may not be peers of South, since she didn't.

[nige1]

campboy, on 2014-March-25, 08:15, said:

Those who would have bid 4♥ even if told 3♦ was forcing may not be peers of South, since she didn't.

I think the director must explain relevant NS methods to those polled and make the crude assumption they're South's peers. If EW really had no understanding about 3♦, then, before the opening lead, West should have called the director to correct East's explanation

[mamos]

nige1, on 2014-March-25, 19:27, said:

I think the director must explain relevant NS methods to those polled and make the crude assumption they're South's peers. If EW really had no understanding about 3♦, then, before the opening lead, West should have called the director to correct East's explanation

Not true. Only declarer or dummy should correct misexplanations at this time. Defenders must wait until the end of play to correct in this way. Read From the Flipping Law-Book

Mike

[campboy]

West was declarer.

[Bbradley62]

campboy, on 2014-March-26, 09:02, said:

mamos, on 2014-March-26, 08:52, said:

nige1, on 2014-March-25, 19:27, said:

... before the opening lead, West should have called the director to correct East's explanation

Not true. Only declarer or dummy should correct misexplanations at this time. Defenders must wait until the end of play to correct in this way. Read From the Flipping Law-Book

Mike

West was declarer.

Doh!

[blackshoe]

How did South know, at the end of the auction (which is when she called the director), what West's (declarer's) hand looked like?

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2014-March-24, 13:15, said:

National mixed pairs championship:

---

Result: 4♦(W)-1, NS+50.

North asked about the 3♦ bid before bidding 3♥ and was told that it was forcing. I was called at the end of the auction by South who said that the hand did not match the description and that if she had been told it could be this weak she would have bid 4♥. I asked EW and I don't think they had any firm agreement, East was just making an assumption.

Do you think NS are due any redress?

At what point did South make the statement to the TD that she would have bid 4♥: at the end of the auction, or at the end of the hand?
As the TD appears to have established that there was misinformation, the TD should offer North the chance to change his final call. Was this option given? I'd expect North to want to change his final pass to a double, but presumably if South's statement was made as soon as the TD was called then there's an additional complication as North has to contend with the fact that this statement is UI.

[ggwhiz]

West is required to correct the mis explanation and didn't which doubles up on the infraction/damage imo. As long as some of souths peers would bid 4♥ that's my ruling.

I really don't understand how imposing the judgment of a % of your "peers" in a random setting for a split score makes any sense. I have had enough bizzaro auctions to make a strong case that I don't have any peers.

[sfi]

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-26, 16:22, said:

I have had enough bizzaro auctions to make a strong case that I don't have any peers.

Nah, that just shows you have lots of peers.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2014-March-26, 13:08, said:

At what point did South make the statement to the TD that she would have bid 4♥: at the end of the auction, or at the end of the hand?
As the TD appears to have established that there was misinformation, the TD should offer North the chance to change his final call. Was this option given? I'd expect North to want to change his final pass to a double, but presumably if South's statement was made as soon as the TD was called then there's an additional complication as North has to contend with the fact that this statement is UI.

I was called at the end of play. West did not correct the misinformation, and of course they should have done. Without such a correction NS had no reason to suppose anything was amiss until the hand had been played out.

North made no mention of what action he would have taken with a correct explanation ("no agreement"), I should have asked, but he was the sort of player who would have volunteered the information.

[VixTD]

ggwhiz, on 2014-March-26, 16:22, said:

As long as some of souths peers would bid 4♥ that's my ruling.

I really don't understand how imposing the judgment of a % of your "peers" in a random setting for a split score makes any sense.

This is what I think is the interesting aspect of the ruling, and the main reason I posted it. Until now everyone's avoided answering my question of whether they would have awarded a weighted score or not, and indeed whether it would be legal to do so.

I believe that there are players who are more likely to bid 4♥ with the South hand if they are told that 3♦ is not forcing. It doesn't feel right to me to award them 100% of 4♥=, as I think they should have bid 4♥ anyway. I can't take off some of the percentage of bidding 4♥ because I think they are wimps, but I can reason that the fact that they didn't bid 4♥ with the wrong explanation suggests they wouldn't bid it with the right explanation either, because I don't see that the explanation makes much difference to their choice of call. This is further strengthened by the fact that a correct explanation wouldn't have been "natural and weak", but "natural, no agreement about strength", leaving them with something of a guess.

I actually awarded a score of 70% 4♥(N)= and 30% 4♦(W)-1.

Was my ruling legal?

[campboy]

I didn't avoid the question of whether it was legal to award a weighted score; I didn't realise it was being asked. Yes it is. You don't know what would have happened without the irregularity, but it might have been either of those two scores, so it should be normal to weight.

The question is how likely a player who passed with the incorrect information is to bid 4♥ with correct information. So the people who matter in the poll are people who would pass (or who weren't sure what they'd do) with incorrect information. What proportion of them were bidding with correct information?

[lamford]

mamos, on 2014-March-26, 08:52, said:

Not true. Only declarer or dummy should correct misexplanations at this time. Defenders must wait until the end of play to correct in this way. Read From the Flipping Law-Book
Mike

Is that in the Bridge Flippers series?

[ggwhiz]

VixTD, on 2014-March-27, 08:27, said:

I actually awarded a score of 70% 4♥(N)= and 30% 4♦(W)-1.

Was my ruling legal?

I'm in ACBL land but am intrigued by the split score approach.

Are you allowed to award 70% of 4♥ making to N/S and 100% of 4♥ making to E/W?

Maybe more egregious circumstances are required but I don't care for E/W escaping with 30% of an undeserved result. Perhaps a PP covers this kind of situation?

If the ACBL ever adopted split rulings I could imagine an appeal on every one of them to modify the percentages and think it's an awful lot of pressure to put on the Director.

[Cascade]

sfi, on 2014-March-26, 17:43, said:

Nah, that just shows you have lots of peers.

Not necessarily the 'peers' you are thinking of might actually perpetrate completely different but equally bizarre auctions.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2014-March-27, 08:15, said:

I was called at the end of play. West did not correct the misinformation, and of course they should have done. Without such a correction NS had no reason to suppose anything was amiss until the hand had been played out.

North made no mention of what action he would have taken with a correct explanation ("no agreement"), I should have asked, but he was the sort of player who would have volunteered the information.

The reason for my question about the timing of South's remarks was that your original post said:

VixTD, on 2014-March-24, 13:15, said:

.... I was called at the end of the auction by South.....

If you were in fact not called at the end of the auction then we have to deal with that infraction as well.

I don't agree with your contention that: "NS had no reason to suppose anything was amiss until the hand had been played out" as far as North was concerned. North knows that 3♦ was not intended as game forcing as why did West pass 4♦? North also has such a strong hand that he can work out that there has been a misexplanation, misbid or psyche.

Your ruling is certainly legal, although one can argue with the judgement. For example, if South bids 4♥, East or West might well go on to 5♦.