[schulken]

---

ACBL. Club game. EW established partnership A pair. S A player, N B+, newish partnership. Ruling director asked me later about my thoughts.

1NT announced as 11-14. 2♦ call not alerted. W asked and N said it was natural. Prior to calling, W sought the director away from the table, telling him she was sure there was misinformation. The director advised W to call based on the information that was provided by the opponents. If it turned out to be incorrect and EW was damaged, he could award an adjusted score. 2♥ went off 1 and the director was summoned back to the table. N agreed he had erred in his explanation and that their agreement was that 2♦ showed both majors. EW contended they could have found their ♦ part score with an accurate description and NS agreed. The director awarded an adjusted score of +110 for EW.

While I agree there was misinformation and damage, I disagree about the cause of the damage. To me, the damage seemed to have been caused by E continuing to bid. (While I take issue with his opening bid as well, that's not the subject of this post.) My experience with TDs - as an assistant TD, in consulting with more experienced TDs while working as an assistant, and in playing when MI occurs - is there is little sympathy for potentially damaged parties when they continue to bid into unknown territory. That's why I was inclined to have EW accept the table result. The table result is still better than par for EW, with most NS pairs finding their 10-card ♠ fit. Had E passed, NS playing 2♦ would have probably been off 4, a top for EW.

I would appreciate your thoughts. While L20-21 (and the outdated example in L75) are helpful in understanding the rule, they aren't helpful in applying them in specific scenarios.

[Hanoi5]

I think the only reason not to bid 2♥ with the East hand is the knowledge that South holds the Majors. Since East was kept from this knowledge there should be redress. West's pass is problematic though, maybe the Director should have given some kind of artificial adjusted score, like 60-40.

[blackshoe]

In the context of the laws, and given there was an irregularity, there are four possible evaluations of East's 2♥ bid:

1. It was wild.
2. It was gambling.
3. It was a serious error not related to the irregularity.
4. It was none of the above (including the possibility of an error that does not rise to "serious", or does so rise, but is related to the irregularity).

Note that "serious error" is not as crazy, if I may use that word, as "gambling" or "wild".

IMO, "wild" connotes a situation where the bidder has given no thought to his bid, "gambling" connotes a situation where the bidder has given some thought to it, realizes he's taking a chance, and bids anyway, and "error" (serious or otherwise) means that he thought about what he was about to do, but his thought process was wrong.

If 2♥ was a serious error, it seems certain to have been related to the irregularity - if North had correctly explained 2♦ as showing both majors, it seems highly unlikely East would have bid at all. Thus we don't rule that item 3 applies. Given that EW is an established A pair, I doubt "wild" applies, so that's out. Was it "gambling"? Maybe. We should probably ask East what his thoughts were.

If 2♥ is not deemed "gambling", then Law 12C1{b} does not apply, and the 2♥ bid in itself has no bearing on the ruling.

If 2♥ is deemed "gambling", then Law 12C1{b} tells the director to award a split score, not compensating EW for the part of the damage caused by the "gambling" bid. NS, however, should get the same adjustment they would get if the 2♥ bid were deemed "none of the above" so that 12C1{b} would not apply.

In adjusting the score, whether 12C1{b} applies or not, we have to figure out what might have (note: not "would have") happened had EW not been misinformed. That is the baseline for computing damage ("the expectation had the infraction not occurred"). There seems a consensus that EW might have found their diamond fit and made 3♦ (the table director's adjustment). There is also the possibility that East might have passed 2♦ if he'd understood NS were having a communication problem. In that case the result would have been +200 to EW.

This is getting complicated. If EW pursue the MI question before bidding, and North becomes aware of the misexplanation, that knowledge is UI to him, so he is not permitted to bid 2♠, and NS will probably not find their spade fit.

Back to the adjustment, or more accurately the damage. What should the baseline be? With accurate information, will West pass, hoping that East will also pass? I don't think so - West's hand is too good considering East opened the bidding. So the baseline should be +110 to EW, and the total damage is -100-(110)= -210 to EW. Of this, how much was caused by the 2♥ bid? I'm not at all sure of the answer here, but if we can compute that, we subtract it from the putative +110 that EW would get if 12C1{b} did not apply. Let's say all of the damage was caused by the 2♥. That seems reasonable, given that East could have passed. Then EW gets -100 for their adjusted score (the table result) and NS get -110. If, OTOH, only 100 points of damage were caused by the 2♥ bid (I'm not saying there's a case for that, just trying to show an example of how to calculate the adjusted score) then EW would get +10 and NS would still get -110. And of course, if 12C1{b} is found not to apply, then EW +110, NS -110.

[Vampyr]

Hanoi5, on 2014-February-09, 14:16, said:

I think the only reason not to bid 2♥ with the East hand is the knowledge that South holds the Majors. Since East was kept from this knowledge there should be redress. West's pass is problematic though, maybe the Director should have given some kind of artificial adjusted score, like 60-40.

What would you have West do over 2♥? He can't bid diamonds naturally; should he try 3♣?

[pran]

I have discussed similar situations with the Norwegian LC and the principle we apply is that the NON-offending side is entitled to have their result adjusted to whatever it might be with correct information.

But the offending side shall not be heard with an argument that they too would have called differently if they had not given misinformation!

So here I would adjust the result to 2♦S-4.

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on 2014-February-09, 14:16, said:

I think the only reason not to bid 2♥ with the East hand is the knowledge that South holds the Majors. Since East was kept from this knowledge there should be redress. West's pass is problematic though, maybe the Director should have given some kind of artificial adjusted score, like 60-40.

The only justification for that would be found in Law 12C1{d}: "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score". That would bring us to Law 12C2{a} and an adjusted score of "average plus" to EW and "average minus" to NS. This may or may not work out to 60-40.

As for West's pass, given the information that South's 2♦ is natural, why is it problematic? What, precisely, is the problem with it?

[blackshoe]

Further thoughts: I think the director's advice to West, to bid on the basis of the information given, was probably a bad idea. There's an allegation of a possible infraction here, and the TD is not investigating it (Law 81C3). Also, did NS have the required two completed system cards on the table and available to EW? What was on their card about the 2♦ bid? And one last thought: if West proceeds on the basis of her own "certainty" that there was misinformation, she does so at her own risk - and she runs the risk of confusing East, particularly if she has some artificial bid (given that 2♦ is artificial) that shows the minors, and uses that - or even if she bids 3♦ intending it as a natural bid. So I think West is correct to attempt to find out whether there was MI, and I'm not so sure, under the circumstances, that there's any problem at all with her pass over 2♦.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-09, 14:49, said:

IMO, "wild" connotes a situation where the bidder has given no thought to his bid, "gambling" connotes a situation where the bidder has given some thought to it, realizes he's taking a chance, and bids anyway, and "error" (serious or otherwise) means that he thought about what he was about to do, but his thought process was wrong.

I think that a "serious error" has a much more stringent definition than that. I believe that it has to be something truly absurd, or failure to follow proper procedure.. At least that was what Edgar Kaplan thought, and the guidance in the White Book is along these lines.

But even if the above is not the definition used in some other jurisdiction, having a mistaken thought process does not come close to qualifying, especially since the player should not have been put in that position in the first place.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-09, 15:05, said:

So I think West is correct to attempt to find out whether there was MI, and I'm not so sure, under the circumstances, that there's any problem at all with her pass over 2♦.

Oh, do you think the poster above was referring to West's pass over 2♦? What on earth else could West have done? Even if double would have been for penalties (unlikely, I should have thought), West may a) suspect misinformation, or b) think that the information is correct, but that opponents could find a better spot, eg in spades.

Sorry I did not quote the part about the director's advice, but it is hard to judge whether it was right or wrong, because West 's leaving the table to see the director was not the right thing to do. So the director probably reckoned that West should do what she would have done had she correctly stayed at the table and waited until after the hand was finished. This is not unreasonable.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-February-09, 15:13, said:

I think that a "serious error" has a much more stringent definition than that. I believe that it has to be something truly absurd, or failure to follow proper procedure.. At least that was what Edgar Kaplan thought, and the guidance in the White Book is along these lines.

But even if the above is not the definition used in some other jurisdiction, having a mistaken thought process does not come close to qualifying, especially since the player should not have been put in that position in the first place.

Let me add something then to what I've said: an "error" involves a mistaken thought process. If it's a small error, it does not result in 12C1{b} being applied. If it's a "serious" error, and it was related to the opponents' infraction, it does not result in 12C1{b} being applied. Only if it is both serious and unrelated to the infraction is 12C1{b} applied. IOW if the mistaken thought process was influenced (or caused) by an infraction, and the result was a serious error, the player is not on the hook for it. You seem to wish to extend this to less than serious errors (any error?) but the laws as currently written do not say that.

Edit: I don't think what I said earlier or here above about "serious error" is inconsistent with the WB. If it is, then sure, go ahead and adjust to "blatantly ridiculous" (the words in WB 8.12.5.3) or "truly absurd".

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2014-February-09, 15:45
Reason for edit: additional thoughts

[FrancesHinden]

A ruling of 2♦-4 seems normal.
North does not alert 2D, and thinks it is natural.
EW are entitled to the correct explanation of the meaning of 2D. Given that it has not been alerted, they are also aware that there has been a misunderstanding (they are not entitled to know this in principle, but they are allowed to become aware of it in this fashion). If East knew that 2D was systemically the majors, he would obviously pass it.

[schulken]

All good thoughts, which I appreciate. Let me ask a few follow-on questions. Let's say W asks and gets the answer received, then, suspecting MI, takes a glance at N's convention card (or both of them, for that matter) and they show 2♦ as an artificial bid indicating both majors. Now what to do? Call the director and ask that N be sent away from the table so that S can explain accurately? By this time, N has figured out what he has done and, when invited back to the table, sheepishly admits to his transgression. Since the MI has been corrected before anyone else has bid, W bids something - say 2♠ to transfer to the minors or 2NT Lebensohl (I wasn't there so I don't know the rest their agreement). Regardless, N now bids 3♠, probably ending the auction.

Alternatively, once W looks at the cards, she can pass hoping they'll find the trouble all by themselves and not find their major suit fit, whichever that might be. E would be well advised to also pick up the cards before bidding 2♥. But that's not what happened. Remaining silent and hoping not to alert N to his error seems to be the best tactic, running the risk that E will reopen the auction. However, what if E had reopened with X, which W would be happy to pass. Would S have to sit there and accept what's coming? I think yes but now N would be getting a strong signal that something's very wrong. Can he now bid 3♠ and hopefully explain that he misinformed his opponents and that S's bid shows both majors? Again, I think yes and I can't see that EW can claim damage since they're not going to go to four of something. Nothing to do now other than play in 3♠ making - a better score for NS.

[sfi]

schulken, on 2014-February-09, 13:48, said:

1NT announced as 11-14. 2♦ call not alerted. W asked and N said it was natural. Prior to calling, W sought the director away from the table, telling him she was sure there was misinformation.

This action is problematic by itself. West has now given East unauthorised information, and it's not that hard to work out what's going on. As a result, East's actions need to be assessed as well.

[Bbradley62]

sfi, on 2014-February-09, 18:00, said:

This action is problematic by itself. West has now given East unauthorised information, and it's not that hard to work out what's going on. As a result, East's actions need to be assessed as well.

If anything, West's actions say "based on my hand, I believe 2♦ is for the majors, not natural". If that's the case, East bent over backwards to do the actively-ethical thing by bidding his 5-card major and not using this extraneous information.

[sfi]

Bbradley62, on 2014-February-09, 18:19, said:

If anything, West's actions say "based on my hand, I believe 2♦ is for the majors, not natural". If that's the case, East bent over backwards to do the actively-ethical thing by bidding his 5-card major and not using this extraneous information.

I agree, but the UI does have a bearing on whether you look at East's action as wild or gambling as well. I was merely highlighting that UI existed for East, not casting aspersions on their action.

[blackshoe]

schulken, on 2014-February-09, 17:55, said:

All good thoughts, which I appreciate. Let me ask a few follow-on questions. Let's say W asks and gets the answer received, then, suspecting MI, takes a glance at N's convention card (or both of them, for that matter) and they show 2♦ as an artificial bid indicating both majors. Now what to do? Call the director and ask that N be sent away from the table so that S can explain accurately? By this time, N has figured out what he has done and, when invited back to the table, sheepishly admits to his transgression. Since the MI has been corrected before anyone else has bid, W bids something - say 2♠ to transfer to the minors or 2NT Lebensohl (I wasn't there so I don't know the rest their agreement). Regardless, N now bids 3♠, probably ending the auction.

Alternatively, once W looks at the cards, she can pass hoping they'll find the trouble all by themselves and not find their major suit fit, whichever that might be. E would be well advised to also pick up the cards before bidding 2♥. But that's not what happened. Remaining silent and hoping not to alert N to his error seems to be the best tactic, running the risk that E will reopen the auction. However, what if E had reopened with X, which W would be happy to pass. Would S have to sit there and accept what's coming? I think yes but now N would be getting a strong signal that something's very wrong. Can he now bid 3♠ and hopefully explain that he misinformed his opponents and that S's bid shows both majors? Again, I think yes and I can't see that EW can claim damage since they're not going to go to four of something. Nothing to do now other than play in 3♠ making - a better score for NS.

When West gets the correct information from the system card, and even though he now knows that the verbal explanation was incorrect, he should not do anything to indicate that NS are having a problem. His partner still has MI, true, and he would like it if his partner didn't have it, but he can't communicate that (or the correct information) to his partner. He must play on and do the best he can. If North bids spades or hearts, he's bidding on the basis of UI - he's not allowed to "wake up" unless the auction itself wakes him up, or he realizes on his own that his explanation was wrong, in which case see below.

When a player realizes that his own explanation of their partnership understanding was incorrect he must immediately call the director and explain the problem to him. So he can't bid 3♠ (or anything else) until the director is done with him. However, at that point presumably everyone has the correct information and the auction can proceed as if there had been no infraction. If NS then reach a making contract, so be it.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-February-09, 14:52, said:

I have discussed similar situations with the Norwegian LC and the principle we apply is that the NON-offending side is entitled to have their result adjusted to whatever it might be with correct information.

But the offending side shall not be heard with an argument that they too would have called differently if they had not given misinformation!

So here I would adjust the result to 2♦S-4.

So, you (and Frances) rule that with the correct information West would pass?

I do not consider that at all likely. So, I would not consider the result of 2♦-4 part of "whatever it [the result] might be with the correct information". That leaves me with 3♦ making for EW.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2014-February-09, 20:25, said:

So, you (and Frances) rule that with the correct information West would pass?

I do not consider that at all likely. So, I would not consider the result of 2♦-4 part of "whatever it [the result] might be with the correct information". That leaves me with 3♦ making for EW.

If West knows the correct information, but also knows that North has misunderstood the bid, he might indeed pass, because he expects North to pass and they'll play in a horrible contract.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2014-February-09, 19:40, said:

When West gets the correct information from the system card, and even though he now knows that the verbal explanation was incorrect,.....

How does he know that?? Why should he believe the SC rather than the explanation actually given? For all he knows the opponents agreed to change this part of the system on the way to the event, but haven't yet got round to changing their SC. Are you suggesting that a TD should rule no MI if a player is given the wrong explanation but sees a different one on the SC that happens to be correct?

(My own experience when this sort of thing has happened is that I have pointed out to oppo that the SC says something else - I know this gives up on a possible tactical advantage, but I don't see any other way of finding out the actual agreement - and oppo have invariably said something along the lines of "ignore the SC - that is out of date").

[pran]

pran, on 2014-February-09, 14:52, said:

I have discussed similar situations with the Norwegian LC and the principle we apply is that the NON-offending side is entitled to have their result adjusted to whatever it might be with correct information.

But the offending side shall not be heard with an argument that they too would have called differently if they had not given misinformation!

So here I would adjust the result to 2♦S-4.

Trinidad, on 2014-February-09, 20:25, said:

So, you (and Frances) rule that with the correct information West would pass?

I do not consider that at all likely. So, I would not consider the result of 2♦-4 part of "whatever it [the result] might be with the correct information". That leaves me with 3♦ making for EW.

Rik

It is the privilege not the duty of the non-offending side to show having bid differently with correct information.

The ruling is to be made as if the non-offending side (only) all the time had access to a complete and correct disclosure of offending side's agreements and methods.

If West after the play states that he would have called differently with correct information then that is his privilege and he should be heard. Here he did not make any such statement so that is the end of this alternative.

East however would obviously have passed the 2♦ bid and then that would have closed the auction.