[Mr. Dodgy]

Scoring: IMP

---

Pass-1♦-2♦!-3♦
3♥-5♦-All Pass

South "meant to bid 2NT" (Unusual; ♥s&♣s) but made a mistake and bid 2♦ instead (Michaels; ♠s&♥s).

For some reason, he explains his alert as ♥s and ♣s, (actually "lower unbids 5-5") describing his hand rather the bid agreement. I think he was trying to do the right thing, figuring only his partner would be 'damaged'.

Just to make things even more fun, West apparently decided to ignore the explanation and assumed it showed Majors, then argued that he was thereby prevented from bidding the ♠ slam.

What would you do?

[paulg]

I see no infraction, result stands.

E-W have received full disclosure and no misinformation. From the post it's unclear whether North has received unauthorised information or not, but North's actions look reasonable anyhow.

Even if South had correctly described the bid as majors, then this appears a clear misbid and E-W would have no reason for redress unless North had received UI and then acted on it.

I would keep West's deposit!

Paul

[jillybean]

Messy, wrong bid, right explanation.

West has only damaged himself by failing to query the bidding. The explanation was unusual for the bid and he should have asked more questions.

As for south I think the only thing you can do is explain that he should call the TD immediately (if you are allowing undo’s). Failing that that he is obliged to explain his agreement of 2♦, not what he has in his hand, the bid is then treated like a psyche.

In the real world 2♦ would be corrected without penalty if done so immediately and before LHO calls.
This is where it would be great to have an ‘undo bidding’ option so that as soon as the mistake was realized the auction could cease, the TD called and correct bidding allowed, including any restrictions on the auction and lead penalties.

jb

[pclayton]

Playing on-line, these situations are easier to handle than IRL. I don't even think South has an obligation to EW because of the misbid, but having done so, EW should be grateful.

Imagine if N would have bid 4♠ instead of 3♥. Then the misbid backfires miserably.

[awm]

I can't imagine what the damage is here.

E/W were told that the cuebid showed ♥+♣ and still didn't find their spade fit. I don't think it's all that likely E/W would've found their spade fit if they'd been (accurately) told that the cuebid showed ♥+♠, do you?

I'd explain to south that he's supposed to tell the opponents his agreements and not what he actually holds... but no adjustment.

[hotShot]

Mr. Dodgy, on Nov 5 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

South "meant to bid 2NT" (Unusual; ♥s&♣s) but made a mistake and bid 2♦ instead (Michaels; ♠s&♥s).

For some reason, he explains his alert as ♥s and ♣s, (actually "lower unbids 5-5") describing his hand rather the bid agreement. I think he was trying to do the right thing, figuring only his partner would be 'damaged'.

Just to make things even more fun, West apparently decided to ignore the explanation and assumed it showed Majors, then argued that he was thereby prevented from bidding the ♠ slam.

What would you do?

How do you know what south meant to bid?

His cards and the explanation fit. You say he was playing unusual 2NT and Michaels, but i don't see that in the given explanation.
NS might be playing some home brewed convention.

Only if you have any evidence that NS play agreed to play something different than what they disclosed to opps, there might be a case.

What i see is:
S hand and explanation fit together. N had the choice between a minor and a major and decided to pick the major.
West decided that opps are playing something different from what they where disclosing. And got punished for it. No need to correct the score.

[Mr. Dodgy]

hotShot, on Nov 5 2006, 04:28 PM, said:

How do you know what south meant to bid?

I asked, and that is what he told me.

jilly, interestingly undos were allowed in this tourney but south chose not to take one as it was not a misclick but a fair-dinkum blonde moment.

FWIW I decided, after some consideration, the same as the posters here thus far: result stands. I did advise South to explain his agreements in future even for such misbids.

Thanks.

[jikl]

I would keep the deposit and warn West for a doubleshot. A doubleshot being what he can't win during the hand he will win through director or appeal. I would also have a quiet chat to South as once the bid has been made and accepted, it has to be lived with. All explanations have to be what the bid actually means. This is where it gets complicated though, the difference between online and offline bridge. Behind screens you could decide to tell your screenmate (if playing behind screens) that you had misbid. You could not tell the other opponent though, it would give some UI. As south is a defender, nothing can be done until the end of the hand as any announcement to the table would be bad news. The reason I am so hard on West here is that South has done much more than is ethically required here, almost the equivalent of showing his hand. South has then chosen to ignore it and now claims damage? I would be more tempted to let the table result stand and issue a procedural penalty to West for the doubleshot.

Sean

[barmar]

I wonder if the misbidder actually realized he made the wrong bid at the time that he was explaining. Sometimes you have a brain fart and just get confused about what bids mean what. So he might have honestly thought he'd made the bid that shows ♥+♣, and was giving what he thought was the correct system explanation.

[jillybean]

Mr. Dodgy, on Nov 5 2006, 02:47 PM, said:

jilly, interestingly undos were allowed in this tourney but south chose not to take one as it was not a misclick but a fair-dinkum blonde moment.

I think undo's are allowed for those too (law25) if done immediately and without pause for thought. It is during play where these slips of the mind imo should not be granted an undo. (check with the 2003 Italian BB team)

Good to see the opposite sex also having blonde moments.

jb

[P_Marlowe]

Mr. Dodgy, on Nov 5 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

<snip>
FWIW I decided, after some consideration, the same as the posters here thus far: result stands. I did advise South to explain his agreements in future even for such misbids.
<snip>

Hi,

the main problem is, that we are talking about self-alerts,
i.e. if I give an alert, which does not fit the actual hand I
hold, things will get messy.

South did the right thing, he did protect the oppoents and
thats it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Mr. Dodgy]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 6 2006, 05:23 AM, said:

the main problem is, that we are talking about self-alerts,
i.e. if I give an alert, which does not fit the actual hand I
hold, things will get messy.

South did the right thing, he did protect the oppoents and
thats it.

Agreed in full.

It sets a peculiar precedent though, doesn't it?

[paulg]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 6 2006, 11:23 AM, said:

Mr. Dodgy, on Nov 5 2006, 04:47 PM, said:

<snip>
FWIW I decided, after some consideration, the same as the posters here thus far: result stands. I did advise South to explain his agreements in future even for such misbids.
<snip>

Hi,

the main problem is, that we are talking about self-alerts,
i.e. if I give an alert, which does not fit the actual hand I
hold, things will get messy.

South did the right thing, he did protect the opponents and
thats it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Although I fully understand that your heart is in the right place, failing to follow the rules of the game is something that should not be condoned.

Bridge is a game with full disclosure of your methods, not of your cards.

I would not admonish South here but I would remind him that it is necessary to disclose your agreements and not the fact you have misbid.

As to alerting opponents when I don't have the hand, this is just bridge. For example, suppose I play Walsh responses to 1♣ openers and so bid a 4-card major before a 5-card minor. This makes a 1♥/1♠ response alertable (in WBF and BBO terms, perhaps not in ACBL and other jurisdictions).

If I only alert the 1♥ response when I have a 5-card minor, then I am telling the opposition my hand and not my methods. Perhaps this is how people wish to play, but the problem with taking the rules into your own hands is that there are always edge cases where you will make a subjective judgement about the alert. This is why most sponsoring organisations have rules in this area.

Paul

[bid_em_up]

Mr. Dodgy, on Nov 5 2006, 07:17 AM, said:

Just to make things even more fun, West apparently decided to ignore the explanation and assumed it showed Majors, then argued that he was thereby prevented from bidding the ♠ slam.

What would you do?

I suppose it also prevented him from bidding the diamond slam as well?

[keylime]

Zero adjustment. Next case please.

[barmar]

cardsharp, on Nov 6 2006, 07:50 AM, said:

Bridge is a game with full disclosure of your methods, not of your cards.

But unless you're misbidding (because there's no bid that correctly describes your hand, you're psyching, or you misclicked as in this case), with self-alerts these should be the same thing.

[1eyedjack]

If your hand differs from that indicated by your bidding as prescribed by your system, then I think that it is possible that the opponents could be damaged by a decision to self-describe your hand without describing your methods.

This is because your partner would be expected to bid according to your methods. While knowing your actual hand may be useful to the opponents, it may not (depending on the actual hand) be AS useful to the opponents as deductions that might be made about partner's hand. You can only make deductions about his hand from the bids that he has chosen to make in light of the information available to him (that is the partner of the misbidder) and that information is limited to partnership agreements.

On this occasion the partnership methods were concealed, and E/W reached the wrong slot. The question then arises whether there is a causal link between those two facts. Clearly there is no causal link, as the explanation provided gave E/W more, not less, incentive to investigate Spades. By all means report the incident, but keep the deposit in the event of an appeal.

[paulg]

barmar, on Nov 7 2006, 06:00 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Nov 6 2006, 07:50 AM, said:

Bridge is a game with full disclosure of your methods, not of your cards.

But unless you're misbidding (because there's no bid that correctly describes your hand, you're psyching, or you misclicked as in this case), with self-alerts these should be the same thing.

There is a subtle difference. Your cards are a subset of your methods, and so may not be the only hand that you can hold.

I agree that self-alerting should be a lot better than f2f alerts. Sponsoring organisations typically increase the size of the set of your 'unalerted methods' in an attempt to reduce the number of alerts, so methods that you should self-alert become unalerted in f2f.

Paul

[barmar]

cardsharp, on Nov 7 2006, 05:17 AM, said:

barmar, on Nov 7 2006, 06:00 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Nov 6 2006, 07:50 AM, said:

Bridge is a game with full disclosure of your methods, not of your cards.

But unless you're misbidding (because there's no bid that correctly describes your hand, you're psyching, or you misclicked as in this case), with self-alerts these should be the same thing.

There is a subtle difference. Your cards are a subset of your methods, and so may not be the only hand that you can hold.

True, and I didn't mean to imply that you should describe your *specific* hand. What I meant is that your hand should always be within the subset described by your self-alert, unless you've misbid. And unless you're INTENTIONALLY misbidding, you obviously won't realize that your bid is not the systemic one to show your hand type. So you're going to describe the hand type you think your bid describes.

How could you expect otherwise? A player can only describe what he THINKS a bid means -- if it's not correct, he doesn't know it, and he can't possibly explain something he doesn't know.