[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     Pass
 Pass  Pass  1NT*   Pass
 3♣!   Pass  3♥    Pass
 Pass  3♠    Dbl   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

* 13-15
! weak

(my own free tourney)
North called after the board was completed claiming damage from the 1nt explanation.
East wouldnt respond to any of my questions until after I replaced him neither could/would West. These problems where one pair refuse to answer and/or then leave the building arent covered well in the law books, lacking any more information I felt an adjustment was in order.
If North is given the correct information 3♥ is the obvious contract here but since it was a completed board I think the only option I have is to award an artificial adjusted score rather than 3♥ making xx?

[the hog]

North bid the hand like an idiot, Kathryn. The 3S bid was off the trees and deserved the bad result. Don't reward a player for a silly bid.

[hotShot]

1) Was there a MI?
The cards differ from the information given, and if this was a regular partnership i would assume a partnership agreement here.
I would think so because 4432 balanced hands with 4 card majors and strength above the 1NT opening cause problems.
Playing an unusual NT range is enough for me to assume a "regular" partnership.
2) Was there damage?
Well I guess North was smashed....

3) Is the damage caused by the misinformation?
East has 18 HCP while he should have only 15. The laws tolereate 1HCP deviation, so East has 2 HCP too much.
But how strong is Wests "weak" would 9,8 or 7 be weak as well?
Opposite a 15-17 NT weak would be below the strength needed for a Stayman bid. Usually 8HCP are expected. So If you lover the NT strength by 2 HCP the Stayman response would have to be 2HCP stronger, so bid under 10 HCP could be considered weak.

The combined strength of EW is within the range North should expect and even if South would have a K more, he would still go down a lot.
He now gets: 0♣, 1♦,1♥ and 2-3♠ that should be about down 4-5, having 3HCP more might change that to down 3-4.
So the bad score is a consequence of North poor 3♠ bid, holding 6HCP (don't count the ♣) and 5332 shape.

So you should not correct the score of NS. With EW there is a problem, if they are a regular partnership, extra power with 1NT openings in 4th seat seem to be (implicit) partnership understanding, so the 1NT bid should not be considered a psyche (yes, you can also psyche that you are weaker).
f2f you could assign a split score or a procedural penalty.

[inquiry]

1. Jilly, you have access to bridgebrowser, so look this partnership up and see what their 1NT range is... is it really 13-15? If so, there was no mis-information. The law require you to alert your agreement, not your hand.

2. EW were obviously on another planet here, and something funny happened BEFORE north took a flyer in 3♠. What was it? East announced a weak NT, West announced a weak hand with clubs unsuit for an initial 3C preempt. And EAST then took another bid after the signoff!!! (What was 3♥ north should ask himself?).

3. I suspect it might be possible north thought 3♣ was weak with hearts (a funny agreement for sure), but it is worth asking about.

As long as you determine that the 1NT range is really 13-15 for this pair, and they have no history of opening it with a balanced 17 or 18 (a 2-3 minute check with bridgebrowser), I would have let the result stand. One can psyche and misbid with impunity as long as one alerts your agreement AND you don't do this often enough that your parnter knows your quirks.

[glen]

EW should be penalized for not answering TD questions - not by subbing them but a real score penalty (Law 90 - "obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants"). The advantage of a score penalty over a subbing is highlighted by the post directly below - if it turns out the players can eventually reply to the questions the score penalty can be rescinded as appropriate.

West did provide a small bit of MI - that is 3♣ is not "weak" but actually "to play" opposite the 13-15 notrump, so it can have hands with constructive values.

If North was relatively inexperienced, I would let this small bit of MI be enough to adjust the NS score. However if North was relatively experienced, I would not adjust the NS score, and let them live with it.

[mink]

I would not adjust this, no matter if there was misinformation or not, because the possible misinformation cannot be a reason for bidding 3♠ here.

Another aspect: Given that I ask East/West about their nt range and get no answer in time, I would simply assume misinformation but not sub them for not answering. Maybe they just did not answer because the round was over and they were not present at their computers, or anything else I cannot know.

Karl

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies.
To Karl and Glen I subbed east after trying to communicate with him for several rounds after this board, this was not in lieu of a score penalty - I was still considering that several round later

Some have said and I agree, that the 3♠ is a bad bid regardless of the MI but shouldn't we be asking would N/S, given the correct information pass or bid 3♠? (assuming 13-15 was MI)

[Cascade]

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 02:05 AM, said:

The laws tolereate 1HCP deviation, so East has 2 HCP too much.

You won't find a law that says this.

[hotShot]

Cascade, on Dec 26 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 02:05 AM, said:

The laws tolereate 1HCP deviation, so East has 2 HCP too much.

You won't find a law that says this.

Well guess it was in the "minutes" than.

[jikl]

North has made an undisciplined bid and needs to pay the full price.

As Ben said, some research here might work well. However, this could just have been a brainfreeze where you look at your hand and say that looks like a NT opening, you click it and then it is out there before your realise you are playing 13-15.

EW need to be asked quite a few questions, but there is no way N is getting a double shot here. In real directing I could see NS result standing, (and depending on history for EW), a possible procedural penalty for EW if some fielding in the past was evident.

My outsider looking in perspective is E had a brainfreeze and tried to recover and when N bid 3♠ the recovery got a lot easier.

Sean

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Dec 26 2006, 07:33 PM, said:

Some have said and I agree, that the 3♠ is a bad bid regardless of the MI but shouldn't we be asking would N/S, given the correct information pass or bid 3♠? (assuming 13-15 was MI)

No. That question is too difficult to answer. A player who is cappable of bidding 3♠ here is cappable of anything.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Dec 26 2006, 02:00 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Dec 26 2006, 07:33 PM, said:

Some have said and I agree, that the 3♠ is a bad bid regardless of the MI but shouldn't we be asking would N/S, given the correct information pass or bid 3♠? (assuming 13-15 was MI)

No. That question is too difficult to answer. A player who is cappable of bidding 3♠ here is cappable of anything.

Ouch that hurts, Ive been known to make these bids

[Cascade]

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 08:35 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 26 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 02:05 AM, said:

The laws tolereate 1HCP deviation, so East has 2 HCP too much.

You won't find a law that says this.

Well guess it was in the "minutes" than.

The minutes of what?

The law says that you can make any bid you like including an intentionally misleading bid so long as you do not have a partnership understanding.

"Law 40A. Right to Choose Call or Play
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call — such as a psychic bid — or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding."

So to rule against a pair that do not have what they describe you must establish that they have a partnership understanding.

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on Dec 26 2006, 02:35 PM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 26 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 02:05 AM, said:

The laws tolereate 1HCP deviation, so East has 2 HCP too much.

You won't find a law that says this.

Well guess it was in the "minutes" than.

I don't believe so. There is this, which I copied from the ACBL's Dupiicate Decisions:

Quote

A deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb., 1978, ACBL Bridge Bulletin) as a bid in which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also defined a deviation as a bid of a suit in which the length of the suit varies by no more than one card from the agreed or announced length and the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system being played. If either of these situations occurs, it is easy to see by repeating the definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH.

but it is guidance for club directors, not law or regulation.

The EBU Orange Book is less specific. It simply defines a deviation as a deliberate but minor misstatment of honor strength or suit length.

[hotShot]

Cascade, on Dec 27 2006, 04:40 AM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 08:35 AM, said:

Cascade, on Dec 26 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 02:05 AM, said:

The laws tolereate 1HCP deviation, so East has 2 HCP too much.

You won't find a law that says this.

Well guess it was in the "minutes" than.

The minutes of what?

The Minutes of meetings of the WBF Laws Committee.

Cascade, on Dec 27 2006, 04:40 AM, said:

The law says that you can make any bid you like including an intentionally misleading bid so long as you do not have a partnership understanding.

"Law 40A. Right to Choose Call or Play
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call — such as a psychic bid — or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding."

So to rule against a pair that do not have what they describe you must establish that they have a partnership understanding.

I think this is what i said.

hotShot, on Dec 27 2006, 02:05 AM, said:

With EW there is a problem, if they are a regular partnership, extra power with 1NT openings in 4th seat seem to be (implicit) partnership understanding, so the 1NT bid should not be considered a psyche (yes, you can also psyche that you are weaker).
f2f you could assign a split score or a procedural penalty.

[blackshoe]

"You pilot always through an unknown future. Facts are your only clue. Get the facts!" - Robert A. Heinlein, From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long

I have looked at all the WBFLC minutes I could find (those from 1997-2004 are available online). There is no minute that says anything about "acceptable" deviations in high card strength or length.

Unless East tells you, in response to your question, that he deliberately bid 1NT on 18 HCP, knowing their agreement was 13-15, you can't call the bid a psyche (a psyche is a deliberate action). Note also that a psyche is a "gross distortion". This hand fits, IMO, but if he didn't do it deliberately, it's still not a psyche.

Law 75 requires the TD to assume MI instead of misbid "in the absence of evidence to the contrary". The only way to obtain such evidence is to (a) examine the putative offending side's convention card(s) and ( ask them questions (for example, ask East why he bid 1NT with 18 HCP when their agreement is supposedly 13-15, ask West if East makes o habit of this misbid). If they are unable or unwilling to answer questions, then the only evidence of misbid is the CC and the fact that the bid was explained as 13-15. West bid 3♣, and then passed East's unusual 3♥, so I don't see any evidence of MI in West's actions. Seems to me the 3♥ bid is evidence of misbid (but why didn't he just bid 3NT in that case?) All things considered, I'm inclined to rule misbid rather than misexplanation, but...

Even if you rule MI, the damage to NS was caused, not by the MI, but by North's off the wall (IMO) 3 ♠ bid. So IMO there is no case for a score adjustment. However, if the TD decides there is such a case, it would be to an assigned score, not an artificial score. You can't give an artificial score adjustment when a result has been obtained at the table. Well, you can in certain cases, if the SOs regulations allow it, as the EBU does, but I don't think that applies here.

EW appear to be unwilling, but not unable, to talk to the TD about this hand. In f2f bridge, that would rate a PP or a DP, but my understanding of the situation at BBO is that the software does not allow those options. If that's the case, I would lobby for a change in the software. If that's not the case, I would give this pair a PP (how much depends on the conditions of contest, really - in the ACBL the 'default' PP is 25% of a top; other places it's 10%).

If the TD decides that EW have a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) - in this case if there were evidence (from West's answers to the questions he won't/can't answer ) that he was aware East might have the stronger hand he actually had for his 1NT bid - well, there is no explicit provision in the laws to adjust the score. The laws simply say that CPUs are prohibited. Thus, if you decide they have one, issue a PP (possibly a warning, for a first offense), and tell them they must in future give correct explanations of both their explicit agreeement and their implicit one. You could use Law 12A1 ("The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent.") to adjust in this case, but you still have to judge that the NOS were damaged by the CPU, and not by their own poor* bidding.

*Poor bidding, per se, is not a cause to deny redress. The action must be considerably worse than just "bad bridge". Some SOs use the phrase "wild, irrational, or gambling" here, some don't. This is an area where a poll of the player's peers might be helpful.

If you decide to adjust, you use Law 12C2 to decide what the adjustment should be. That is an exercise I will leave to the reader.