aljorge, on 2013-October-20, 03:59, said:
Hi all,
In a MP tourney, after a 16-18 1nt by east south bids forgets that the NS pair plays DONT and bids
♥, alerted and explained by N as majors. The result is 2
♥ made, where all the other tables are in 4
♠, one of them one down and the rest made, so it is a 100 % top for NS.
There are no CC's in the tourney, but it seems clear that the NS pair does play DONT, but that S forgot in this situation. If this assumption is accepted, is there any adjustment to be made?
Should South have explained the situation before the opening lead?
Thanks in advance.
This is a classic example of the situation described in some detail in Law 75
If North's description of the 2
♥ call is an accurate description of the partnership agreement then South has made a "Mistaken Call" and as campboy has suggested EW are not entitled to adjustment.
On the other hand if the partnership agreement is different (or indeed as is so often there is no real partnership agreement and the correct response to an opponent's query ought to say just that) then North has given a "Mistaken Explanation" and the TD must try to determine what might have happened with the correct explanation of the offending partnership's agreements and adjust accordingly.
Often of course the tricky bit is deciding what the partnership's agreements actually are, especially here where the "cultural norm" is no convention cards.
From Law 75 C
"the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)"
Sometimes it is assumed that evidence means documentary evidence but this is not always the case. The TD must ask NS questions - "Have you ever played a different method? Do you often play together? Do you play different methods with different partners?" Have you used DONT on another hand today?" and from the answers to these questions form an opinion. Is their real agreement that this bid shows the majors?
It is my experience that the vast (overwhelming) majority of bridge players answer truthfully in these situations. The TD has to be a judge of character and decide (Law 85)
(Sometimes I think too much weight is given to Convention Cards in these cases. Even when there are two Convention Cards the TD needs to ask questions and to be aware that often CCs reflect one member of the partnership's understanding of their agreements rather than both. I long for the "good old days" when CCs were written by hand. If a player had the agreement written in their own handwriting this was pretty good evidence that they had at least heard of the convention they were supposed to be playing!)
The bidding might sometimes give clues too, eg if North had more Spades than Hearts, or a better hand and had taken unusual action opposite what was supposed to be a major two-suiter, this would cast doubt on the strength of their agreements.
So if the TD is satisfied that this is a Mistaken Call, no adjustment is appropriate, (Sorry EW) but if there is any doubt that this might be a Mistaken Explanation then the TD should adjust if he thinks EW have been damaged. (I'm sure they have, even if West might be considered a bit of a dope here)
Help
