[RMB1]

Scoring: IMP

W .. N .. E .. S
. . . . . . 1NT . 2D
2H . P . 2S .. 3H
X . . P . 3NT . P
P . . X . 4C . . X
P . . P . P

---

2D showed a single-suited major or strong 5+/5+
2H was natural but explained as a transfer on NE side of screen
3H was a cue bid showing good spades on SW side of screen
The remaining calls were accompanied by much thought: bids to play, doubles for penalties

South lead ♥J, won in dummy.
Club finesse lost to South
South cashed ♠K: 3, 10, 5
Now a small spade is -2, anything but a diamond is -1.
But South switched to ♦J and the contract made.

The different explanations of 2♥ on either side of the screen came to light and NS asked for a ruling. NS seemed to be arguing they would defeat 4♣X but they might also have argued that auction would be different.

The result in the other room was 4♠-1 and the ruling was NS +3IMP (which looks like a Law 12C1d ruling).

Any more information or comment?

[Cascade]

We need to know:

1. What was the real agreement

2. What would NS have done differently

3. How did the defense go

[RMB1]

Cascade, on Oct 10 2010, 08:14 PM, said:

We need to know:

1. What was the real agreement

2. What would NS have done differently

3. How did the defense go

1. I think the TD would assume that West had not misbid (Law 21B1b). I could find no convention card for EW online.

2. I could not understand / hear clearly what NS were saying to the TD on webcam.

3. I already gave the first three tricks. After ♦J at trick four, there was nothing for the defence to do. Declarer covered with ♦Q and made 2 ♥, 3 ♦ and 5 ♣.

[campboy]

Assuming that 2♥ was natural then South was not misinformed so we should not adjust on the basis of South doing anything differently. Might North do something different in the auction? I don't understand why he didn't bid 4♥, since from his point of view the 3♥ bid is not a cue-bid. Anyway, if he didn't support hearts with five of them, why should he support spades with two if correctly informed?

[Zelandakh]

Although it was not easy to hear, I believe the thrust of N-S's argument is that North's signal was different than it should have been because he thought South had a long suit. This signal led South to switch to a diamond. South claimed he would never have switched to a diamond at the crucial point with proper disclosure and was visibly irritated for several hands afterwards. I do not believe he mentioned underleading the spades at all but rather a club switch. The OP also does not mention that there was an irregularity at the other table in this match which might have affected the ruling.

[RMB1]

Zelandakh, on Oct 11 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

... The OP also does not mention that there was an irregularity at the other table in this match which might have affected the ruling.

Was anyone watching at the other table who can give details? In the room where the original event took place, there was nothing relayed to the BBO commentators about an irregularity at the other table.

I was surprised NS confused their signals: I thought North knew West had hearts and partner had spades when he chose to double 3NT, but perhaps he thought South had spades and another (which would be diamonds) 5+/5+.

[campboy]

That doesn't make sense. Surely after seeing dummy it is clear to North both that 2♥ was intended as natural and that South was told this? Any confusion about South's hand type seems to have been caused by the 2♠ bid (which is not an infraction) and N/S methods, not by the MI to North.

[lamford]

Which heart did North play at trick one?

[RMB1]

lamford, on Oct 11 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

Which heart did North play at trick one?

♥J: A, 7, 9
♣3: 2, Q, K
♠K: 3, 10, 5

Signals (primary method first)
On partner's lead: reverse attitude, reverse count
On declarer's lead: reverse count, suit preference
Discarding: reverse attitude, suit preference
Reverse smith

Opening leads are top of honour sequence.

Convention card does not give any special meaning/signals for A or K from AK...

[bidule4]

RMB1, on Oct 11 2010, 01:45 AM, said:

Zelandakh, on Oct 11 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

... The OP also does not mention that there was an irregularity at the other table in this match which might have affected the ruling.

Was anyone watching at the other table who can give details? In the room where the original event took place, there was nothing relayed to the BBO commentators about an irregularity at the other table.

It was board 6, Rosenblum R32 segment 3
Closed Room
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Zimmermann Pellegrini Multon Camberos
- - 1NT Dbl
2D! 2H Pass 4S
Pass Pass Pass

West bid 2d transfer but it was nat for North & East

[lamford]

In the closed room, South might not have bid 4S if he had not interpreted his partner's 2H as takeout of hearts. So, there is a potential adjustment there. Over a non-forcing 2H, he might well have only bid 3S.

In the open room, North, if 2H had been explained as natural, would have bid 3S over 3Hx. His pass would presumably have been encouraging (to South). When 3H is doubled, North knows that something is not right, as South would either be good with hearts or a strong two-suiter with hearts - neither is really possible.

As far as the defence is concerned, it could be right for South to play a diamond. If North had the ace of diamonds and not the queen of hearts for example. However, I cannot see why the carding would be any different, but the probability of North having the ace of diamonds might be. Presumably North gave reverse count in hearts. In spades, if the king asked for reverse count, then South would think that North only had one spade, so that does not seem likely.

I think we need to know exactly how North-South think they were damaged in the play. South might not double 3NT if his partner had bid a discouraging 3S, and that might have ended the auction. And North might not have doubled 3NT if he thought his partner had good spades, as E/W were likely to have somewhere better to go. There was an infraction by each side in the different rooms, if our report is right, so I don't see why 3 IMPs are awarded to one side.

[nige1]

Cascade, on Oct 10 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

We need to know:
1. What was the real agreement
2. What would NS have done differently
3. How did the defence go

• I understand the director assumes mistaken explanation in the absence of other evidence.
  
• IMO the director often has a better idea than the players (even expert players) of the different ways that an infraction may cause damage . Some players find it embarrassing and demeaning to trot out speculative self-serving statements.
  
• As in OP.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Oct 12 2010, 06:53 AM, said:

• I understand the director assumes mistaken explanation in the absence of other evidence.
  
  
• IMO the director often has a better idea than the players (even expert players) of the different ways that an infraction  may cause damage . Some players find it embarrassing and demeaning to trot out speculative self-serving statements.
  
  
• As in OP.

• the director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
  
• Nonetheless, if the players cannot show how they have been damaged, the TD may well rule they were not. But I suppose that's okay with players, if the alternative is to be embarrassed.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Oct 12 2010, 09:55 AM, said:

Nonetheless, if the players cannot show how they have been damaged, the TD may well rule they were not. But I suppose that's okay with players, if the alternative is to be embarrassed.

We've had this argument before
IMO that the director is at least equally responsible for finding possible damage
I hope I'm right because because the the alternative is to give secretary-bird players a significant advantage. Damage-assessment can be tricky under our sophisticated laws.

[bluejak]

I am a believer that TDs should look for damage.

[blackshoe]

I didn't say the TD shouldn't look — but if he doesn't see any, then unless the NOS can convince him they were damaged, he will rule on the basis they were not. As a player, if I believed I was damaged because I would have done X, Y or Z (or for some other explicable reason), and the TD says he sees no damage, I would volunteer my opinion, and I would not be embarrassed or feel demeaned in doing so.

[bluejak]

I have no problem in players volunteering anything, certainly. But there is a view that if a player does not show how we was damaged then he should not get an adjustment. While I think that the TD should take notice of such failure, I am saying he should still consider an adjustment for damage not immediately claimed. This is especially important where there are multiple potential infractions.

The most obvious example is where a hand and an explanation do not match, and a player claims damage for MI. TDs are always taught to look for the effects of UI as well.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Oct 12 2010, 09:55 AM, said:

... if the players cannot show how they have been damaged...

If the players cannot explain how they have been damaged, IMO the TD is responsible for figuring it out.

Is there any supporting guideline for this existing, or a law, to support this opinion?

[campboy]

Surely it depends on the nature of the infraction? Players should certainly not be expected to know how they have been damaged by UI, since this would require them to understand how their opponents might have acted differently. On the other hand only the player can really know what he might have done differently with correct information -- and if he can't think of anything, that is pretty good evidence that he would have done the same thing.

[nige1]

Our Bridge rules are complex and sophisticated. Unless you're a legal eagle, it's hard to understand how the law recognises damage or how to calculate "equitable" redress.

Few are capable of the mental gymnastics needed to explore hypothetical alternative scenarios, generated by misinformation, unauthorised information and the like. For example, Paul Lamford often high-lights important points, missed by everybody else.

Also, weighted-score adjustments can be incomprehensible -- especially those that include contracts that could not have been reached but omit probable contracts.

This problem affects players and directors at all levels. For example, many UK players (including top-players) cheerfully admit that they conform to the American recommendation:

ACBL Club Director's handbook said:

Players are generally well advised to take the action they would have taken had there been no huddle.