bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

Ray Crowe

Misinformation appeal ( 22:03:09 WedFeb 26 2003 )

Country: New Zealand

Board 12---Dealer West----Vul NS

North---85, A4, JT7654, 432

East---AQ972, 7, 832, JT87

South--KT, KJ8653, Q9, Q65

West--J643, QT92, AK, AK9

The bidding---

West North East South

1C* p 1D* X
1NT 2D 2S p
p p p

1C and 1D are precision and were alerted
In NS's system, the X shows a long suit (points not specified)
1NT is precision, 16 - 18 hcp
North's 2D was a misbid. She forgot their system and replied as to a take-out double (the correct system bid here is 2C)
2S is precision---an invitational bid, showing 5+ spades and 5-7 hcp.

Before West passed, she enquired at length about NS's double.
North (mis)informed West that the X was for take-out---as stated,N had forgot their system, as her 2D response verifies this

At the Appeal, West claimed damage and passed because of the M/I-- and said----
"The X by the offenders means just an overcall in one suit, I was not told this, and also it was not a double of diamonds, but instead showed points.
My partner has given an invite of 5-7 and 5+ in suit, and 3S is a force to game which is not suitable as she may be facing a 2 card fit, therefore putting us into 3NT against 16HCP in my hand and a misfit. With a weak very hand she will wait for a reopening double.
Now I have to bid. My correct bid according to our system in an overcall situation is 3S (i.e. accepting the invite). Given the (mis)information, I consider all or most of the points were in the doubler's hand and this is even further aggravated by the minor response by his partner.
Now he has points and both majors. 2 heart losers and 2 spade losers look obvious and if my partner has hedged ther may be three, why accept an invite to game if it can't make?
If I know it is only an overcall, then the points and spades are more likely to be balanced, leaving a possibility of only one spade loser. Certainly I would bid 3 spades. The M/I caused me to underbid"

bluejak

426 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 14:36:10 ThuFeb 27 2003 )


B12          85
D:W          A4
N/S          JT7654
             432
J643                AQ972
QT92                7
AK                  832
AK9                 JT87
             KT
             KJ8653
             Q9
             Q65

 
West       North     East     South
1*         p        1*      X
1NT         2       2       p
 p          p

One minor matter is that the write-up is confusing as to what North actually described the double as. According to the write-up it was for takeout [of what?] but according to what West said North had said it showed diamonds.

Fortunately, it does not matter very much, since West's arguments have no validity. West is worth 3

over 2

, and it makes no difference whether the double shows diamonds, is for takeout, or is artificial showing a single suit.

"2 heart losers and 2 spade losers look obvious" is neither true nor affected by the meaning of the double. It merely shows a lack of faith in partner's bidding! :smile:

There was misinformation but no damage so the result stands.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

James Vickers

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 17:39:25 ThuFeb 27 2003 )

Country: UK

I would have adjusted the score here, as I think EW could have been talked out of a game contract by the misinformation. I would like to know more about what was said about the double; how can it be for take-out when no-one has yet bid a suit? Was it supposed to be a take-out of diamonds? Was it alerted?

I agree that West is a big jelly not to bid on, and that "two heart losers and two spade losers" is not obvious, but certainly possible if South's double advertises four spades.

EW have not covered themselves with glory here, but with a correct explanation they are more likely to have reached game. If you don't at least give them some recompense for this you will have allowed NS to have gained by breaking the laws which, as we all know, is anathema.

James

Ray Crowe

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 21:06:07 ThuFeb 27 2003 )

Country: New Zealand

At the appeal, there was much disagreement as to what was actually said at the table.
Concerning the double, North stated that she said " I somewhat hesitantly answered that I am not sure, but I think it's for take out.
And (in the appeal) added that she did not say that it showed points, and her partner agreed with this.
In NS's system, a X of a precision 1C shows a long suit.
North actually forgot that this also apllied over the 1D response, hence the uncetainty (and M/I)
West maintained that she was told, at the table, the double showed "points"
I hope this helps.

bluejak

426 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 23:58:02 ThuFeb 27 2003 )

Quote: James Vickers

I would have adjusted the score here, as I think EW could have been talked out of a game contract by the misinformation.

I do not believe this for a moment. What difference does the meaning of double make? If West is going to pass the meaning of double is quite irrelevant and I believe West would have passed whatever it meant.

Quote: James Vickers

If you don't at least give them some recompense for this you will have allowed NS to have gained by breaking the laws which, as we all know, is anathema.

I see no sign of them having gained from "breaking Laws". Anyway, there is no need for an emotional approach. This is a pure judgement decision, with the Law being completely clear. Either they have been damaged or they have not. A Director or Appeals Committee should just treat this as a pure judgement decision and leave the emotion out of it.

If you do not believe you have game values with fewer than 25 HCP despite a known 5-4 fit what difference does it make whether a double by the opponents was takeout of something or other, or showed diamonds, or showed a single suit? It is a nonsense to suggest that a player would bid on with one of these three explanations and not the others! :smile:

I think it quite possible that this level of player might be talked out of the obvious 3

bid by the double - but that is by the call, not by its meaning or explanation. There is no reason to be, of course. :rolleyes:

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

James Vickers

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 14:05:37 FriFeb 28 2003 )

Country: UK

Who's adopting an "emotional approach"? My calm-as-a-millpond argument is that West, knowing her partner has 5-7 pts and a 5-card spade suit opposite, has the sort of hand where game is a possibility. It is certainly better than the raw point count would suggest.

She has been misinformed about the meaning of the double, (although exactly what was said seems to be in dispute). If she was led to believe that the spades are breaking 4-0 this could easily have deterred her from bidding on. If she were given the correct explanation that it showed a single-suited hand, if anything it might encourage her to bid on.

You have argued very forcefully (dare I say: emotionally?) in recent cases in this forum that players who break the rules should not gain as a result. I was arguing then that the misinformation did not cause the damage, here our roles seem to be reversed. At least we seem to agree on the principles, even though our judgement may be at odds. This example may be borderline, but I think benefit of the doubt should go to the non-offenders.

James

bluejak

426 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 13:04:34 MonMar 3 2003 )

When I referred to "emotional approach I was referring to this:

Quote: James Vickers

If you don't at least give them some recompense for this you will have allowed NS to have gained by breaking the laws which, as we all know, is anathema.

and not to your analysis. When a pair "breaks the Laws" by misinforming their opponents there are always some pairs who feel unhappy when they are given no adjustment, but unless the pair concerned make a habit of misinformation there is no adjustment suitable unless there is damage.

As to the actual analysis we shall just have to differ. I do not believe the meaning of double made any difference and see no reason to adjust.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Ray Crowe

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 05:44:03 WedMar 19 2003 )

Country: New Zealand

This has also been circulated around several of Australasia's best, and all agree there should be no adjustment.

I thank you both for your time and contributions

JimO

175 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 07:19:28 WedMar 19 2003 )

I agree that there should be no adjustment. West has an easy 3S bid, and East should bid 4. If W is not going to bid 3S, he should probably give up playing a strong club; he'll be talked out of game whenever the opponents compete.

---
-Jim O'Neil
Oak Park, IL

wabbitUSA

3 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Misinformation appeal ( 16:54:37 TueAug 26 2003 )

Country: USA

I understand the consensus that a score adjustment is not warranted. However, is it

a. Possible under the laws
b. indicated here

to give N-S a precedural penalty because they didn't know their methods? IMO this should depend on their experience.

7 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 6 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union