[starfruit]

Scoring: IMP

---

N E S W
-- -- 1♥ P
1♠ P 2♣[1] P
2♦[2] P 2NT[3] P
3♣[4] X P[5] P
3NT[6] P P P

Playing with screens:
[1]: 16+ any or 4+♣
[2]: 8+ any
[3]: N to W: 5♥ 4clubs exactly, S to E: ♥ 5+ 1 suiter FG
[4]: Relay
[5]: S to E: weakness in ♣, N to W: perhaps giving him a chance to XX with ♣
[6]: N to W: Unsure, N to W: ♣ stop

Play:
W led ♣x which E took with K.
W continued with a ♣A.
E returned ♣ to W's QJ.
He did not cash ♦A, hoping to get 1 extra trick
Meanwhile, dummy pitched 2♠ and declarer pitched a ♥ after showing up with only 3♣
W switched to a ♠.

Has E/W been damaged by this misinformation?

W is suggesting that the misinformation has led to him being unable to figure out that declarer actually had.
He thought that likely declarer will not have sufficient tricks (only 5♥) and everything might hinge on finding the ♦Q.
Had he knew that declarer has a ♥ 1 suiter, he would not have think that way and played partner for the ♦A.

N/S feels that once declarer has shown up with only 3♣, it should be clear to W that there has been misinformation (Is he able to call for director at that moment?).
In addition, N suggested that he did not receive any unauthorized information (screens) and had been bidding according to system (hence 3NT without ♣ stop).
Hence, this would be more akin to a situation where S misbid his hand.

In addition, E had been given the right explanation and he is in fact in a position to take advantage of the situation (taking 3NT-1 when 4♥ would have been iron clad).
Can we treat this disadvantageous position as the "penalty" for this series of misinformation.

Hopefully not too confusing up till this point... Thanks for any views given!

[Old York]

East had all the correct information he needed to defeat the contract, perhaps the damage was self inflicted?
Greed should never be rewarded
but what about suit preference on the 3rd Club?

Tony

[Mbodell]

I am not a director; however, I'm pretty sure on what the first point is:

What are N/S agreements? The director has to figure that out to evaluate which players have misinformation (W, E, or both). My guess, based on the way I play Gazzilli, is that N is wrong (his explanation for 2nt matches my 2♥) and S is probably right on bid 3 and therefore probably on the rest.

Once you determine who has the MI, you determine was the damage due to the MI, and you are supposed to be generous in your determination resolving unclear points in favor of the NOS.

Is E wrong to not cash the ♦A? Possibly, but there are layouts where that would be quite fatal (S with K AKQJxx xxx Qxx for instance). Does Qxx count as club weakness? Does south ever make the 2♣ response with less than 16?

Is the fact that S showed out of the 3rd round of clubs enough to tell W that he's gotten MI? Well it certainly alerts him that someone didn't have their bid and/or there was miscommunication. From W point of view think through the cards: W knows S has 16+ points. S has 0 points in ♣, up to 10 points in ♥, up to 6 points in ♦ and up to 5 points in ♠. Even if he has every spade and heart point he still needs one of the two ♦ honors for his bid. If he has the ♦A then leading the ♦ gives up his partner's Q. If he has the ♦Q than partner can get his ♦A later since with the pitching declarer can wrap up only 2 spade tricks at best and will have to lose the ♦Q eventually. Therefore what holding of partners might we want to pick up? Imagine S was Qx AKQJxxx A xxx, that is the needed 16 points for south, and our only setting play is an immediate ♠. So I don't think the spade switch is wild, gambling, and unreasonable. But is it indicated by the MI? I.e., is it more likely due to the explanation that he was given? That I don't see.

In general, I hate, hate, hate people who punish the NOS for not playing double dummy perfect. But here I'd need more help before I see how the MI at all contributed to the losing line.

[barmar]

How did East and West get different information if the game was played on BBO (as implied by the forum you posted this in)?

[Codo]

Where is the damage for East? He knew about the one suiter and the weakness.
To cash or not to cash the ace of diamond is not influenced by the explanation.

Where was the damage for West? He knew that something went wrong when he cashed the 3. and 4. club. So now he knows that south has 16+ HCps outside club. So whether he should switch to diamond or spade is not influenced by the posible misinformation.

No need to change the score.

[smoz]

To Codo: He was waiting for the both AQ diamond to score after West gets in. because assuming that West had gotten the same information as East, a Diamond return would have been natural.

Unprovided for was that North had explained to West that they had a clear conventional bid for 1 suiter H, and given that they were a long partnership and South could remove to 4H, there was no compelling reason to know that South's hand was that distributional.

To Barmar: Game was played in real life at a club.

To Mbodell: North was right and South was wrong. Maybe they switched their responses.

a look at European Bridge League's appeal cases seem to also support your view to being more generous to the NOS, even if they didn't take the best line.

Old York: Wasn't provided whether that would be a Count or SP signal.

[barmar]

smoz, on May 11 2009, 08:32 PM, said:

To Barmar: Game was played in real life at a club.

I figured, but it was confusing that it was posted in the BBO forum instead of the Offline Bridge forum.