[MBV53]

I feel that declarer North had almost right information, his screenmate east explained 2H as take out, west bid 3c showed Spade & clubs now. south knew west hold both spades & minor[later confirmed to clubs]. Knowledge of south is immaterial now because north was declarer. At the end of bidding North also gets Identical information. Hence there was a minute mis-information which can be ignored. Table result stands & no award of PP because words might be different but meaning at the end is similar.Self-Goal:)
MBVSubrahmanyam.
Chief Director,India

[dburn]

As a hypothetical exercise: suppose that instead of explaining West's bid as "takeout", East had explained it as "two- or three-suited with at most a singleton and often a void in hearts".

Would North be entitled to redress for his line of play?

[mrdct]

MBV53, on Jul 6 2010, 04:51 AM, said:

Knowledge of south is immaterial now because north was declarer. After the coclusion of bidding North also gets Identical information. Hence there was a minute mis-information which can be ignored.

How? There isn't any reconfirmation of alerts and explanations at the end of the auction. Declarer is completely entitled to assume that he got the same explanations on his side of the screen as were given on the other side of the screen.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Jul 6 2010, 03:25 AM, said:

campboy, on Jul 5 2010, 08:56 PM, said:

What other West hands short in hearts are you talking about? He specifically said he was worried that West had no trumps.

Perhaps 4135 or 5134? We aren't told; but declarer said he was worried about 3-suiters suitable for a ♥ T/O double:

suprgrover, on Jun 24 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

... He said that had he been given West's explanation, he would have drawn at least one round of trumps, but with the likelihood of a 3-suiter looming he wanted to minimize the damage ...

He said he was playing for 5-0 hearts!

[suprgrover]

Could someone point me to the ACBL's definition of "serious error"? (It seems that under the EBU's definition the error here might not be serious, since one of the examples in the White Book of a non-serious error is "[p]laying for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.)

[nige1]

Scoring: IMPS

1♠ (1N) _X (_P)
4♠ (_P) 7♠ AP
East explains West's NT overcall as 16-18. Unfortunately he forgets the East-West agreement that the notrump overcall is often Comic (a weak hand with a long suit). West leads ♥T and dummy's ♥Q loses to East's ♥K. At the end of the hand, declarer calls the director claiming that, with correct information, he would have played dummy's ♥A and made the contract. Eventually, after they stop laughing, East-West point out ...

• Declarer must be mentally deficient not to realize that it is impossible for West to have a strong notrump overcall because he would have at most singleton ♠K.
  
• Even if a finagling declarer pretends that he thought West could overcall a natural notrump with a singleton, declarer's play may still fail (when West psyched, misbid, miscounted his points, or shaded a 15 count).
  
• Declarer is barking mad to adopt such a nullo line. The ♥ finesse is a "practice" finesse. The contract always makes when declarer refuses the finesse and West has ♥K, even if ♣ break 3-0.

---

[nige1]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

He said he was playing for 5-0 hearts!

For the nth time...

suprgrover, on Jun 24 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0. If he could steal a spade trick, he could then shift to the red suits and emerge with 8 tricks. He said that had he been given West's explanation, he would have drawn at least one round of trumps, but with the likelihood of a 3-suiter looming he wanted to minimize the damage.

Sorry Peachy

[jdonn]

Then who cares about 4135 or 5134? I'm done with how little sense you are making.

[peachy]

nige1, on Jul 6 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 09:16 AM, said:

He said he was playing for 5-0 hearts!

For the nth time...

suprgrover, on Jun 24 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0. If he could steal a spade trick, he could then shift to the red suits and emerge with 8 tricks. He said that had he been given West's explanation, he would have drawn at least one round of trumps, but with the likelihood of a 3-suiter looming he wanted to minimize the damage.

Sorry Peachy

It's ok nige1, free world to post it even the tenth or eleventh time:)

[dburn]

bluejak, on Jun 24 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

The AC did not decide that declarer's play constituted a SEWoG, but decided that the damage was not consequent on the MI.  Certainly that is a reasonable view to take.

It seems to me important to distinguish between two cases:

[1] Declarer's play was not caused by the MI

[2] Declarer's play was caused by the MI, but it should not have been - he should have played differently despite the MI.

In neither case should the score be adjusted, but in case [2] the only option available to an AC that does not want to adjust the score is to say that declarer's play was a "serious error" or "wild or gambling action".

In the actual case, if the AC decides that declarer's play was not a serious error, then it must adjust the score unless it believes that the play was not caused by the MI. That is: it must flatly disbelieve North when he says "if I hadn't been given the MI, I would have played differently".

Note that this is not the same thing at all as deciding that even though North was given MI, he should have played differently; to do so is to hold that case [2] applies.

Well, North was given MI, and he made a play that he says he would not have made had he not been given that MI. On the facts as presented, I believe him. It was a poor play, and I would consider it a serious error by a US triallist, but that is not the issue, for the AC did not consider the play a serious error. The issue, then, is: why did the AC not believe North?

To say that the AC consulted a lot of other people who would not have played as North did is not a valid reason at all for believing that the MI did not cause North to misplay, only for believing that the MI should not have caused North to misplay. Either what North did was a serious error, or the score should have been adjusted - the AC cannot have it both ways (and neither, despite their luminescence, can jdonn or bluejak).

[Pict]

At the risk of lowering the tone...

Isn't it a bit like UI. Nobody uses UI, bit sometimes a TD and or an AC decide they did.

Similarly, nobody makes serious errors, they are just misled. But sometimes the TD and or the AC decide they did make a serious error and don't get an adjustment.

Philosophy most definitely doesn't rule in Bridge in real time. And sometimes the underlying explanation is a bit of aggro at the table or something else.

[jdonn]

Thought: It's possible to make a play that is so terrible and/or so obscure that claiming you made the play due to misinformation (or for any other reason in particular that makes no sense) is not particularly credible.

I believe the two issues some are trying to separate in this thread, serious errors compared to unsuccessful actions subsequent/consequent to MI, are inherently intertwined in this case.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 04:04 PM, said:

Thought: It's possible to make a play that is so terrible and/or so obscure that claiming you made the play due to misinformation (or for any other reason in particular that makes no sense) is not particularly credible.

I believe the two issues some are trying to separate in this thread, serious errors compared to unsuccessful actions subsequent/consequent to MI, are inherently intertwined in this case.

Oh, they become intertwined in a great number of cases, of which the current case is but one example.

My belief is, though, that they become intertwined far more often than they should. The correct procedure, or so it seems to me, is for a Director or a Committee to consider in order:

[1] Was there MI - that is: had an explanation been given or withheld that could reasonably cause a player to form a significantly false picture of an opponent's hand?

[1a] If not, then the score should not be adjusted.

[1b] If so, then

[2] Did the MI cause a flawed action to be adopted, an action that would not have been adopted without the MI?

[2a] If not, then the score should not be adjusted.

[2b] If so, then

[3] Was that flawed action a serious error, or a wild or gambling action?

[3a] If so, then the score should not be adjusted

[3b] If not, then the score should be adjusted.

[RMB1]

dburn, on Jul 6 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

...
[3] Was that flawed action a serious error, or a wild or gambling action?

[3a] If so, then the score should not be adjusted

[3b] If not, then the score should be adjusted.

I disagree with the last step:

[3a] If so, the score should be adjusted for the offending side only.*
[3b] If not, the score should be adjusted for both sides.

* This is a simplification of the implementation of Law 12C1b when all the damage is due to the serious error or wild or gambling action.

[mink]

dburn, on Jul 6 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

[3] Was that flawed action a serious error, or a wild or gambling action?

[3a] If so, then the score should not be adjusted

[3b] If not, then the score should be adjusted.

Maybe, when looking a little bit closer to Law12C1b, this should be changed to:

[3] Did the bidding or play of the non-offending side contain a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction), or a wild or gambling action?

[3a] If so, then the score shall be adjusted, but the non-offending side shall get no redress for the self-inflicted damage (resulting in a split score)

[3b] If not, then the score shall be adjusted in the same way for both sides.

Here is the text of law:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

As I already stated, I think that playing ♠8 in trick 3 was not an error*, and therefore never a serious error (something that seems to be undefined in the US anyway). But even it it was, was it unrelated to the infraction? If you believe that the declarer would have drawn trump if he got the correct information, then the "error" would not have happened. So it is related to the infraction.


* Still waiting for a 52-card layout that conforms with the bidding and the explanation North got, where ♠8 yields a result worse than drawing trumps in trick 3. To jdonn: I am requesting 52 cards because it is easier then to verify if the layout really conforms. The examples you provided did not conform, and you were the only one so far who bothered to accept my challenge.

Karl

[campboy]

dburn, on Jul 6 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

Well, North was given MI, and he made a play that he says he would not have made had he not been given that MI. On the facts as presented, I believe him. It was a poor play, and I would consider it a serious error by a US triallist, but that is not the issue, for the AC did not consider the play a serious error. The issue, then, is: why did the AC not believe North?

Because it is a self-serving statement for which (in my opinion) there is no supporting evidence -- North's line does not appear (again, in my opinion) to be any more desirable with the information he got than with the information he should have gotten.

If he had been screenmates with West, instead of East, and been given the explanation "Michaels" (which we assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary is MI), played his line and then said afterwards "I played the way I did because I was worried about losing trump control if trumps were 5-0; obviously if I was told 'takeout' that is much less likely to be the case so I would have played a trump at trick 3", then I would be minded to adjust the score. I don't think I would be being consistent if I were willing to adjust the score in both cases.

It may be, of course, that I am simply being consistently wrong and it is correct to adjust the score in the original case but not my modification

[jdonn]

Mr. Burn, I don't believe the issues are intertwined because of your 3, I believe it is because of the determination of 2. The expert can't just claim he made the play because of the misinformation, he has to give a reason that makes some sense or I just won't believe him.

[dburn]

campboy, on Jul 6 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

dburn, on Jul 6 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

Well, North was given MI, and he made a play that he says he would not have made had he not been given that MI. On the facts as presented, I believe him. It was a poor play, and I would consider it a serious error by a US triallist, but that is not the issue, for the AC did not consider the play a serious error. The issue, then, is: why did the AC not believe North?

Because it is a self-serving statement for which (in my opinion) there is no supporting evidence -- North's line does not appear (again, in my opinion) to be any more desirable with the information he got than with the information he should have gotten.

It is not a question of what is desirable; it is a question of what is induced. The mindset of people judging the question afterwards is emphatically not the mindset of the player given MI at the table.

Of course declarer's play on the hand in question does not stand up to analysis, but that is not the issue. The issue is: would he have made the play had he not been misinformed?

In the actual case, it is certainly open to the Director or the AC to judge that North made the play he did not because he was misinformed, but because he was doubled. Thinking, wrongly, that he would not have been doubled by an East who had only ♥QJx, he went astray for a reason that had nothing to do with the MI as such, and then tried to claim redress afterwards on specious grounds.

That at any rate appears to me to be what jdonn is arguing, and what the AC eventually found, and I would gainsay none of them. I say only that it is important to consider to what extent the player at the table was misled by MI, and to allow him redress unless the line he followed was ridiculous whatever the true state of affairs.

I should also say that RMB1's remarks are entirely correct: if a side is guilty of a serious error even though misinformed, it does not obtain redress for the damage caused by the error (though the other side collects the score it would have obtained had the error not occurred).

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with campboy (and possibly others).

The real question to ask is why it is more likely that trumps are 5-0 if you are told West has a made a 'take-out' bid, than if you are told West has shown a 'Michaels' hand.

I can't see that either explanation makes trumps 5-0 more likely than the other. The reason declarer played for trumps 5-0 is that East doubled with not very many high cards, but that's just as likely to happen either way.

[dburn]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 01:07 AM, said:

I agree with campboy (and possibly others).

The real question to ask is why it is more likely that trumps are 5-0 if you are told West has a made a 'take-out' bid, than if you are told West has shown a 'Michaels' hand.

Because, given that West doesn't have very many points, his "takeout bid" is likely to be a genuine three-suiter - that is, he will have at least twelve non-hearts. For a "Michaels" bid he needs only ten non-hearts. I suspect, without performing tedious calculations, that a man who can have at most one heart is more likely to have no hearts than a man who can have at most three hearts.