[blackshoe]

If West thinks they have the agreement that 2NT shows a two suiter, and East thinks they have the agreement that 2NT is natural, then clearly they have no agreement, and any explanation other than "no agreement" is MI.

If the MI caused no damage, there should be no score adjustment.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

If West thinks they have the agreement that 2NT shows a two suiter, and East thinks they have the agreement that 2NT is natural, then clearly they have no agreement, and any explanation other than "no agreement" is MI.

If you followed that principle, you would always be ruling "no agreement" when there has been a misunderstanding.

If they both agree that they have discussed and agreed the sequence, then surely the logical conclusion is that one of then has forgotten: then N/S would be entitled to know the real agreement.

In the actual case, I suspect that there was no agreement and the actions/statements from East and West were based on what they each thought the bid ought to mean (from their own bridge knowledge). Apparently East said to the AC "for me, 2NT was two-suiter"; he did not say ""for us, 2NT was two-suiter".

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on Sep 18 2010, 05:32 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

If West thinks they have the agreement that 2NT shows a two suiter, and East thinks they have the agreement that 2NT is natural, then clearly they have no agreement, and any explanation other than "no agreement" is MI.

If you followed that principle, you would always be ruling "no agreement" when there has been a misunderstanding.

If they both agree that they have discussed and agreed the sequence, then surely the logical conclusion is that one of then has forgotten: then N/S would be entitled to know the real agreement.

In the actual case, I suspect that there was no agreement and the actions/statements from East and West were based on what they each thought the bid ought to mean (from their own bridge knowledge). Apparently East said to the AC "for me, 2NT was two-suiter"; he did not say ""for us, 2NT was two-suiter".

I was talking about this case, where there is no evidence other than the statements of the players, not the general case.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Sep 18 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

Apparently East said to the AC  "for me, 2NT was two-suiter"; he did not say ""for us, 2NT was two-suiter".

Right, and East said "Natural", without qualifying it. Presumably in all cases where the opinion on the methods is different, therefore, there is no agreement.

In this case, it was the use of UI that caused the adjustment to 3NTX - 1. If that had not been the case, then the question of whether North would have doubled 3NT without any MI would have been raised.

Let us say that you bid 1C - 1H - 3D, uncontested. You expect your partner to interpret it as a splinter, which is what you have, but he just explains it as natural and game forcing and bids 3NT. You say, "for me, 3D is a splinter". He says, "that is news to me, I think it is natural". The opponents fail to lead a diamond against 3NT and it makes. This was an actual occurrence, and our team-mates had an adjustment to 3NT going off. Now the opening leader is only entitled to the answer that there is "no agreement", but he is entitled to guess what the 3D bidder has, when he knows there is no agreement. If there were screens, he would get the answer "splinter", or "natural", depending on his polarity. Would you rule the same way in both cases? The actual hand held is, in my view, substantial evidence of the "implicit" agreement, which includes the "likely interpretation of the bid" from the partner.

[nige1]

IMO

• Please put West to the left of East in bidding diagrams i.e. Start the diagram with South or, preferably, West.
  
• 4♦ is reasonable. But pass is a less successful logical alternative. The UI demonstrably suggests the former.
  
• The director (and committee) should have awarded NS percentages of the larger penalties (300 and 800). Say 33% to each possibility.
  
• The committee should consider a PP/DP or whatever for "angry" bidding.
  
• May the committee keep the deposit (or impose an AWMW) when both sides appeal?

[mjj29]

nige1, on Sep 20 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

IMO

• May the committee keep the deposit (or impose an AWMW) when both sides appeal?

More interestingly, I think, may they keep precisely one of the deposits?

[bluejak]

Of course. If one side's appeal is trivial and meritless, and the other side's is not then keep one deposit.

More interesting is that in a case from the Schapiro Spring Foursomes of many years ago both sides appealed, but it was withdrawn when it was found that it did not affect the result of the knockout match. An AC had already been formed so they asked to see the form anyway. They told us, the TDs, that if it had gone ahead they would have kept both deposits!