[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 08:14, said:

I presume you mean East's bidding, and MI, but even so I disagree. I think that the correct explanation would be "usually minors over 4H, but any two-suiter over 4S". But unless North-South have asked someone like jallerton to complete their convention card immaculately in 9 point, I expect they will struggle to provide evidence that either explanation was correct, and the director will assume MI, particularly from South to West. With the correct explanation, West will double, and will double the run to 5C. East will not save with two aces and the final contract will be 5Cx which I think is only one off. I do not think there is any real need for a weighted score, but would consult before concluding that.

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 13:15, said:

OK then I am afraid I do not understand your post at all (perhaps you should team up with jallerton on a book), so I will start afresh. According to the OP, when I hover over 4NT, I am told that South told West that 4NT was any two suits. North told East that it was both minors. I think that the correct explanation would be "usually minors over 4H, but any two-suiter over 4S". But unless North-South have asked someone like jallerton to complete their convention card immaculately in 9 point, I expect they will struggle to provide evidence that either explanation was correct, and the director will assume MI, particularly from South to West. With the correct explanation, West will double, and will double the run to 5C. East will not save with two aces and the final contract will be 5Cx which I think is only one off. I do not think there is any real need for a weighted score, but would consult before concluding that. And I realise we still have to consider punishing E/W for the 5D bid as it was subsequent to the infraction. Actually, it is not so clear. Assuming both sides have been told that 4NT is minors, partner has not doubled 4NT, and yet is seems likely that he has length in the minors. North does not have an opening bid, so at these colours I would assess 5D as short of SEWOG. But I would poll some peers of East to find out. The 5D bid would have to be markedly worse than bad bridge, and I would describe it as "creative". If Zia made the bid, we would not be classifying it as SEWOG.

I am struggling to work out what the point of these references to asking jallerton to fill out the card is. As far as I am aware, Jallerton has never filled out a card in anything other than his handwriting, which would struggle to get down to 9 points.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 08:14, said:

I presume you mean East's bidding, and MI, but even so I disagree. I think that the correct explanation would be "usually minors over 4H, but any two-suiter over 4S". But unless North-South have asked someone like jallerton to complete their convention card immaculately in 9 point, I expect they will struggle to provide evidence that either explanation was correct, and the director will assume MI, particularly from South to West. With the correct explanation, West will double, and will double the run to 5C. East will not save with two aces and the final contract will be 5Cx which I think is only one off. I do not think there is any real need for a weighted score, but would consult before concluding that.

I agree both sides were given different explanations and hence there was definitely MI. I don't see why the TD assumes MI "particularly from South to West". South actually had both minors, yet he explained his bid as potentially spades and a minor. I can't see any reason to do that unless he genuinely believed that was their agreement, and hence I can't see any reason to rule one explanation is right rather than the other. Which obviously makes this a rather difficult ruling.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 08:14, said:

With the correct explanation, West will double, and will double the run to 5C. East will not save with two aces and the final contract will be 5Cx which I think is only one off. I do not think there is any real need for a weighted score, but would consult before concluding that.

Really? When has West ever suggested that he would double 4NT and then double 5C? That seems to be coming from your imagination. Sometimes players don't realise exactly how they've been damaged (Robin's example that perhaps West would have bid 5S is a good one, although opposite a likely 5-7 in the majors it seems wrong) but I wouldn't award a score based on West doubling 4NT when he hasn't even suggested that might happen.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-20, 05:55, said:

Really? When has West ever suggested that he would double 4NT and then double 5C? That seems to be coming from your imagination. Sometimes players don't realise exactly how they've been damaged (Robin's example that perhaps West would have bid 5S is a good one, although opposite a likely 5-7 in the majors it seems wrong) but I wouldn't award a score based on West doubling 4NT when he hasn't even suggested that might happen.

He was told it was any two suits, and he probably didn't think what he would have done if South had explained it as minors. He did not say that he would bid 5S either, yet you think that is a good suggestion!

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-20, 05:48, said:

I am struggling to work out what the point of these references to asking jallerton to fill out the card is. As far as I am aware, Jallerton has never filled out a card in anything other than his handwriting, which would struggle to get down to 9 points.

That was a compliment to his level of detail in completing the card and the expectation that most people would not indicate how a 4NT overcall differed after an opening bid of 4H or 4S, because of the difficulty of squeezing everything in. I vaguely recall a thread a long time ago where you stated something like "even if such and such has completed the card like Jeffrey in 9 point they won't have such and such on it" - but I do not have time to search for that thread - sorry. Even if it is a figment of my imagination, the point is still there - unless the level of detail is comparable, I would not expect to find this on the CC. Most cards I have seen say "X = good hand" or something like that.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-20, 05:51, said:

I agree both sides were given different explanations and hence there was definitely MI. I don't see why the TD assumes MI "particularly from South to West". South actually had both minors, yet he explained his bid as potentially spades and a minor. I can't see any reason to do that unless he genuinely believed that was their agreement, and hence I can't see any reason to rule one explanation is right rather than the other. Which obviously makes this a rather difficult ruling.

As I stated, the first task of the TD would be to obtain evidence which was right. I would expect it would be difficult to find that evidence, or we would have been told in the OP that any two suits was the established method. The TD will decide on the balance of probabilities (Law 85A1). Let us say that he concurs with several posters on here that "usually minors" is the correct explanation. Now West was not told that, so he would not say that he would doubled if he had known that - it is only after the TD establishes the correct method that he would even think about it. If, as I think likely, the TD establishes that "usually minors" or something along those lines is the correct method, he then decides what would occur if West had the correct information. Do you not think double is the normal action then on the West hand?

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-20, 05:55, said:

Sometimes players don't realise exactly how they've been damaged <snip>

I agree completely, so I presume it is your belief that if it does not occur to them, they are denied redress. My understanding was that once MI was established, the TD decides on what action would have been taken with the correct information, by polling if necessary. Am I mistaken on this?

[bluejak]

There is no fixed rule. Suffice it to say, the better the player, the less the TD believes he should point out possible damage to him.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-February-20, 13:33, said:

There is no fixed rule. Suffice it to say, the better the player, the less the TD believes he should point out possible damage to him.

And I presume that the TD always tells the potentially damaged player when the former has established what the actual agreement is and the latter can then decide whether they would have done anything different.

[dburn]

If I were the kind of person who opened 4♥ with the East cards, then I don't see why I shouldn't be the kind of person who bids 5♦ with the East cards having been told that 4NT was minors. Indeed, it might strike me as quite a clever call - maybe for once partner really will have ♠KQxxx and a singleton heart. Maybe he won't, and I'll go for another 1400, but I am probably used to that by now.

But any TD (or anyone else) who thinks that 5♦ was "a serious error, wild or gambling action" in the context of what East already did is... well, he has made a serious error, a wild and gambling misjudgement. To adjust on that basis is yet another decision that is not even wrong.

[dburn]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-20, 05:48, said:

I am struggling to work out what the point of these references to asking jallerton to fill out the card is. As far as I am aware, Jallerton has never filled out a card in anything other than his handwriting, which would struggle to get down to 9 points.

It doesn't have to. He would never open the bidding with fewer than 10 points.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-February-20, 05:51, said:

South actually had both minors, yet he explained his bid as potentially spades and a minor. I can't see any reason to do that unless he genuinely believed that was their agreement.

I agree. It would be unheard of. But he might have made a mistake.

[Mashadar]

I disagree about the "wild or gambling" aspect.

With such wild distribution, any action - pass, bid, even double - could win or lose a dozen IMPs. For me, it is by no means clear which action has the best chances to be successful; therefore, I can't judge any of these actions as wild or gambling. The fact that I wouldn't bid that way doesn't change that.