[rv]

Hi,

Bidding

Both White, You are sitting East, Partner is dealer with your side passing throughout in the auction.

Your RHO (North) opens 2♠, LHO (South) bids 2N on which RHO bids 3♥ with LHO signing off in 4♠.
Your LHO who is your screen-mate alerts 2N as Ogust convention on 2♠ preempt and alerts 3♥
informing you that it shows good points (8-9/10) and bad ♠suit.

Play

You hold ♠85♥KQ5♦Q975♣AQT6 and lead ♠5 on the premise that any other lead could cost
a trick since RHO has out-side values and choose to be passive hoping declarer will struggle
to make 10 tricks on his own steam. Dummy comes down with ♠K4♥832♦AKJ86♣K72.
Declarer held ♠AQJ632♥764♦32♣J4.

Declarer promptly draws 4 rounds of ♠ on which you pitch a ♦ hoping
to deflect declarer from working ♦ finesse. Declarer still takes ♦
finesse and ends up making 12 tricks (6♠, 5♦ and ♣K).

Director call and ruling
You call the director at the end of the deal and inform him that explanation given by your
screen-mate is erroneous and you had a clear ♥K if given the right explanation.
Director verifies the facts. North informs director that his bid showing good ♠ suit
and poor hcp (5-7/8) is as per their partnership understanding which is corroborated by
detailed systems. Incidentally North had alerted his screen-mate as to the correct interpretation
of his bid. South admits that he has forgotten system. Director checks with a few of peers of your
class(expert?) who all felt that your lead of ♠ 5 is highly speculative and ♥ K
was the clearly percentage lead in-spite of wrong explanation. He ruled that table results stands
and awarded PP (procedural penalty) of 3 IMPs to NS.

Appeals committee deliberations and decision

You decide to appeal. AC checked the facts with the director, your opponents and clearly established
that it is case of mistaken explanation by your screen-mate. During the appeals hearing, you inform
the AC that given the right explanation of North hand (good ♠ suit and poor hcp), ♥K
was an automatic lead and you would have never have wrong. AC asked you the reason for ♠ lead.
You explained that you decided to go passive since declarer is known to have outside values in addition
to known strength in dummy and felt even♥K lead could sell a trick. Subsequently AC polled a
few more experts (players of your class) and nearly all of them suggested they would all lead ♥ K
and only a couple of them even considered ♠ lead based on explanation given to East by South.
AC did sympathize with East that given right explanation, he is likely to have found the wrong lead, but
felt that even given the wrong explanation, his lead was too speculative and could be dangerous as well
(finesse ♠ honors in partner's hand). They ruled that director ruling stands and returned the money.

A few questions for your opinion:

a) Do you agree with director's approach? Should he have ruled in favor of non-offending side and asked N-S
to appeal?
b) Is the poll conducted by director amongst players of East's class (expert) before giving ruling a good practice?
Should he have polled on what other experts would have led given the right explanation as well?
c) Do you agree with director's ruling? Should PP be awarded in all such cases of wrong explanation because of forgetting
system?
d) Do you agree with AC's approach? In such cases should the ruling be solely based on what a player of certain class
would have led given the right explanation or should director/AC also factor in did the player make the right or
at-least reasonable lead given the wrong explanation? If both factors need to be considered, in what proportion?
e) Do you agree with AC's final decision of letting table result stands? Would you have considered reversing table
result to 4♠ one down or even given split ruling (50% of 4♠ one down and 50% of 4♠ making)?
If you change the result to any of the above options, would you still consider awarding PP to North-South?

Rgds,
RV

[figo]

RV ,
Its a typical case and not easy to resolve . Just a few thoughts : 1) It is a good practice and one recommended officially by WBF , that TD consults a few experts separately and then gives a table ruling . The lacuna is that at many places , the players dont know about this practice being followed by the TD and then it actually loses its purpose partially . 2) Some national bridge bodies have a practice of following what is called as 70-30 split ruling , while deciding split verdict , but that is provided the case is absolutely worthy of such split ruling 3) In this case , South really appears to have forgotten and took 3S bid as ' good -good '; else , he doesnt really have a hand to bid 4S . This bid could have easily bitten him back , if East had say KQJ of Hs !. Very difficult to compensate for someone forgetting system . If East did not have H Q , I guess the verdict could have gone in favour of East without any doubt or much discussion . 4) I have one suggestion though about this Procedural Penalty thing . Should this type of infringment really come under the catergory of PP ? Was it any ' procedure ' that South violated ? No , it was a bridge error which had direct connection with the deal . If that is so , the law makers should think about penalising the defaulting side ( forgetting system etc ), not just by a fixed value like 3 imps but at least 50 % of the IMP value of the deal result or of the deal swing . [/font]

[raj52]

Posts and replies are difficult to comment on, when they contain errors.
The reply above refers to 3S bid by opener (N), whereas the bid was actually 3H.

I agree there must be a penalty for wrong explanatios - specially at this expert level of play. Stiff penalties for experts, small penalty for intermediate levels, and warnings for beginners wll go a long way in forcing players to learn and explain their own systems correctly.

I think (I'm not too sure of this) one important factor may have been overlooked by everyone, incl RV, TD and AC: before the lead, declarer (N) should inform the opening defender (RV in this case) that a wrong explanation has been given for 3H over Ogust, and he should offer the correct explanation. Now, there would be no penalty for N-S, because E-W had no bidding inetentions (thus not deprived of any legitimate bids), and the oepening leader has been given full explanation of the 'wrong' interpretation, and South bid corrctly based upon his own understanding of the bid. ALL IZZ WELL!!

By law, the onus falls on North to make amends for the misinformnation provided by his partner in this case, and failure to do so should attract a penalty. If N was not sure of obligations, at the least he should have called the TD (as required by law) and advise TD of a misunderstandng - and TD would have informed East who would have led K of hearts!!

Cheers

[WellSpyder]

raj52, on 2011-March-17, 22:41, said:

I think (I'm not too sure of this) one important factor may have been overlooked by everyone, incl RV, TD and AC: before the lead, declarer (N) should inform the opening defender (RV in this case) that a wrong explanation has been given for 3H over Ogust, and he should offer the correct explanation.

This is correct in general and it would have avoided the problems on this hand. But a careful reading of the OP shows that the hand was played with screens. That means that N would not have been aware of what explanations his partner had given on the other side of the screen and therefore was not in a position to correct any misinformation.

[iviehoff]

I think the ruling is wrong in all respects.

It is good practice to carry out a poll to obtain bridge opinions, but the information obtained is only as good as the question asked. The expert poll tells us that the spade lead was poor. It does not tell us the important thing, which is whether the poor lead would still have been made given the correct information. The player has a strong argument that, given the correct information, he would not have made the poor lead. This is damage under the laws, and was therefore due an adjustment.

The fine for the misexplanation (as honest error) is not appropriate or normal. Players are not fined for misexplanation as honest error even in the Bermuda Bowl. A fine would be suitable for a suspected deliberate attempt to mislead or conceal, or negligent failure to comply with explanation procedures, etc, or repeated error after warning.

[nsriram]

Similar to what others have pointed out, why do we care about what the "right" lead is given the wrong explanation? Should we not be trying to establish what "the most likely" lead would be if the given the right explanation? If it is overwhelmingly clear that most (seems like in this case it is all) peers would lead the HK given the correct explanation then why should anything other than 4S -1 for both sides be considered? The ruling seems to say that since you lead a spade with the wrong explanation you are also likely to lead a spade with the correct explanation. What am I missing here?

[ggwhiz]

I agree. The explanation for the trump lead under the circumstance of MI is logical and the non-offenders are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt, ie the most favourable likely result.

I think this committee really dropped the ball.

[paulg]

nsriram, on 2011-March-18, 10:43, said:

Similar to what others have pointed out, why do we care about what the "right" lead is given the wrong explanation? Should we not be trying to establish what "the most likely" lead would be if the given the right explanation? If it is overwhelmingly clear that most (seems like in this case it is all) peers would lead the HK given the correct explanation then why should anything other than 4S -1 for both sides be considered? The ruling seems to say that since you lead a spade with the wrong explanation you are also likely to lead a spade with the correct explanation. What am I missing here?

It seems that the AC found that most players would not have led a spade on the explanation received, therefore they are not peers. You need to find people who lead a spade on the auction as told to the leader and then ask them what they'd lead with the correct explanation.

I have sympathy for the AC, unlike most. This looks very difficult to me.

[Mbodell]

nsriram, on 2011-March-18, 10:43, said:

Similar to what others have pointed out, why do we care about what the "right" lead is given the wrong explanation? Should we not be trying to establish what "the most likely" lead would be if the given the right explanation? If it is overwhelmingly clear that most (seems like in this case it is all) peers would lead the HK given the correct explanation then why should anything other than 4S -1 for both sides be considered? The ruling seems to say that since you lead a spade with the wrong explanation you are also likely to lead a spade with the correct explanation. What am I missing here?

The explanation has to cause the damage. If no one in the world, other than the player at the table, would lead trump given either the incorrect or the correct information then the misexplanation may not have been the cause of the trump lead. But we'd lean in favor of the non-offending side. And the self-serving argument is credible, so absent a poll that shows people who lead a trump with the wrong information also lead a trump with the right information (proving no damage *caused by the wrong explanation*) I'd rule for the non-offending side.

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on 2011-March-18, 07:52, said:

The fine for the misexplanation (as honest error) is not appropriate or normal. Players are not fined for misexplanation as honest error even in the Bermuda Bowl. A fine would be suitable for a suspected deliberate attempt to mislead or conceal, or negligent failure to comply with explanation procedures, etc, or repeated error after warning.

I agree. The TD should be more inclined to award fines for (what appear to be) deliberate breaches of Law.

paulg, on 2011-March-18, 12:24, said:

It seems that the AC found that most players would not have led a spade on the explanation received, therefore they are not peers. You need to find people who lead a spade on the auction as told to the leader and then ask them what they'd lead with the correct explanation.

I agree. However, the TD can sometimes gather some useful information out of those who would have led ♥K anyway: do they consider that the opening lead is equally clear on both the correct and actual explanations, or would the correct explanation make this opening lead more obvious?

[bluejak]

rv, on 2011-March-17, 12:43, said:

a) Do you agree with director's approach? Should he have ruled in favor of non-offending side and asked N-S to appeal?

I do not see the point of having TDs giving rulings if you do not expect them to rule correctly but expect an AC to do their job for them. More to the point, this method of getting ACs to do the TD's job is thirty years out of date and fortunately no longer followed in most places.

rv, on 2011-March-17, 12:43, said:

b) Is the poll conducted by director amongst players of East's class (expert) before giving ruling a good practice? Should he have polled on what other experts would have led given the right explanation as well?

Polling is good practice, though it should be used with caution: it is only a guide to helping the TD decide, not a method of supplanting the TD's judgement. Most interesting is finding anyone who considers the spade lead right with the wrong explanation and asking him what he leads with the correct explanation.

rv, on 2011-March-17, 12:43, said:

c) Do you agree with director's ruling? Should PP be awarded in all such cases of wrong explanation because of forgetting system?

All cases? Certainly not. You want to give a PP to a pair of novices in a club not knowing their system? I presume the "Indian Summer Nationals semi-finals" involves top class players. There is some case for doing so at this level but really I still would not do so. Really the only reasons for doing so are

• if there is a regulation requiring a PP, or stating that players are required to know their system, or
  
• if the pair have a habit of getting system wrong at top levels and are clearly making little effort to improve this.

As for whether I agree with the TD's ruling the reason given means the ruling does not follow the Laws. There is nothing in the Laws that say that rectification does not occur for the offending side when the non-offenders do something speculative. I think it is time the TD took his Law book out and read Law 12 in full.

Whether the lead is speculative is irrelevant for the offending side: the question is whether the player was damaged, ie whether he might or would have led the ♥K with a correct explanation. If the TD decides he definitely he would he must adjust for the offenders on the basis of that lead. If he decides that he might have done so he gives a weighted score on that basis to the offenders.

Now he reads Law 12C1B and decides whether the speculative nature [in his view] of the lead is such as to deny partial or complete redress for the non-offending side. If he decides the lead is wild or gambling he will deny that part of the redress that is caused by the speculation, in effect probably all of it. He would do well to take a poll amongst people as to what they think of the lead as it was [given the wrong explanation] to help in this decision.

If he applies Law 12C1B he will then give a split score.

rv, on 2011-March-17, 12:43, said:

d) Do you agree with AC's approach? In such cases should the ruling be solely based on what a player of certain class would have led given the right explanation or should director/AC also factor in did the player make the right or at-least reasonable lead given the wrong explanation? If both factors need to be considered, in what proportion?

The AC has to decide whether the player was damaged in the whole or in part by the wrong explanation, and uses its best judgement in the matter. They are covered as the TD by Law 12, so I have great sympathy for the AC, who appear to have the Law mis-explained to them by the TD. This makes it very difficult for the AC to get their decision right.

rv, on 2011-March-17, 12:43, said:

e) Do you agree with AC's final decision of letting table result stands? Would you have considered reversing table result to 4♠ one down or even given split ruling (50% of 4♠ one down and 50% of 4♠ making)?

In the modern terminology generally accepted in most countries the score to which you refer is called weighted, not split. A split score would have been where the two sides get different scores, possibly because of Law 12C1B as cited above.

Since to me the ♥K lead is obvious on either explanation I have difficulty with this theory as to why a spade was led. As both TD and AC I would get the player to explain very carefully his logic to me. Having listened very carefully, polled a few players, discussed it and considered I would then come to one of three decisions:

• In my view the player has decided he would have led something different because he now knows that works. In fact he thinks the spade lead is safest whatever. If this is my eventual view there is no damage and I rule result stands.
  
  
• In my view the player has some logic and would have led something else with a correct explanation. However his actual logic has some sanity even though unsuccessful. If this is my eventual view he has been damaged and Law 12C1B does not apply. I would give a ruling as follows:
  
  For both sides:
  x % of 4♠ =, NS +420
  + (100-x) % of 4♠ -1, NS -50
  
  What value for x? Well, it depends on what he tells me: somewhere between 0 and 40, I reckon.
  
  
• In my view the player would have led something else with a correct explanation. However his actual logic is pretty poor to the extent that I consider his actual lead is wild or gambling. If this is my eventual view he has been damaged but loses redress under Law 12C1B. I would give a ruling as follows:
  
  For N/S:
  x % of 4♠ =, NS +420
  + (100-x) % of 4♠ -1, NS -50
  For E/W:
  Table result stands
  
  What value for x? Well, it depends on what he tells me: somewhere between 0 and 40, I reckon.

rv, on 2011-March-17, 12:43, said:

If you change the result to any of the above options, would you still consider awarding PP to North-South?

I just would not give a PP.

[bluejak]

figo, on 2011-March-17, 21:11, said:

2) Some national bridge bodies have a practice of following what is called as 70-30 split ruling , while deciding split verdict , but that is provided the case is absolutely worthy of such split ruling

I have never heard of this which seems at variance with the Laws. Split score rulings are given under Law 12C1B and rarely under one or two other Laws. Weighted score rulings are given outside the ACBL under Law 12C1C. Neither is an automatic 70-30.

nsriram, on 2011-March-18, 10:43, said:

Similar to what others have pointed out, why do we care about what the "right" lead is given the wrong explanation? Should we not be trying to establish what "the most likely" lead would be if the given the right explanation? If it is overwhelmingly clear that most (seems like in this case it is all) peers would lead the HK given the correct explanation then why should anything other than 4S -1 for both sides be considered? The ruling seems to say that since you lead a spade with the wrong explanation you are also likely to lead a spade with the correct explanation. What am I missing here?

"Most likely" is not the basis for rulings. A TD or AC decides what he believes might have happened without the infraction and what proportion of the time. However, this TD and AC do not seem to have realised this.

ggwhiz, on 2011-March-18, 12:02, said:

I agree. The explanation for the trump lead under the circumstance of MI is logical and the non-offenders are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt, ie the most favourable likely result.

They are not supposed to get the "most favourable likely result" outside North America. They are supposed to get redress generally by a weighted ruling under Law 12C1C.

[rv]

Hi,

Thanks for all the views, especially insightful summary and detailed answers given by David.

A few more scenarios for clarification:

a) If director or AC had polled 5-6 players of comparable class to East and let us say
everyone felt they would have led ♥K irrespective of wrong explanation. Let us
say couple of those players indicate they would have considered ♠ lead with wrong
explanation (good hcp, poor trumps) but eventually still lead ♥ K, whereas everyone is
unanimous they would lead ♥K with right explanation (declarer holding good trumps, poor hcp).

b) Let us say East gives the following reasoning in AC hearing. Given the right explanation, all outside
values will be in dummy and ♥K is clear-cut lead since he needs to setup his tricks (tempo ahead)
before declarer can establish additional ♣ or ♦ tricks for possible heart pitches. He cannot
afford to go passive. With the wrong explanation, he felt it is was toss-up between ♥K and ♠. He
decided to go passive since declarer will have his fair share of high cards and felt it is more important
not to sell a trick rather than be a tempo ahead and set-up your tricks. He felt finessing partner's ♠
honors may not be so relevant since declarer is likely to finesse partner in any case.

c)Let us say East is World Class and has won couple of medals in recent International Open tournies (European Open)
and highest MPs holder amongst active bridge players in India. Strictly speaking, some of the players polled may
not be of his class.

d) Let us say one or more AC members have feeling East has propensity to lead passively (trumps or from suits w/o strength)
based on historic data (may be just perception and not clearly documented).

How will each of the above scenarios or a combination of them affect your ruling?

Rgds,
RV

[MBV53]

Hi all,
I want to know one thing very clearly. why convention cards were displayed on the both sides of the screens? they are meant for whose whose reference? for screen mates or TDs reference?when a detailed convention cards were available on the both sides of the screens what is the problem for the player to refer into that?simply testing the memory of the player?or to get some benifit out of misexplanation if any?I beleive the opponents had a detailed CC on both sides and the bid 3S was clearly mentioned in the CC.I advice the players to come with well prepared CCs with detailed explanations and develope a habit of going through the opponents CC whenever clarification is required,if that particular bid was not covered in the CC then ask for written explanation.It is always better to do the first thing first!crying or shouting later is not the correct practice.when the weighted score was not considered[because td got a poll leading spade was a serious error] TD imposed 3IMP penalties to take away some 25% gains, is not justified in a knock out match?
MBVSubrahmanyam.INDIA

[bluejak]

While the CC is for the opponents primarily, the Laws allow players to ask questions and rely on answers. So, unless you change the Laws, you cannot say that someone who relies on questions and not the CC is wrong.

As to judgement as what East would or would not do, the AC [as the TD] gets all the information possible [including poll results] then makes a judgement. It makes no difference if East is world class.