[lamford]

nigel_k, on 2011-March-24, 20:41, said:

I agree that it seems a bit odd to apply 21B3 if the director thinks South would not have made a different call. But the misinformation caused his pass to take on a different meaning that it would otherwise have. So I don't see any reason based on the literal wording, or logic, or fairness, not to adjust.

But North knows that if South has one of the hand types that would have bid over an artificial 2NT he will get an adjusted score. And he was told so by the TD, in effect. So he can conclude that the auction has gone (2NT) - Pass - (3C) - Pass - (Pass) - X with partner making his bids with full knowledge of the opponent's methods, just like he would if there had been no infraction. In essence, if we don't believe South, there is no reason to adjust as North has all the information he needs.

He should just bid as he would with screens, with his screen-mate having given him correct information at each stage.

[nigel_k]

lamford, on 2011-March-24, 21:00, said:

He should just bid as he would with screens, with his screen-mate having given him correct information at each stage.

Ok, this is the essence of the disagreement because I think North should choose his best action based on all the (authorised) information he has, including what his partner was told and when, and the inferences that follow from that. But I don't know which of us is right.

[pran]

pran, on 2011-March-24, 12:15, said:

On its face this is a plain lie; I do indeed hope that it instead is only a lousy mistake from a failure to notice:

2NT was (on request by South at his first turn to call) explained by West as natural.

(the first text line) in my OP.

bluejak, on 2011-March-24, 15:20, said:

Of course it is not a lie. You have quoted correctly: that is how we know the question was asked. But, until Burn pointed it out, you never gave it as a reason why you believed he would have taken action. Nothing you wrote suggested you had noticed this logic until you agreed with Burn.

I am glad your statement wasn't what it looked like.

But are you claiming to a last straw here?

Why would I state a fact unless I considered it relevant? Usually when a player asks for a clarification of some agreement before selecting a call I consider it most likely that his selection depended upon the answer given.

[pran]

nigel_k, on 2011-March-24, 20:41, said:

The passage you quoted seems to cover this situation perfectly. It is too late for South to change his pass over 2NT and the offending side did gain an advantage from the irregularity. Therefore the score may be adjusted.

The director can't cancel North's pass of the double but he doesn't need to. He simply replaces the table result with a different result reflecting what would have happened had the irregularity not occurred.

I agree that it seems a bit odd to apply 21B3 if the director thinks South would not have made a different call. But the misinformation caused his pass to take on a different meaning that it would otherwise have. So I don't see any reason based on the literal wording, or logic, or fairness, not to adjust.

I was absolutely convinced that South would have taken some action over 2NT had he been given correct information at that time. And the only action I considered reasonable was to double. (I have stated my reasons for this earlier in this thread.) Regardless of whether West now bids 3♣ or passes I would expect North to bid 3♥ and the auction to end there.

Once it was too late for South to change his initial pass North and South were placed in an awkward position, but they were still supposed to play bridge - which they indeed did. I was never in any doubt about adjusting the result to 3♥N-2 effective for OS, but I was just a little bit worried about the double of the 3♣ bid and wondered if the difference in MP score between 3♣ made and 3♣X made should have been considered self-inflected damage to NOS. It has been most satisfactory for me to see the support for my decision that it was not. (I consider this an either/or situation. Awarding a weighted score to NOS as I understand some have suggested should be absolutely out of question.)

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-March-24, 18:52, said:

I am still "fairly dismissive" of the claim by South that he would have doubled 2NT, and the fact that I have not reiterated my opinion should not persuade you otherwise.

Good, I'm glad I wasn't being unduly "black and white" in interpreting your comments that way.

Quote

You argue that South said he would have done. As Mandy Rice-Davies said of Lord Astor in the Profumo affair, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" It is in South's interests to make this statement, as the TD will never give him a worse result for the double that never was.

He might say that disingenuously, but he would also say that if it were true (or if he believed it to be true). I think that when a non-offending player makes a credible statement about what he would have done, we should usually believe him. Most people are honest.

Obviously in judging the veracity of such statements the TD should use his experience and knowledge of the players, ask relevant questions, and examine any available documentation. Sven is an experienced and competent director, and I expect he did that.

One thing that I think he not should do, when making a ruling about what a Norwegian would have bid, is to consider what is the standard meaning of a call in England or New Zealand.

Quote

As Burn has observed, they often open 2NT showing the minors in Norway, and perhaps they don't bother to alert it. In fact they don't really care much about rules at all - they might even agree a match drawn without any play."

In my experience the standard of ethics of Norwegian bridge players is excellent.

It certainly seems wrong to extrapolate from one incident which was dealt with firmly by the Norwegian authorities, and from this events in this thread, to conclude that "they don't really care much about rules at all". In fact, the evidence is that the Norwegian authorities care very strongly about the rules.

Quote

And finally you indicate that his action on the second round was indicative of desiring to take action on the previous round. I fail to see the connection. As you state in another post there will be plenty of hands that take action after the opponents have subsided in 3C that would not be suitable for action on the previous round, whatever your methods. But you already knew that.

My point was that considering the three approaches:
(1) pass throughout
(2) pass then double 3m
(3) double 2NT then take no further unprompted action
you might well choose (1), but if you were going to choose one of the others, (3) is both safer and (depending on their methods, obviously) more descriptive than (2).

So the fact that South thought that the hand merited some action lends credence to his claim that he would have acted on the first round.

Quote

More importantly, you fail to indicate how North-South were damaged.

That may be more important to you, but I'm going to continue to discuss only the things that it pleases me to discuss.

[campboy]

pran, on 2011-March-25, 01:57, said:

I was absolutely convinced that South would have taken some action over 2NT had he been given correct information at that time. And the only action I considered reasonable was to double. (I have stated my reasons for this earlier in this thread.) Regardless of whether West now bids 3♣ or passes I would expect North to bid 3♥ and the auction to end there.

That is never going to happen. West, who still thinks his partner has a strong balanced hand, will double 3♥.

Quote

(I consider this an either/or situation. Awarding a weighted score to NOS as I understand some have suggested should be absolutely out of question.)

I don't understand why. If your judgement is that i) South will double 100% of the time with correct info and ii) there is only one likely outcome after his double, then you should award an unweighted score. But if another TD judges either that South will double significantly less than 100% of the time, or that there is more than one likely outcome after a double, he should award a weighted score.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-25, 02:59, said:

In my experience the standard of ethics of Norwegian bridge players is excellent.

It certainly seems wrong to extrapolate from one incident which was dealt with firmly by the Norwegian authorities, and from this events in this thread, to conclude that "they don't really care much about rules at all". In fact, the evidence is that the Norwegian authorities care very strongly about the rules.

And my experience is the same as yours, so this part of the post was obviously being sarcastic. But you knew that. My point was why on earth should South have asked about an unalerted 2NT in a country which cares very strongly about the rules ...

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-25, 02:59, said:

My point was that considering the three approaches:
(1) pass throughout
(2) pass then double 3m
(3) double 2NT then take no further unprompted action
you might well choose (1), but if you were going to choose one of the others, (3) is both safer and (depending on their methods, obviously) more descriptive than (2).

Indeed, Mystic Meg sitting South is quite likely to have considered these options just in case an unalerted 2NT happened to be 5-5 minors. And that is being sarcastic, by the way.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-March-25, 02:59, said:

That may be more important to you, but I'm going to continue to discuss only the things that it pleases me to discuss.

We may both post whatever we like (within reason). It certainly is pertinent to comment that your post does not address the main issue.

[lamford]

pran, on 2011-March-25, 01:57, said:

I was never in any doubt about adjusting the result to 3♥N-2 effective for OS

In England, failing to double 3H by West opposite a believed strong balanced hand would be classified as a red psyche or misbid. If it was the explanation that was wrong, as here, West would still be deemed to bid in accordance with his belief. Therefore 3H undoubled, as campboy points out, is not a possible adjustment.

[dburn]

campboy, on 2011-March-25, 04:39, said:

That is never going to happen. West, who still thinks his partner has a strong balanced hand, will double 3♥.

Did anyone ask West why he bid 3♣? I can see why he might use Stayman, certainly, but it may be worth discovering whether this is actually his systemic way of proceeding with a game-forcing 4-5 in the majors (as opposed to transferring to hearts and then bidding spades).

[jallerton]

pran, on 2011-March-25, 01:57, said:

I was absolutely convinced that South would have taken some action over 2NT had he been given correct information at that time. And the only action I considered reasonable was to double. (I have stated my reasons for this earlier in this thread.) Regardless of whether West now bids 3♣ or passes I would expect North to bid 3♥ and the auction to end there.

campboy, on 2011-March-25, 04:39, said:

That is never going to happen. West, who still thinks his partner has a strong balanced hand, will double 3♥.

At the table, West was woken up as to the real meaning of his partner's 2NT opening when East passed 3♣.

Perhaps Sven's hypothetical auction is making the assumption (which might well have been the case in practice) that South's double would have woken up West as to the meaning of the 2NT opening.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-March-24, 18:52, said:

I am still "fairly dismissive" of the claim by South that he would have doubled 2NT, and the fact that I have not reiterated my opinion should not persuade you otherwise.

I can fully understand why Gnasher might have been persuaded otherwise. After all, it is highly unusual for you to not reiterate your opinion, on any thread.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-25, 10:02, said:

I can fully understand why Gnasher might have been persuaded otherwise. After all, it is highly unusual for you to not reiterate your opinion, on any thread.

Careful now; gnasher might not realise you are being sarcastic, and you might have to reiterate yourself in order to get him to understand.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-25, 09:52, said:

Perhaps Sven's hypothetical auction is making the assumption (which might well have been the case in practice) that South's double would have woken up West as to the meaning of the 2NT opening.

Certainly if South doubled 2NT, West would ask North what the double meant. If 2NT was natural, North would, I guess, shrug and say "no idea". West would redouble, I presume, and I guess North would pass. East might interpret this as no preference for the minors and would bid 3C, West would not know what that was but perhaps would bid 3NT. North might double this, and I guess East would pass. But we are getting in to the "possibilities too numerous" realm, and a mess for the TD to sort out. But 3H undoubled does not seem to figure on the horizon. Now, if 2NT were alerted, North would answer whatever agreement they had, and North's answer would not make sense to West. But he cannot use this information to realise that he has forgotten the convention, and it is another mess.

Add to that the problem that West knows that either his partner or South is a loony when it starts 2NT - (double) and I don't think he can be deemed to "remember" at this stage. After all he did not remember when asked about an unalerted 2NT, a question which might have woken him up from his coma. Certainly if South passes, and East passes 3C, he knows. But if we accept that South will double - even some of the time - it is difficult for the TD to sort it out.

[jallerton]

nigel_k, on 2011-March-24, 20:07, said:

The misinformation put North in a difficult position because the South hand was effectively unlimited. With correct information from the beginning, South's double would be limited to a hand too weak to double an unusual 2NT opening initially. Passing the double would then be less attractive.

I don't see why the the fact that North had a full explanation of the 2NT opening when he passed the double should necessarily prevent an adjustment after he chose to pass. The director can adjust if the misexplanation damaged the non-offending side in any way. Here it did so even if South would always pass 2NT.

lamford, on 2011-March-24, 20:15, said:

I understand your argument, but 21B3 states: "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score." That implies that when it is not too late to change North's call, as here, he does not. If South would have bid differently, that is another matter, but North knows that South had incorrect information at the first turn, and correct information at the second, and he can use this information. That is all North is allowed.

The wording of Law 21B3 you quote might imply that 21B3 cannot be used when the non-offending side is damaged by the change of meanings of calls subsequent to the correction, but there is always Law 12A1. Unless of course some mystery "authorities" have issued secret guidance, known only by directors who have attended EBL TD training courses, to discourage the use of Law 12A1 in such cases.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-March-25, 01:27, said:

I am glad your statement wasn't what it looked like.

But are you claiming to a last straw here?

Why would I state a fact unless I considered it relevant? Usually when a player asks for a clarification of some agreement before selecting a call I consider it most likely that his selection depended upon the answer given.

It is normal to quote the facts when setting a problem.

It is normal to explain your reasoning.

If you do not explain your reasoning it is not obvious that your reasoning includes something you have not said, even if it does follow from a fact.

I believe that the evidence suggests that you missed this point otherwise you would have said it before Burn pointed it out.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-March-25, 10:02, said:

I can fully understand why Gnasher might have been persuaded otherwise. After all, it is highly unusual for you to not reiterate your opinion, on any thread.

Excuse me, but it wasn't me who thought Paul's views might be other than what he'd said they were. I always believe that Paul means what he says.

All I did was quote some fairly dismissive comments, commenting that they seemed fairly dismissive. Later I commented that none of the authors of these comments had disagreed that they've been intended as dismissive. Is that clear?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-March-25, 10:38, said:

The wording of Law 21B3 you quote might imply that 21B3 cannot be used when the non-offending side is damaged by the change of meanings of calls subsequent to the correction, but there is always Law 12A1. Unless of course some mystery "authorities" have issued secret guidance, known only by directors who have attended EBL TD training courses, to discourage the use of Law 12A1 in such cases.

I share your concern that there may always be minutes of meetings not readily available that also need to be consulted. Here I think that 12B2 and 84B (or even 84A) should also be considered. They suggest that the TD cannot decide, when it is not too late to change the call, that 21B3 does not provide sufficient rectification. But I could be wrong. I think that 12A1 is for an infraction that is not covered at all.

[AlexJonson]

So, is the conclusion 'no Sewog' and we completely agree with Pran's decision?

This may be obvious to you all, but I thought I would just say it.