[bluejak]

The TD uses his judgement to the bridge merits while following the Laws.

[AlexJonson]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 15:51, said:

The TD uses his judgement to the bridge merits while following the Laws.

Sounds an excellent idea. I regret introducing any stain on the perfection of your idea.

[dburn]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-20, 15:47, said:

So you and dburn think that South breached the Laws of Bridge when he got confused and West exploited his confusion.

And the idea that the TD is there to use judgement, means what for you guys in this case?

No - I think that South explained North's 2♣ bid as artificial when North's bid was natural, that this was misinformation, and that East-West were damaged thereby. If the Director judges that West would not have passed out 3♣ if correctly informed, he will award an adjusted score on the basis of likely outcomes had West been correctly informed. That is what it means for me that the Director "is there to use judgement".

What you seem to believe is that because West was guilty of misinforming South as to the nature of East's 3♣ bid, South was therefore guiltless of misinforming West - if 3♣ were natural, then 2♣ "must have been" artificial and South was correct so to explain it. But this is nonsense: the meaning of 2♣ is not contingent upon the meaning of 3♣ (indeed, the converse is true, because North bid 2♣ before East bid 3♣), and South should not have explained it as artificial however confused he had become.

[barmar]

dburn, on 2011-May-23, 03:01, said:

What you seem to believe is that because West was guilty of misinforming South as to the nature of East's 3♣ bid, South was therefore guiltless of misinforming West - if 3♣ were natural, then 2♣ "must have been" artificial and South was correct so to explain it. But this is nonsense: the meaning of 2♣ is not contingent upon the meaning of 3♣ (indeed, the converse is true, because North bid 2♣ before East bid 3♣), and South should not have explained it as artificial however confused he had become.

I thought I justified that above. South wasn't sure about their agreements over a Polish Club. But based on his own hand and the explanation of East's bid, he decided that it was highly improbable that North's bid could be natural.

If West had properly explained that East's bid was natural if North's bid was artificial, and vice versa, then South might have come to a different conclusion.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 06:53, said:

There was MI by South: there was damage: so an adjustment is suitable. Using Law 12C1D is lazy and unnecessary. West would bid 3♥ over a cue-bid - probably - East might easily bid 4♥. Nine or ten tricks seems the outcome dependent on whether East tries to ruff a spade or discard a diamond. So a weighting between 3♥ and 4♥, nine or ten tricks seems routine.

I agree that using Law 12C1d is lazy and unnecessary; it is also just plain wrong, in my opinion. This Law may only be applied "if the possibilities are numerous or not obvious" which, as you have demonstrated, is not the case here (assuming that you decide there was an infraction in the first place).

What did the AC decide?

Quote

The Committee:
Decided that the Director had probably deduced the correct sequence of events. West had contributed to his own downfall by not realizing that South had not alerted 2}, so 3} should have been a cue-bid. But it was felt that South had contributed far more, by explaining 2} as a cue-bid when asked.
The Committee’s decision:
Director’s ruling upheld.
Deposit: Returned