[Chris3875]

It was a pretty weak 2H opening with 5HCP - however, I guess it had only 8 losers.

[c_corgi]

If W had said "Given the correct explanation I would have doubled 3D for takeout, suggesting S as a place to play and length in H; this was not an option with the given explanation because S was not a place to play and it sounded like the hand was largely a misfit with bad breaks" then I would rule in her favour. But it sounds as though W is actually saying "Neither with the given explanation nor the correct one would I have known what to do. I will tell the director I would have done the right thing over the correct explanation and hope for a favourable ruling" so I rule against her.

[c_corgi]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-07, 02:49, said:

It was a pretty weak 2H opening with 5HCP - however, I guess it had only 8 losers.

Indeed: the weakness is what made me wonder why S chose to shape out rather than return directly to their "agreed" suit.

[mgoetze]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-07, 02:49, said:

It was a pretty weak 2H opening with 5HCP - however, I guess it had only 8 losers.

You may have misunderstood me, I didn't say NS were playing a ridiculous system, I said EW were.

(2NT should be natural over preempts).

[pran]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-07, 01:56, said:

West did say she would have called over the 3D bid given the correct information - but I foolishly didn't ask her what she would have called.

I don't think she could have bid 2NT because in their system that means 5+ of both minors and she needed to have 5 spades to bid 2S. She was really caught between a rock and a hard place - I don't know that any other South's in the room opened 2H.

2NT over 3♦? Law 27

[gnasher]

To me the West hand looks like an obvious takeout double of 3♦ given the actual meaning of 2♠, and an obvious pass given the misinformation.

Quote

West did say she would have called over the 3D bid given the correct information - but I foolishly didn't ask her what she would have called.

So she said she would have acted, and her hand suggests that she should act. Unless there is other evidence that you haven't mentioned, you should believe her.

If we accept that she would have acted, presumably she would have decided to double, because anything else would be rather strange. After that, they're likely to reach either 3♦x or 3NT, but I suppose 4♣ and 5♣ are possible contracts too. The weighting should probably depend on what they say when we ask them how they think the auction would have gone.

Regarding West's pass over 2♥, I think it's normal and sensible. The hand doesn't exactly scream to be played in notrumps, it has the wrong shape for a takeout double, and it has too few spades for 2♠. If it goes 2♥-pass-pass-pass you probably haven't missed anything, and if you have it's just a non-vulnerable game. I would say that, if anything, her pass of 2♥ suggests that she has good judgement, and should encourage us to believe that she'd judge correctly over 3♦ too.

[Chris3875]

Pran, I was replying to two different posts at once. I knew what I meant ! mgoetze suggested West could bid 2NT over the 2H bid.

mgoetze - yes, I knew you were talking about E/W - I was just trying to look for any possible action that I didn't think of at the time that would support my decision NOW Just when I think I'm turning into a reasonably credible director, I fall on my face.

[pran]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-07, 04:21, said:

Pran, I was replying to two different posts at once. I knew what I meant ! mgoetze suggested West could bid 2NT over the 2H bid.

mgoetze - yes, I knew you were talking about E/W - I was just trying to look for any possible action that I didn't think of at the time that would support my decision NOW Just when I think I'm turning into a reasonably credible director, I fall on my face.

Fair enough.
But I wouldn't even consider 2NT over the 2NT bid regardless of systemic agreements. (I would have doubled with my system.)

[Chris3875]

I would have doubled also, but then we would have probably ended up in 4C for a score of 130 against the 3D going off 3 for 150. Stupid game.

[pran]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-07, 05:30, said:

I would have doubled also, but then we would have probably ended up in 4C for a score of 130 against the 3D going off 3 for 150. Stupid game.

Depends on how North calls after the double.
If he passes I would expect East to bid 3♥ {Invitation to 3NT with ♥ stopper(s) in West and tolerance for a ♠ contract EW}, and if he bids there is a good chance to end up in a doubled contract NS.

[bluejak]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-06, 17:39, said:

West felt she couldn't double after the 2H bid because in their system that shows at least an opening hand and a shortage in the bid suit - support for all other suits. By the time the auction came back to her at 3D she basically didn't know what to do. I was the director and felt that Under Law 75B I should be awarding an adjusted score. I did speak to other senior players in the room and eventually adjusted the score to 3NT by E/W but I was not really happy with that decision. Blackshoe was correct - South believed that she should show the other suit and that North could sign off in 3H or bid on if her hand was strong.

sfi, on 2012-May-07, 00:59, said:

The issue of how E/W were damaged does not seem to have been clearly addressed, which is a key point. "Basically did not know what to do" isn't really sufficient and you cannot adjust simply because there was MI.

My argument for an adjusted score is that West could have doubled 3D for takeout given the correct information. Partner will bid with a fit or pass with diamond length, either of which is likely to lead to a reasonable result. The explanation provided means that she has much less reason to double since the auction is likely to be forcing. In fact she probably has the wrong hand for it since it might be something like lead directional or simply not be understood by partner.

I would be happy enough to adjust on that basis.

Chris3875, on 2012-May-07, 02:16, said:

Yes, well I did sort of understand that ...... but bluejak hasn't been wound up for a while.

Ok, you did it: you wound me up. You have expressed, and several other people have expressed, doubt as to what would have happened with a correct explanation. You have explained the deficiencies of the E/W system and made it clear they really have not got a lot of clue what might have happened.

And then you gave a simple adjustment with no weighting!

The one thing that is completely obvious to me [and to gnasher] is that you have little idea what would have happened wirhout the infraction. Weighted scores are the norm: please give a weighted score!

Some posts have suggested that E/W were incompetent and it was their own fault. Those posts are just as bad, since what they can be certain of is that they are less likely to go wrong with an adjusted score.

Weighted scores are the norm. A single score is only to be given when the TD or AC is sure what would have happened without the infraction.
Note: where UI is involved a single score sometimes is to avoid a Reveley ruling. But that does not apply to MI cases.

[Chris3875]

The possible contracts for E/W were 3H, 4C, 4S or 3NT - is a weighted score a combination of those results versus 3D by N/S going 3 off. How do you score that in a teams' event?

[Trinidad]

Chris3875, on 2012-May-10, 01:50, said:

The possible contracts for E/W were 3H, 4C, 4S or 3NT - is a weighted score a combination of those results versus 3D by N/S going 3 off. How do you score that in a teams' event?

That is not so hard. To show the concept, I quickly assume that all these contracts are making and that they all have an assigned probability of 25%. The score at the other table was 150 EW. Then the IMP score on this board for EW will be:

25% x 3♥= (140-150) = -10 -> 0 IMP
25% x 4♣= (130-150) = -20 ->25% x -1 IMP = -0.25 IMP
25% x 4♠= (420-150) = 270 -> 25% x 7 IMP = +1.75 IMP
25% x 3NT= (400-150) = 250 -> 25% x 6 IMP = +1.5 IMP

Total: +3 IMP EW, -3 IMP NS.

Now you just check whether this is a better result for EW than the one that they obtained (0 IMPs), otherwise there would be no damage. It is, so that would be the AS in IMPs (assuming all contracts make and the assigned weight is 25% each).

Rik