[AndreSteff]

---

When West tables his lead face down, East asks North how many aces the 5 clubs answer on Blackwoord promised. The answer was "zero". As playing the "1430" pattern is now nearly ubiquitous in the Netherlands, East asks South if the 5 clubs answer indeed promises zero or four aces, rather than one or four. South confirms that he has promised zero aces.

Lead is a heart, won in dummy. Declarer plays three rounds of trumps, crosses to his hand in hearts, succesfully finesses in diamonds and runs them. Finally the queen of clubs is led from dummy. East, fearing that partner's ace of clubs may now be single, plays low.

Result 5 spades +2.

Of course EW are not amused.
The setting is a pub drive, late in the afternoon, by which time the level of inebriation of the participants tends to be considerable. Both NS and EW play occasionally together. NS do not have a convention card. Under dutch regulation this is enough to rule misinformation.

NS are subaverage, experienced players, EW are very strong players, one of them an international.
South excuses himself profusely, he was just too tired and intimidated to answer correctly. He was not sure what the agreemnt over Blackwood was.

So, how shoulld the TD rule?

[blackshoe]

MI, causing damage in the play, adjust the score to 5♠ making six.

[barmar]

What is the actual NS agreement? It seems like the explanation was correct, because North presumably would have bid the slam if South had shown 1 keycard, since that's all he's missing. So South has apparently just misbid, and that's not an infraction.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-August-11, 06:24, said:

What is the actual NS agreement? It seems like the explanation was correct, because North presumably would have bid the slam if South had shown 1 keycard, since that's all he's missing. So South has apparently just misbid, and that's not an infraction.

Maybe, but the OP stated "NS do not have a convention card. Under dutch regulation this is enough to rule misinformation." That's why I "ruled" above.

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2013-August-11, 06:24, said:

What is the actual NS agreement? It seems like the explanation was correct, because North presumably would have bid the slam if South had shown 1 keycard, since that's all he's missing. So South has apparently just misbid, and that's not an infraction.

If you apply that logic, you'll be ruling misbid, not misinformation, most of the time. Try this instead:

Quote

What is the actual NS agreement? It seems like North thought his explanation was correct, because North presumably would have bid the slam if South had shown 1 keycard, since that's all he's missing. So South has apparently not bid in accordance with North's original understanding of the agreement.

We cannot conclude from this information alone whether the TD should rule misbid or misexplanation. However, the TD should take note of the Dutch regulations as well as Law 75 itself.

[paua]

misbid, not misexplanation

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-12, 14:29, said:

Maybe, but the OP stated "NS do not have a convention card. Under dutch regulation this is enough to rule misinformation." That's why I "ruled" above.

I think that means you MAY rule misinformation when there's no CC, not that you MUST rule misinformation. If South admits to forgetting, would you really rule misinformation?

[blackshoe]

Of course not.

There's a tendency in forums, due to lack of complete information, to make assumptions about whatever's missing. Sometimes you have to do that, but most of the time, it's better IMO to go with the information given. If new information comes to light, so be it.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-13, 08:59, said:

There's a tendency in forums, due to lack of complete information, to make assumptions about whatever's missing.

But it's not missing. The OP said:

Quote

South excuses himself profusely, he was just too tired and intimidated to answer correctly.

That seems to be an admission that North's explanation was correct, and South forgot. Ergo, misbid, not misexplanation.

[blackshoe]

South went on to say he wasn't sure what the agreement was. So do they have one?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-13, 09:37, said:

South went on to say he wasn't sure what the agreement was. So do they have one?

My interpretation: I think he meant he wasn't sure at the time he bid. When he heard partner's explanation, that jogged his memory. That's why, when he was asked how many key cards he'd shown, he confirmed North's explanation.

[AndreSteff]

barmar, on 2013-August-13, 09:42, said:

My interpretation: I think he meant he wasn't sure at the time he bid. When he heard partner's explanation, that jogged his memory. That's why, when he was asked how many key cards he'd shown, he confirmed North's explanation.

South was the more experienced player of the two, He prefers and usually plays "1430" himself, but knew that his partner, with whom he plays irregularly, plays "40". There was no explicit agreement made for this event, but South realized that he should have adopted his partner's preference, as his partner certainly would not have adopted South's preferred answering scheme.

So, in a way there was a common sense agreement that 5 clubs showed zero or four aces. As I stated, under dutch regulations the TD should now rule misinformation.

What interests me is the fact that not covering the Queen cannot win: even as partner has a singleton ace of clubs, he is going to be endplayed.

[Trinidad]

AndreSteff, on 2013-August-11, 00:30, said:

South excuses himself profusely, he was just too tired and intimidated to answer correctly. He was not sure what the agreemnt over Blackwood was.

barmar, on 2013-August-13, 09:31, said:

But it's not missing. The OP said:

AndreSteff, on 2013-August-11, 00:30, said:

South excuses himself profusely, he was just too tired and intimidated to answer correctly.

That seems to be an admission that North's explanation was correct, and South forgot. Ergo, misbid, not misexplanation.

That depends on whether South was too tired to answer to Blackwood correctly or too tired to answer the question about the meaning of 5♣ correctly.

The next part of the OP clarifies this:

AndreSteff, on 2013-August-11, 00:30, said:

South excuses himself profusely, he was just too tired and intimidated to answer correctly. He was not sure what the agreemnt over Blackwood was.

He was too tired to answer the question about the meaning of 5♣ correctly. (The correct answer would have been: "I'm not sure.") So, I think we can conclude that there was MI.

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-14, 04:06, said:

(The correct answer would have been: "I'm not sure.") So, I think we can conclude that there was MI.

Or perhaps the correct answer should have been "We didn't discuss it. He usually plays 4013, I usually play 1340". The opponents are entitled to implicit information based on experience. Then they can make their own guesses.

Although if he did adopt the system he knows his partner usually plays, and the opponents infer that "I usually play 1430" means that he answered using his own preferential system, they might consider this extra information to be deliberately intended to mislead. It's not clear how to resolve this -- giving "full disclosure" only when you realize there's been a misunderstanding seems wrong as well. Are you "damned if you do, damned if you don't"?

[ggwhiz]

I can only guess that there was no agreement given no cc and would rule that way. After North invents one and announces it, South decides that is correct? Not on your life although I blame fatigue instead of deliberate deception. South wasn't too tired to pull a Chinese finesse after one or both players blew a lot of smoke.