[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-February-09, 20:25, said:

So, you (and Frances) rule that with the correct information West would pass?

I do not consider that at all likely. So, I would not consider the result of 2♦-4 part of "whatever it [the result] might be with the correct information". That leaves me with 3♦ making for EW.

Rik

West is under no obligation to bid as if she had received the correct information, and no adjustment should be made on that basis.

EDIT: Crossed Sven's fuller explanation.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden sums it ups succinctly. EW are entitled to know the NS methods, and East will obviously then pass out 2D. Even if 2H was wild, and I think it just normal, it would be related to the infraction, so would be exempt from sewogification.

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2014-February-09, 23:45, said:

If West knows the correct information, but also knows that North has misunderstood the bid, he might indeed pass, because he expects North to pass and they'll play in a horrible contract.

That is certainly true, and West can use this information at the table (e.g. if he sees the CC, or draws his conclusions from South's reaction).

Where I come from (the Netherlands) this has been discussed extensively. I was told (no source, unfortunately) that the WBFLC decided that only information from bidding and play is used when assigning an AS. That means that, for assigning an AS, West is not allowed to know about the misunderstanding. He is only allowed the correct information about the meaning of 2♦.

Up to that moment, I have always interpreted the Laws like you: We act as if North has explained wrong like he did and -through a mysterious act from a supreme being, or a CC- East and West will know the correct explanation on top of what they were told at the table. But I was told I was wrong.

The only way to 2♦-4 that I can see is a West player who decides to compete in diamonds in the next round. Then it will turn out that this next round will never come.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-February-10, 08:27, said:

Where I come from (the Netherlands) this has been discussed extensively. I was told (no source, unfortunately) that the WBFLC decided that only information from bidding and play is used when assigning an AS. That means that, for assigning an AS, West is not allowed to know about the misunderstanding. He is only allowed the correct information about the meaning of 2♦.

This doesn't make any sense. West received incorrect information. She should be assigned a (probably worse) score because we pretend she received no misinformation?

[blackshoe]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-February-10, 03:56, said:

How does he know that?? Why should he believe the SC rather than the explanation actually given? For all he knows the opponents agreed to change this part of the system on the way to the event, but haven't yet got round to changing their SC. Are you suggesting that a TD should rule no MI if a player is given the wrong explanation but sees a different one on the SC that happens to be correct?

(My own experience when this sort of thing has happened is that I have pointed out to oppo that the SC says something else - I know this gives up on a possible tactical advantage, but I don't see any other way of finding out the actual agreement - and oppo have invariably said something along the lines of "ignore the SC - that is out of date").

Geez! <ducks and covers> Stop shooting already!!!

I envisioned that the player in question did as you described in your second paragraph, and that North then said something like 'oh, yeah, the card is right".

And no, I'm not suggesting a TD should rule that way.

[gnasher]

Trinidad is right, although I upvoted Frances's post before I realised that.

WBFLC minutes 2003-11-09#2:
When there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received.
If given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation.

In adjusting the score, we determine what would have happened if EW had been given only the correct information, but North still thought 2♦ was natural. At West's first turn to bid, he would have known that 2♦ showed the majors, and he would have bid. It's not possible to reach a position where East is able to pass out 2♦ with the knowledge that 2♦ showed the majors.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 08:50, said:

This doesn't make any sense. West received incorrect information. She should be assigned a (probably worse) score because we pretend she received no misinformation?

I expect Trinidad meant that in determining what score we can assign we pretend that EW received correct information. If that leads to a worse score than EW actually got, we leave the table score unchanged.

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2014-February-10, 09:02, said:

I expect Trinidad meant that in determining what score we can assign we pretend that EW received correct information. If that leads to a worse score than EW actually got, we leave the table score unchanged.

But the correct information leads (probably) to West signing off in diamonds over South's 2♦ overcall. East's call was based on the MI, but with correct information West has likely already acted. So E/W can play in hearts or diamonds, but can never defend 2♦. Is this what we want?

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2014-February-10, 08:58, said:

WBFLC minutes 2003-11-09#2:
When there has been misinformation and a damaged side is to receive an adjusted score this should be assessed on the basis that the non-offending side is entitled to know the partnership understanding and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received.
If given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation.

In adjusting the score, we determine what would have happened if EW had been given only the correct information, but North still thought 2♦ was natural. At West's first turn to bid, he would have known that 2♦ showed the majors, and he would have bid. It's not possible to reach a position where East is able to pass out 2♦ with the knowledge that 2♦ showed the majors.

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West. So, this appears to be a situation where, given the correct information, West might be aware that a misunderstanding has occurred, from the AI. Therefore West will draw the logical conclusion that Pass could be a successful action here.

And am I the only person who thinks that the WBFLC minutes are generally poorly worded, and one has to guess at their meaning?

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2014-February-10, 09:33, said:

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West. So, this appears to be a situation where, given the correct information, West might be aware that a misunderstanding has occurred, from the AI. Therefore West will draw the logical conclusion that Pass could be a successful action here.

And East will be certain of it.

Quote

And am I the only person who thinks that the WBFLC minutes are generally poorly worded, and one has to guess at their meaning?

No.

[WellSpyder]

 blackshoe, on 2014-February-10, 08:54, said:

Geez! <ducks and covers> Stop shooting already!!!

I envisioned that the player in question did as you described in your second paragraph, and that North then said something like 'oh, yeah, the card is right".

And no, I'm not suggesting a TD should rule that way.

Oops! Sorry - I didn't mean to keep firing when you already had your hands in the air...

Looks like we are actually on the same wavelength for a given set of facts.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2014-February-10, 09:33, said:

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West. So, this appears to be a situation where, given the correct information, West might be aware that a misunderstanding has occurred, from the AI. Therefore West will draw the logical conclusion that Pass could be a successful action here.

The AI about the misunderstanding is only relevant at the table, but not in assigning an AS.

Sorry, as I said, I didn't invent this.

 lamford, on 2014-February-10, 09:33, said:

And am I the only person who thinks that the WBFLC minutes are generally poorly worded, and one has to guess at their meaning?

No.

Rik

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2014-February-10, 09:33, said:

The true methods of NS are AI to West, but the lack of an alert is also AI to West.

The lack of an alert is on a par with the explanation: it's AI at the table, but it's also MI. In determining what the auction would have been with correct information, we assume that the non-offenders had the correct information only, without the MI.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 08:50, said:

This doesn't make any sense. West received incorrect information. She should be assigned a (probably worse) score because we pretend she received no misinformation?

No. The table result was EW +100. There was an infraction.

According to the WBFLC (as I understand it) we are now going to look what would/could/might have happened -starting from the point of the infraction- if the infraction did not occur and there was no information other than from bids and plays.

If this result is worse than the table result, then there is no damage (and, therefore, no AS).

Rik

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 09:17, said:

Is this what we want?

It's what we've got.

[Trinidad]

Making a few assumptions about the agreements both pairs have (that obviously need to be checked, but my assumptions are as good as any other, until we know more facts), and using my bridge judgement (which is as good as anybody's), I would reach an AS of 3♦-5. How did I get there?

The auction started
1NT-2♦ (♥+♠)

We (the TD or AC) are now going to look what West would have done with this information and this information only.

Let's assume that EW play Lebensohl. (Assumption)
I would (bridge judgement!) think that West would bid 2NT, aiming to sign off in 3♦.

Now it gets interesting. We now need to determine what North does. North is allowed to know:
- that South is showing natural diamonds (because that is what North thought at the table)
- that West has bid 2NT
- and, hence, what 2NT means if South shows natural diamonds. (Lebensohl, signing off in clubs, invitational in a major or Stayman/3NT with a stop)

What would I do as North with that information? I am looking at QJx in "partner's suit", so I would (bridge judgement) raise and bid 3♦. (I would even do that if I would pass over a pass by West, as this North did.)

Now, we go on to East. He is entitled to know what 2♦ means (♥+♠) and what 3♦ means when 2♦ shows ♥+♠ (I don't know, but South should know: Let's assume natural). And East - of course - is entitled to know that West bid Lebensohl, probably intending to sign off in a minor, obviously most likely clubs, since North has bid diamonds naturally. East is wondering what happened to the spades. They must be 2533 around the table. East will chose to defend 3♦.

We get to South. He knows he has shown the majors and North has shown natural diamonds. That is an easy pass.

We get to West. What is he going to do after 3♦ is passed out to him? Would West double, knowing that NS are somehow missing a good spade fit and that they might run? Would double be penalty?!?

At MPs, for me (bridge judgement) this is an easy pass. 3♦ will go down a bundle and we will get a better score than we could dream. We are absolutely certain to beat the field if I pass, and we might not if I do anything else, so I will take my 95%.

So, these assumptions, added to my bridge judgement, would lead to 3♦-5.

I feel very strongly that a TD should step through each player's decision like this, though -in practice- you rarely see this (and I fail there too from time to time).

Rik

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-10, 05:01, said:

Wear is under no obligation to bid as if she had received the correct information, and no adjustment should be made on that basis.

EDIT: Crossed Sven's fuller explanation.

At the table that is true. But West's pass occurred after the infraction. So, the adjustment is based on West's action with the correct information (and only the correct information). (This may well lead to an even better score, see my previous post.)

Don't shoot the messenger.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2014-February-10, 12:10, said:

The lack of an alert is on a par with the explanation: it's AI at the table, but it's also MI. In determining what the auction would have been with correct information, we assume that the non-offenders had the correct information only, without the MI.

I draw completely the opposite conclusion from this part of the minute:

Quote

WBFLC minutes 2003-11-09#2:
and to draw logical conclusions, given the information it received.
If given the correct information the partnership might or might not be aware that a misunderstanding had occurred, depending on the situation.

[ emphasis mine]

The "information received" might include MI, and in fact, I don't think that the phrase can be interpreted any other way, considering that it is paired with "entitled to know the partnership understanding". And "if given the correct information" confirms that the "information received" might be incorrect.

 Trinidad, on 2014-February-10, 12:11, said:

No. The table result was EW +100. There was an infraction.

According to the WBFLC (as I understand it) we are now going to look what would/could/might have happened -starting from the point of the infraction- if the infraction did not occur and there was no information other than from bids and plays.

The table result was EW -100, adjusted to +110, but whatever.

I do not see how you can conclude that one assumes that "the infraction did not occur and ... bids and plays", since the minute clearly admits the possibility of misinformation being given, and just as clearly applies when determining an adjusted score.

 gnasher, on 2014-February-10, 12:11, said:

It's what we've got.

It doesn't look like it to me.

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-February-10, 12:22, said:

What would I do as North with that information? I am looking at QJx in "partner's suit", so I would (bridge judgement) raise and bid 3♦. (I would even do that if I would pass over a pass by West, as this North did didn't.)

FYP

[schulken]

 Trinidad, on 2014-February-10, 12:11, said:

No. The table result was EW +100. There was an infraction. The table result was EW -100.

According to the WBFLC (as I understand it) we are now going to look what would/could/might have happened -starting from the point of the infraction- if the infraction did not occur and there was no information other than from bids and plays.

If this result is worse than the table result, then there is no damage (and, therefore, no AS).

Rik