[Xiaolongnu]

2♦ was DONT, diamonds and a major. 4♥ was, you guessed it, explained as hearts. Table result, 4SXX-8 NS +4000.

---

At the end of the play, West called the Director and claimed that he would not have bid 4!s had he known that 4!h was Texas to spades.

[pran]

Xiaolongnu, on 2017-August-09, 07:09, said:

At the end of the play, West called the Director and claimed that he would not have bid 4!s had he known that 4!h was Texas to spades.

Obviously not.
So unless N/S can convince the director that there was a misbid rather than misinformation (which I find it very unlikely they can) the Director should adjust the result to 4S+1 N +450.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2017-August-09, 07:24, said:

Obviously not.
So unless N/S can convince the director that there was a misbid rather than misinformation (which I find it very unlikely they can) the Director should adjust the result to 4S+1 N +450.

Quite so. I should think that people who play Texas transfers are pretty clear on when they apply; usually it is after interference up to 3♣ i.e. So that the bid remains a jump.

[blackshoe]

Wait a minute. How do NS get to 4♠ if West passes? North thinks South has hearts, so won't he pass? Now South is playing in 4♥, unless East does something foolish.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-09, 11:45, said:

Wait a minute. How do NS get to 4♠ if West passes? North thinks South has hearts, so won't he pass? Now South is playing in 4♥, unless East does something foolish.

Without the (inadvertent) misinformation North would certainly have bid 4♠.

I don't think that an adjusted score effective for both sides based on South playing in 4♥ can be correct.
In that situation I believe the adjusted score must be split with the contract 4♥ in South effective for North/South and 4♠ in North (The result had there been no irregularity) effective for East/West.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-August-09, 12:45, said:

Without the (inadvertent) misinformation North would certainly have bid 4♠.

I don't think that an adjusted score effective for both sides based on South playing in 4♥ can be correct.
In that situation I believe the adjusted score must be split with the contract 4♥ in South effective for North/South and 4♠ in North (The result had there been no irregularity) effective for East/West.

Unless this occurred online, it was North who gave the misinformation. Are you suggesting that we should assume, in adjusting the score, that North actually knew his agreement?

[weejonnie]

This is one of the reasons why the EBU insist on people alerting if they have no agreement as to the meaning of the bid. (Too many players think they have an agreement when they do not)

The new laws are actually pretty clear - if the Director finds out that NS don't have any agreement (i.e. that Texas applies after DONT) then he rules as if EW know that NS have no agreement. If he finds out that there was an agreement then he rules as if EW knew the correct agreement. (i.e. mis-bid or misinformation), with a predisposition to it being misinformation

Although East's XX is probably a serious error (presumably SOS trying to get West to bid his better red suit with no partnership understanding either) it is related to the infraction. (To West of course it shows confidence in the contract.)

[steve2005]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-09, 15:19, said:

Although East's XX is probably a serious error (presumably SOS trying to get West to bid his better red suit with no partnership understanding either) it is related to the infraction. (To West of course it shows confidence in the contract.)

XX while understandable in bad situation, knows spades wrong but should bid 5C or 5D

I still think 4H is a possible final spot as N is at least unsure and agree with blackshoe.
If this was online then is a different matter.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-09, 13:19, said:

Unless this occurred online, it was North who gave the misinformation. Are you suggesting that we should assume, in adjusting the score, that North actually knew his agreement?

It wouldn't be the first time Pran has presented this strange argument!

[pran]

gordontd, on 2017-August-10, 00:05, said:

It wouldn't be the first time Pran has presented this strange argument!

I prefer equity rather than (extreme) penalty when reasonable.
The ultimate goal should be to win by playing bridge, not by playing laws.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2017-August-09, 15:19, said:

This is one of the reasons why the EBU insist on people alerting if they have no agreement as to the meaning of the bid. (Too many players think they have an agreement when they do not)

Is that really what EBU requires? I thought it was that you alert if you're unsure of the meaning, but think one or more of the possibilities are alertable.

If NS have a default agreement that undiscussed bids are natural, and he didn't think they had an discussion about this, then he's right to assume it's natural and non-alertable. He could have been wrong about their lack of discussion, in which case the non-alert is MI.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2017-August-10, 01:55, said:

I prefer equity rather than (extreme) penalty when reasonable.
The ultimate goal should be to win by playing bridge, not by playing laws.

It's not a question of equity rather than penalty. The thing is that you seem to think that in ruling on misinformation cases, not only is the non-offending side entitled to the correct information but that the offending side is allowed to be assumed not to have made their mistake. This is simply wrong.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-August-10, 10:30, said:

Is that really what EBU requires? I thought it was that you alert if you're unsure of the meaning, but think one or more of the possibilities are alertable.


If NS have a default agreement that undiscussed bids are natural, and he didn't think they had an discussion about this, then he's right to assume it's natural and non-alertable. He could have been wrong about their lack of discussion, in which case the non-alert is MI.

I think that the problem is that there may be an agreement lost in the mists of time. Also, implicit agreements may be hard to define. Is there an implicit agreement because both players play it with a common partner? Because everyone in their circle plays it? Because one of them saw something in TBW and said, "This is interesting. We should play it". So "discussion" is a pretty high bar and an agreement may be assumed by one or both without it.

In any case, when there is more than one possibility, at least one of them is alertable. So,I think it is safest, unless you are sure, to,alert.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-11, 05:37, said:

I think that the problem is that there may be an agreement lost in the mists of time. Also, implicit agreements may be hard to define. Is there an implicit agreement because both players play it with a common partner? Because everyone in their circle plays it? Because one of them saw something in TBW and said, "This is interesting. We should play it". So "discussion" is a pretty high bar and an agreement may be assumed by one or both without it.

In any case, when there is more than one possibility, at least one of them is alertable. So,I think it is safest, unless you are sure, to,alert.

This is a general problem with the whole notion of agreements. Other than long-term, expert partnerships, most pairs don't have extensive agreements, they make lots of assumptions based on standard bidding, journal articles, popular books.

If I start playing with a new partner who I know is of my same skill level, and we forget to explicitly mention splinters during our discussion, I'm still going to assume that a double jump by them is a splinter, because everyone plays that. I'll alert it and explain it as a splinter, or maybe I'll say "Not explicitly discussed, but most likely a splinter". As far as I'm concerned, it's GBK among this class of players.

OTOH, I know I've occasionally had disasters where a new partner didn't realize that 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥/♠ was a delayed Texas Transfer (6-4 in the majors and transfering to the 6-card suit). I thought it was "expert standard", he didn't....

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2017-August-10, 10:30, said:

Is that really what EBU requires? I thought it was that you alert if you're unsure of the meaning, but think one or more of the possibilities are alertable.

If NS have a default agreement that undiscussed bids are natural, and he didn't think they had an discussion about this, then he's right to assume it's natural and non-alertable. He could have been wrong about their lack of discussion, in which case the non-alert is MI.

The wording in the Blue Book is:

4 A 5 Even if you cannot explain the meaning of partner’s call, you should still alert (or announce) it if you believe that it may be required.

The White book (2017) says

A player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning. A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit understanding must be alerted.

A player who is not sure whether or not a call made is alertable should alert it. If there is no partnership understanding about the meaning of the call, the player should say so rather than say how is going to treat it.
-----------------
If there is no partnership understanding then you do not know whether the call is 'natural' or not. If you knew it was natural then there is obviously a partnership understanding.

[weejonnie]

Looking at the original post - it does seem obvious that the bidding should go.

1NT - 2♦ (alerted Diamonds and a Major) - 4♥ (explained on askance as hearts) - Pass
Pass- Pass

It depends on whether there is a partnership agreement or not.

Agreement : Bid shows Hearts : No adjustment
Agreement : Bid Shows Spades : Adjust on that basis (see new law 75D3) - final contract 4♥ by South going xx off
Agreement : We have no agreement : Adjust on that basis (see new law 75D3) - in this case West MIGHT bid 4♠

NB Re the above post note that 75D2

2. It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-August-11, 10:40, said:

OTOH, I know I've occasionally had disasters where a new partner didn't realize that 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥/♠ was a delayed Texas Transfer (6-4 in the majors and transfering to the 6-card suit). I thought it was "expert standard", he didn't....

Hmmmm... I have never heard of this. Here this auction usually shows a weak hand trying to improve the contract.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-August-11, 10:40, said:

OTOH, I know I've occasionally had disasters where a new partner didn't realize that 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥/♠ was a delayed Texas Transfer (6-4 in the majors and transfering to the 6-card suit). I thought it was "expert standard", he didn't....

Vampyr, on 2017-August-12, 05:36, said:

Hmmmm... I have never heard of this. Here this auction usually shows a weak hand trying to improve the contract.

I suspect Barry meant the auction 1NT-2♣-2♦-4♦/♥.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-12, 09:18, said:

I suspect Barry meant the auction 1NT-2♣-2♦-4♦/♥.

Oh, I see. Interesting.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-12, 09:18, said:

I suspect Barry meant the auction 1NT-2♣-2♦-4♦/♥.

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry about that.