[pescetom]

MP

---

F2f without screens. EW are a successful pair at regional level, NS sound club players.

1♣ is announced by E as 2+ cards, 2♦ is alerted and explained by S as showing both majors. No explanations are requested of any subsequent calls. At the end of the hand EW realise they missed a grand and call the TD. N says he was tired and thought he was opening. How should TD proceed?

[manudude03]

What is the actual agreement on 2♦, always important in these cases. If it does show both majors and North has misbid, then there's no redress.

[pilowsky]

pescetom, on 2021-March-03, 15:16, said:

N says he was tired and thought he was opening. How should TD proceed?

What time was it?
How long had he been awake?
How much coffee had he drunk?
Is the physical state of your partner important?
Why do birds suddenly appear (http://bit.ly/SuddenBirdsCarpenters)?
Why do fools fall in love (http://bit.ly/WhyDoFools)? Isn't it a losing game? Or was he a Ly(in)Mon?

Isn't it the 'understanding' that's important?
Maybe South was tired and thought West had opened 1NT - or maybe West was playing Precision, and when North bid 2D, South thought it was Cappelletti.

On what basis did EW believe that North having both majors (strength unspecified) would affect their normal methods for reaching 6 Spades?
Isn't this the key question in assessing damage?

Was there 'intent'? Sure, E&W have a motive for claiming that the actions of N&S were the 'cause' of their failure to bid to a particular level.
This question arises all the time, but what is the 'test'.
Rather than asking what the TD 'should do', I would like to know what legal test applies when opps do something (which is or is not correctly understood by their partner) to prove that the action has deliberately and with malice damaged E&W.
Given that E&W are 'strong players' - defined for operational purposes as being as good or better then GIB - a simple test might be: what would happen if GIB were E and W. This is easily checked with the (not always Advanced) robots on the teaching table.
Here is what happens if EW are robots: East bids 2S and EW reach 6S.
Here is what happens if East doubles and South bids Hearts: EW reach 6S.
And here is what happens if NS say nothing: EW reach 6S.
None of these is the optimal contract by any stretch.
Finally, imagine the scoreline if South, overcome by an abundance of ethics, persisted with bidding Spades or Hearts and NS double for a fantastic score.
btw, left to their own devices after 2D natural interference GIB stops in 4S!


It seems that the tiredness of North and the odd bidding of South (with 10 losers over East's double) has nothing to do with anything.
Even stranger is that the basis for the complaint is that they failed to reach 7♣ when 7♠,7♥ and 7NT are all available.

What they seem to be complaining about is their inability to cope with a competitive auction.

So - my question is what are the legal tests for assessing 'damage'?
It seems completely unreasonable to say that damage occurs if NS interfere, and as a result, EW fails to reach a particular contract that they can now see (double-dummy) is optimal.
This sounds like a "Well, m'Lud I wouldn't have driven while intoxicated if I had known that a Pedestrian was going to walk out in front of me and smash into my car" - style of argument.

The problem seems redolent of an earlier post of mine where my partner bid 2D over 1NT which I alerted as Cappelletti - majors. The wise opp to my right immediately bid 3NT (knowing full well my partner had diamonds) and after they went down when my partner played out her diamonds, they complained to the TD who adjusted 60/40 in their favour.

After seeing varieties of this type of behaviour multiple times now it seems that a fair test could be:
Given the knowledge available to each player single-dummy, what contract would the average intermediate+ player be expected to achieve?
And also, did the actions of the opposition substantially interfere with the likelihood that the average player could reach the contract?
What is reasonable? Now that we can use GIB bidding as a simple yardstick there is some sort of "objective" measure, but even if you are a rusted-on robophobe, and want to use the ' "bridge-expert" on the Clapham omnibus' test, this complaint doesn't seem to pass the sniff test.

The idea that a reasonable test is whether or not a particular pair thinks that it may or may not have achieved a particular result is completely specious.
If that really is how TD's make rulings then either the rules need to change or Bridge is a game designed by Kafka and implemented by the Marx brothers: I suspect it's the latter.

Here it looks like EW were a danger to themselves. It does not appear that they needed help from NS.

[blackshoe]

Well, let's see. Causing EW to miss a grand is horrible, so we have to shoot NS. OTOH, if 2!D was a misbid, which is sure sounds like, in spite of pilowsky's long list of questions, then NS did nothing wrong, it's rub of the green, so since we already shot NS we have to shoot EW too.

[pilowsky]

blackshoe, on 2021-March-03, 22:31, said:

Well, let's see. Causing EW to miss a grand is horrible, so we have to shoot NS. OTOH, if 2!D was a misbid, which is sure sounds like, in spite of pilowsky's long list of questions, then NS did nothing wrong, it's rub of the green, so since we already shot NS we have to shoot EW too.

Excellent! I'll sleep when I'm dead.

[pescetom]

manudude03, on 2021-March-03, 16:20, said:

What is the actual agreement on 2♦, always important in these cases. If it does show both majors and North has misbid, then there's no redress.

The actual agreement about 2♦ is that it shows both majors: both players will confirm this and it is written on their system card.

Is this the only agreement you would be interested in here?

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2021-March-04, 04:32, said:

The actual agreement about 2♦ is that it shows both majors: both players will confirm this and it is written on their system card.

Is this the only agreement you would be interested in here?

What other agreement should we be interested in?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-March-04, 07:22, said:

What other agreement should we be interested in?

The Director was interested in NS agreement for 2♥ after double, for some reason. They had no agreement, South pulled to hearts because it seemed the safest thing to do.

[mycroft]

What "pull"? I have a distinct preference. I bid. It's worth asking about, but I would assume with no discussion that "pass is 'you bid', redouble is 'I have diamonds', and bid is 'this suit partner'."

Now why only 2♥ (not 3) is a good question - and likely what the director was interested in. "Sound club players", however, are likely not to push to LOTT level with a 3 count. It would be nice if other members of N-S's club are around to get a feel for it.

I'd like to see if 3♣ is whatever the Italian definition of "serious error" is. Even with that club suit, if partner's double is hearts (and it pretty much has to be, otherwise spades are 5-4-4-0), this should go for a reasonable number. Arguable, because if we do have slam we have to hold this to 2 tricks, but how likely is that? [note, serious question, not rhetorical. I do not know the answer to this. I do not know them, I do not know their level, and probably don't play at it]
1♣-2♦!-X-2♥; p-p-X-p:

• If north passes it out, -8 on the marked trump lead-or-switch beats the grand;
  
• if north pulls, the auction is going to get messy, but now everyone at the table knows about the misbid.
  
• (if he pulls before the double, that's almost certainly use of unauthorized information and we're back to step 2, except now we poll to find out how often they would pull it, even doubled, without the UI.)

You're allowed to forget. We have to investigate to see if the actual agreement is "majors, but partner forgets with weak diamond hands sometimes". You're allowed to misread the auction. We have to investigate to see if that's something that happens often enough that the actual agreement is "majors, but partner sometimes misreads the auction". But if it is a true oopsie, and it wasn't catered for by South, no infraction, no damage, L40C2.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-March-04, 10:35, said:

What "pull"? I have a distinct preference. I bid. It's worth asking about, but I would assume with no discussion that "pass is 'you bid', redouble is 'I have diamonds', and bid is 'this suit partner'."

Now why only 2♥ (not 3) is a good question - and likely what the director was interested in. "Sound club players", however, are likely not to push to LOTT level with a 3 count. It would be nice if other members of N-S's club are around to get a feel for it.

I'd like to see if 3♣ is whatever the Italian definition of "serious error" is. Even with that club suit, if partner's double is hearts (and it pretty much has to be, otherwise spades are 5-4-4-0), this should go for a reasonable number. Arguable, because if we do have slam we have to hold this to 2 tricks, but how likely is that? [note, serious question, not rhetorical. I do not know the answer to this. I do not know them, I do not know their level, and probably don't play at it]
1♣-2♦!-X-2♥; p-p-X-p:

• If north passes it out, -8 on the marked trump lead-or-switch beats the grand;
  
• if north pulls, the auction is going to get messy, but now everyone at the table knows about the misbid.
  
• (if he pulls before the double, that's almost certainly use of unauthorized information and we're back to step 2, except now we poll to find out how often they would pull it, even doubled, without the UI.)

You're allowed to forget. We have to investigate to see if the actual agreement is "majors, but partner forgets with weak diamond hands sometimes". You're allowed to misread the auction. We have to investigate to see if that's something that happens often enough that the actual agreement is "majors, but partner sometimes misreads the auction". But if it is a true oopsie, and it wasn't catered for by South, no infraction, no damage, L40C2.

Pretty much my thoughts too. I'm not sure that "pass = you bid" + "redouble = diamonds" is that obvious undiscussed, they could be inverted or whatever, but that doubt is another reason to bid preference (not 'pull', agree). Yes there is the LoTT issue, and that is probably what TD was curious about, with UI in the back of his mind.

I agree 3♣ is a rotten bid (not thrilled with 5♣ either, come to that) but I don't think it meets serious error: the situation is clearly a minefield and caution is legitimate.

[mycroft]

The issue is "why only 2♥?" is that the answer frequently is "Because you were pretty certain partner forgot, right?" At which point we're in implicit partnership understanding territory, and we rule misinformation, not misbid.

But with many non-A players, they don't think to push to the LOTT level - especially vulnerable, this could go for 800! - they are just told "pick a major" and they do. Which, the 99+% of the time that partner actually remembered their system, means their opponents have a much simpler time handling the intervention than mine do; the rest of the time it looks like they're hedging their bets. Which is why it would be nice if there are others from that club around that can be felt out for "do these people push their preempts, or are they the kind that raise to 3, hoping to play there, but willing to take the push to 4 if they have to?"

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-March-04, 16:01, said:

The issue is "why only 2♥?" is that the answer frequently is "Because you were pretty certain partner forgot, right?" At which point we're in implicit partnership understanding territory, and we rule misinformation, not misbid.

That I think is what was in TD's head.

mycroft, on 2021-March-04, 16:01, said:

But with many non-A players, they don't think to push to the LOTT level - especially vulnerable, this could go for 800! - they are just told "pick a major" and they do. Which, the 99+% of the time that partner actually remembered their system, means their opponents have a much simpler time handling the intervention than mine do; the rest of the time it looks like they're hedging their bets. Which is why it would be nice if there are others from that club around that can be felt out for "do these people push their preempts, or are they the kind that raise to 3, hoping to play there, but willing to take the push to 4 if they have to?"

As it happens, I can answer that, although NS weren't playing in their club and TD had little chance. They are the second kind, or even the third.

[sanst]

It seems that EW discovered that both of them made some rather serious mistakes and are trying to get redress. This is MP’s in which case I don’t understand East’s double. If you believe N showing both majors, you have a perfect hand for 3NT, following Hamman’s rule. And why shouldn’t you believe him, S and their CC? But W too was, to say the least, quite timid. The double should show points, so with this hand 3♣ doesn’t give partner in indication of your strength. Did EW explain how they would have reached 7NT or 7♠ with the knowledge of North’s mistake?
We have no indication the North makes a habit of this kind of mistakes, so I would rule result stands.