[VixTD]

One of the other directors at the club had to give a ruling on this hand, and asked me afterwards what he should have done.

---

MP pairs.
South asked the meaning of 2♠ before bidding, and was told "strong".
At the end of the auction East volunteered a correction of the misexplanation and said the overcall was weak. The TD was called.

What the TD actually did was to reopen the auction, but he went back too far so that North got to play the hand in 3♥ making ten tricks for a top. I explained where he had gone wrong, and that the first thing he should do is try to establish EW's actual agreement. This is not the club's strong game, and no one carries a convention card, so I said he should try to work out if the bid or the explanation was wrong, and lean towards the latter if it's not clear.

Suppose he decides now it was an incorrect explanation, gives South the chance to take her final call back (declined), so EW play in 3♠ making either eight or nine tricks for a top their way (at all other tables NS made a part-score in hearts).

Is there any grounds for awarding an adjusted score?

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2013-February-21, 08:30, said:

Is there any grounds for awarding an adjusted score?

Of course. If NS would have bid differently if properly informed, then they are due an adjustment. The reopening the auction bit is not the entirety of the recourse they get, it is merely an opportunity to get to a situation in which there might be no damage, but if it isn't enough, they still get the benefit of an adjustment.

I'll probably adjust the score to a weighted mix of 3H, 3S and 4H, since I expect in a legal auction W will usually overcall 3S over the 3H (he doesn't get to know the correct explanation), and N will sometimes bid 4H. I won't include any portion of 4S, because apparently W doesn't realise he should bid that.

Under a director's error ruling, NS will get the better of the table score in 3H and the above, and EW likewise the better for them. The justification for the director's error ruling in the case of EW is that W didn't get proper UI advice that he has to continue pretending that 2S is strong.

[WellSpyder]

Even without convention cards, I find it relatively easy to rule that there was MI rather than a misbid - I don't think West really believed his own explanation, given that he only raised to 3♠.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-21, 09:09, said:

Of course. If NS would have bid differently if properly informed, then they are due an adjustment. The reopening the auction bit is not the entirety of the recourse they get, it is merely an opportunity to get to a situation in which there might be no damage, but if it isn't enough, they still get the benefit of an adjustment.

But is South's failure to raise hearts with the information he had merely poor, or SWoG? Is there a reason to think he would raise if given the correct information?

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2013-February-21, 09:33, said:

But is South's failure to raise hearts with the information he had merely poor, or SWoG? Is there a reason to think he would raise if given the correct information?

Merely poor. SEWOG is for truly terrible actions.

Though I do wonder if whether what happened in the rerun auction is that S&W both passed and N reopened.

W is clearly a cautious bidder. Apparently he passed in the rerun auction when he knows 2S is weak. So I'm willing to believe he bid 3S is appropriate when he thinks his partner's call is strong. This caution may reflect a realistic assessment of the quality of their card play, since apparently they only came to 3 tricks in defending 3H.

[blackshoe]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-21, 09:09, said:

Under a director's error ruling, NS will get the better of the table score in 3H and the above, and EW likewise the better for them. The justification for the director's error ruling in the case of EW is that W didn't get proper UI advice that he has to continue pretending that 2S is strong.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that EW needed to not get proper advice. There was an error by the director; both sides are entitled to be treated as non-offending in correcting the error — assuming "no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally", whatever that means.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-21, 10:09, said:

I'm not sure where you get the idea that EW needed to not get proper advice. There was an error by the director; both sides are entitled to be treated as non-offending in correcting the error — assuming "no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally", whatever that means.

When I adjust for NS, I will give them a better result from the table score. Thus for EW, since it is a director's error ruling, the starting position is that I will leave them with the table score.

But there is another issue here, which is that, after the ruling, EW committed another offence. This offence was the abuse of UI - W did not bid 3S again, he passed. However, in committing this offence, EW actually damaged themselves, because it would have been better for them to bid 3S again.

But, had it not been for the director's error, of failing to warn EW about the UI, EW likely would not have committed this further offence. Because EW actually damaged themselves in committing that offence I am tempted to leave them with the table score, but I think I ought to give them an adjustment from the table score.

[VixTD]

I was wondering whether there actually was any damage. Even if you believe South would bid 3♥ given the correct explanation (that might have been the reason for asking), West will surely still bid 3♠, and to avoid a poor score NS have to bid 4♥ and make it, which seems unlikely (even though they did actually make ten tricks when they played the hand). It certainly looks wrong to include any proportion of 3♥ in the weighting.

I was wondering whether you could initially decide it was an incorrect explanation because there is sufficient doubt (law 75C), then at the end of the hand change your mind and say it was a fielded misbid and adjust the score to 60% - 40%, but that doesn't seem right to me.

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2013-February-22, 05:16, said:

I was wondering whether there actually was any damage. Even if you believe South would bid 3♥ given the correct explanation (that might have been the reason for asking), West will surely still bid 3♠, and to avoid a poor score NS have to bid 4♥ and make it, which seems unlikely (even though they did actually make ten tricks when they played the hand). It certainly looks wrong to include any proportion of 3♥ in the weighting.

On reflection, I agree that there is no damage. I erred because I'd forgotten about the effect of MPs on weighted adjustments. 3H+1 is already a top, so 4H won't have any more MPs than 3H, so any mix of 4H and 3S is bound to be a worse score than 3H+1. I agree that the proportion of 3H should be zero.

So, simples, no damage to NS, they retain the table score. Now to decide whether to adjust for director's error in the case of EW along the lines suggested in my previous post.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-21, 09:09, said:

I'll probably adjust the score to a weighted mix of 3H, 3S and 4H, since I expect in a legal auction W will usually overcall 3S over the 3H (he doesn't get to know the correct explanation), and N will sometimes bid 4H. I won't include any portion of 4S, because apparently W doesn't realise he should bid that.

If you are adjusting for MI, how can you adjust to something below 3♠? Are you seriously of the view that if South had bid 3♥ West would have changed his 3♠ to a pass?

I think you are partially basing your adjustments on the idea that West knows the meaning as well as N/S but that is not the way to adjust.

iviehoff, on 2013-February-22, 04:01, said:

When I adjust for NS, I will give them a better result from the table score. Thus for EW, since it is a director's error ruling, the starting position is that I will leave them with the table score.

I don't like that approach to ruling either! You adjust in the normal fashion, but give E/W the benefit of the doubt for their adjustment.



In my opinion the main difference from the original auction is likely to be a 3♥ bid by South which does not affect the final contract. So probably 3♠ is the likely result for both sides. That is likely to go one off unless South leads a club. Or perhaps North might bid 4♥ now. How about:

For N/S:
.. 70% of 3♠ -1, NS +50
+ 30% of 4♥ -1, NS -50

For E/W:
.. 30% of 3♠ -1, NS +50
+ 30% of 4♥ -1, NS -50
+ 40% of 3♠ =, NS -140