[pran]

dburn, on 2011-March-27, 11:22, said:

Well, let us try as far as possible to remove judgement from the equation.

An uncontested relay auction concludes: South 4♥; North 5♣; South 7♦; all pass.

West, on lead, asks several questions and is inter alia told: (correctly) that South has shown five diamonds and North four; (correctly) that 4♥ was keycard Blackwood with diamonds agreed; and (incorrectly) that 5♣ showed two key cards and the queen of diamonds (the actual agreement is "two key cards without the queen of diamonds").

West, who has three unguarded queens and a singleton trump, leads a diamond in the belief that this will be safer than any alternative - it cannot pick up his partner's queen, because his partner cannot have it.

As it happens, West could have led from any of his queens without affecting the result at all. Assuming that South did not pick up East's ♦Q105, which he would not do unaided, the contract would fail. Instead it makes, so the Director is summoned.

"If I'd been correctly informed, I would not have led a trump" says West. "No, you wouldn't", says the Director, and adjusts the score from EW-2140 (a bottom) to EW+100 (a top).

"Wait a minute", says South. "If I'd known partner didn't have the queen of diamonds, I'd have stopped in six, and I'd have made that whatever West led."

"Irrelevant", says the Director. "You must bear the consequences of your own failure to remember the system; but I must adjust the score on the basis that West made his opening lead with correct information."

You are the Appeals Committee. Do you:

uphold the Director's ruling? (as campboy, bluejak, gordontd, FrancesHinden and I would); or
adjust the score to EW-1370 in six diamonds, the result they would have obtained if North-South knew the system (as, presumably, pran would).

To see that the latter position is wrong, consider that if you believe it correct, you would also adjust the score to EW-1390 in six diamonds if the trumps had in fact divided 2-2. East-West could claim, justifiably according to pran, that this is the result they would have obtained "without the misinformation".

As described here I simply am not convinced by South's assertion that he would have stopped in 6♦ just because the ♦Q is missing. (An additional point here is that South did not bother to check the Kings but went directly to 7.)

If South can show a sound reasoning why his choice between 6 and 7 depended solely upon partner holding the ♦Q I might quite possibly listen to him, but I honestly believe that will be very difficult for him.

[dburn]

pran, on 2011-March-27, 15:54, said:

As described here I simply am not convinced by South's assertion that he would have stopped in 6♦ just because the ♦Q is missing. (An additional point here is that South did not bother to check the Kings but went directly to 7.)

If South can show a sound reasoning why his choice between 6 and 7 depended solely upon partner holding the ♦Q I might quite possibly listen to him, but I honestly believe that will be very difficult for him.

I am close to giving up, because I am not sure I can make pran see what is obvious to me, to campboy, to bluejak (it's all right, David - I promise not to post anything else with which you are likely to agree for at least a fortnight), to Frances and to others.

But this worries me. If I can't make a highly-qualified Director like pran see the obvious, then what chance does any Director or any lawgiver have of making the ordinary player see what the Laws are designed to do?

The principle that is obvious is this:

If a player claims damage because of MI, he should obtain rectification if he would (or might) have acted in a way more beneficial to his side without the MI. But the opponents, who provided the MI, cannot claim that they also are deserving of rectification because if they had known what they were doing, they would not have provided the MI in the first place.

Of course, in the actual case that may not help North-South very much at all. After all, if you were West and the bidding started 2NT-double to you, and you had a couple of kings facing partner's 20-22 balanced, what would you do?

[dburn]

AlexJonson, on 2011-March-27, 13:31, said:

So we object to 3H-2 because we want 2NT redoubled -2(?).

Perhaps.

North and South are allowed to know what 2NT means, while West is not. We presume absent the infraction that South would have doubled it (for takeout of the minors), and we presume that West has heard the rather strange auction 2NT-double to him where as far as West knows, 2NT is 20-22 balanced and he has a couple of kings.

Who knows what he might do? It might, I suppose, occur to him to ask whether a double of a natural 2NT has any significance. Then, he will be told by North-South that South wasn't doubling a natural 2NT - he was doubling 2NT that was a weakish minor two-suiter. Is West now allowed to know that East has one of those? Or, should North-South not tell West that South wasn't doubling a natural 2NT - if so, what should they tell him?

Or, do we consider that West is not allowed to ask such a question given that the double of 2NT was not alerted (should it be alerted under Norwegian regulations? under English regulations?) Is West supposed to proceed under the assumption that East has opened a natural 2NT, and South has doubled it for penalty - is he effectively barred from thinking for the crime of having given a wrong explanation?

In that case, West might conclude that South is an idiot who has doubled 2NT with AKQJ109 in one of the suits where West does not hold the king (more likely diamonds than spades, bien entendu). Then, West might do any number of things - he could bid four hearts, since if South has a solid suit that isn't hearts, 4♥ is by far East-West's most likely game. He might redouble, trusting East to pull to a major (in which case West will know what to do) or to a minor, in which case West can bid 3♥ which must logically show the majors. He might pass, on the grounds that his side can't make a slam and, if East really does have 20-22 balanced with guards in everything, 2NT doubled will be a decent spot.

When West's call comes back to East, what should he do? What arrangements do East-West have in place after 2NT-double-pass-pass? After 2NT-double-redouble-pass? In the words of Belloc, these are the things that people do not know; they do not know, because they are not told. I don't blame pran all that much for not finding them out, but...

No doubt bluejak would have me, as the Appeals Committee chair, sit for several hours assigning weights to such outcomes as 2NT redoubled by East, 3♥ doubled by North, 4♥ doubled by West, and anything else I could think of. Me, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

[pran]

dburn, on 2011-March-27, 16:25, said:

I am close to giving up, because I am not sure I can make pran see what is obvious to me, to campboy, to bluejak (it's all right, David - I promise not to post anything else with which you are likely to agree for at least a fortnight), to Frances and to others.

But this worries me. If I can't make a highly-qualified Director like pran see the obvious, then what chance does any Director or any lawgiver have of making the ordinary player see what the Laws are designed to do?

The principle that is obvious is this:

If a player claims damage because of MI, he should obtain rectification if he would (or might) have acted in a way more beneficial to his side without the MI. But the opponents, who provided the MI, cannot claim that they also are deserving of rectification because if they had known what they were doing, they would not have provided the MI in the first place.

Of course, in the actual case that may not help North-South very much at all. After all, if you were West and the bidding started 2NT-double to you, and you had a couple of kings facing partner's 20-22 balanced, what would you do?

My simple answer is that I practice the benefit of any doubt in favour of NOS. When an action is obvious in a specific situation then that means that there is no doubt about this action. But what is obvious is very often a matter of judgement, not a fact.

[AlexJonson]

dburn, on 2011-March-27, 17:00, said:

Perhaps.

North and South are allowed to know what 2NT means, while West is not. We presume absent the infraction that South would have doubled it (for takeout of the minors), and we presume that West has heard the rather strange auction 2NT-double to him where as far as West knows, 2NT is 20-22 balanced and he has a couple of kings.

Who knows what he might do? It might, I suppose, occur to him to ask whether a double of a natural 2NT has any significance. Then, he will be told by North-South that South wasn't doubling a natural 2NT - he was doubling 2NT that was a weakish minor two-suiter. Is West now allowed to know that East has one of those? Or, should North-South not tell West that South wasn't doubling a natural 2NT - if so, what should they tell him?

Or, do we consider that West is not allowed to ask such a question given that the double of 2NT was not alerted (should it be alerted under Norwegian regulations? under English regulations?) Is West supposed to proceed under the assumption that East has opened a natural 2NT, and South has doubled it for penalty - is he effectively barred from thinking for the crime of having given a wrong explanation?

In that case, West might conclude that South is an idiot who has doubled 2NT with AKQJ109 in one of the suits where West does not hold the king (more likely diamonds than spades, bien entendu). Then, West might do any number of things - he could bid four hearts, since if South has a solid suit that isn't hearts, 4♥ is by far East-West's most likely game. He might redouble, trusting East to pull to a major (in which case West will know what to do) or to a minor, in which case West can bid 3♥ which must logically show the majors. He might pass, on the grounds that his side can't make a slam and, if East really does have 20-22 balanced with guards in everything, 2NT doubled will be a decent spot.

When West's call comes back to East, what should he do? What arrangements do East-West have in place after 2NT-double-pass-pass? After 2NT-double-redouble-pass? In the words of Belloc, these are the things that people do not know; they do not know, because they are not told. I don't blame pran all that much for not finding them out, but...

No doubt bluejak would have me, as the Appeals Committee chair, sit for several hours assigning weights to such outcomes as 2NT redoubled by East, 3♥ doubled by North, 4♥ doubled by West, and anything else I could think of. Me, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

Sort of my point David. EW seem to me overwhelmingly likely to play the contract - in 2NT doubled or redoubled, 4H, 5C, 5H doubled or redoubled or 6H doubled. Add in variations in the play and you have a long session to decide the adjustment.

One contract I think completely implausible is 3C by EW.

[pran]

AlexJonson, on 2011-March-28, 05:03, said:

Sort of my point David. EW seem to me overwhelmingly likely to play the contract - in 2NT doubled or redoubled, 4H, 5C, 5H doubled or redoubled or 6H doubled. Add in variations in the play and you have a long session to decide the adjustment.

One contract I think completely implausible is 3C by EW.

Unless I completely misunderstand this contribution to the thread not a single one of the suggested contracts would pose any problem at all for TD: Every single one would result in a top score for North/South so no adjustment from MI would be needed!

You may see the actual board with all 13 results here:
http://nbfdata.bridg...&Fil=1049X11PAR

Look for "Spillnr 50(18)" (top right among the 4 boards)

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2011-March-28, 02:43, said:

My simple answer is that I practice the benefit of any doubt in favour of NOS. When an action is obvious in a specific situation then that means that there is no doubt about this action. But what is obvious is very often a matter of judgement, not a fact.

Pran, I know it is difficult in the heat of a debate in which a lot of people seem to be raising irrelevant points, but I really think it would help if you stopped worrying about the particular case we started with and had another think after a day or two about the more general point that dburn and others have been making. I know you are quite used to being in a minority at times in these discussions, but here I think you may be literally the only person arguing in favour of looking at what would happen if the OS also knew what their auction meant (and I would certainly like to add my support to the other side!), and I think that may be because you are concerned to defend your original ruling. If you think about it again in the cold light of day without worrying about this specific case at all then I think you may realise that it makes no sense to adjust to what would have happened without any misunderstanding as well as without any MI.

[AlexJonson]

pran, on 2011-March-28, 06:35, said:

Unless I completely misunderstand this contribution to the thread not a single one of the suggested contracts would pose any problem at all for TD: Every single one would result in a top score for North/South so no adjustment from MI would be needed!

You may see the actual board with all 13 results here:
http://nbfdata.bridg...&Fil=1049X11PAR

Look for "Spillnr 50(18)" (top right among the 4 boards)

Pran

I understood we were considering the TD analysis for adjustment purposes - with the constraint that N/S/E know what is going on and West doesn't, unless he can wangle an argument that it became obvious. Therefore the players are out of the equation and the bidding and play after 2NT are entirely in the hands of the TD. (Apologise if that is not the scenario).

I expressed the view that with West in the dark and East not using that fact, the TD should probably place EW in some dire contract, since I think that is the likely outcome with the constraints described. I'm taking the legal constraints as given, since I'm not an expert, and this is not a 'changing the laws' forum.

My passing remark about 3C was based on the 'monster' East holds, where I think he may well have to bid after 3C (edited from 3H) for ethical reasons.

So, although I was happy with your original ruling, if it is determined that you can't rule that way, I think the likely alternatives are much worse for EW.