[kgr]

Edit: Auction corrected
Edit2: This happened behind screens. N and E on same side of the screen.
Teams

---

(I'm not sure of the spots or actual distribution of ♣-suit, but I think the relevant part of the hands is correct).
West leads ♦2 (3rd/5th) and declarer plays ♦Q won by ♦K of East.
East returns ♣K and South soon claims 12 tricks.
- East says that he got the explanation from North of 5♦=4/1 aces of 5.
- North says that he and his partner already play 41/30 for 20 years, so he thinks he gave the correct explanation.
- West did get explanation from South of 5♦=3/0 aces of 5.
- The CC's available to East and West - but not consulted says 41/30 (also Edited this one).
What do you rule and how would following info potentially influence your decision?:
- In the first half North Did incorrectly bid on another board 4D iso 4C on 4NT.
- East knows that NS were in 6S (edited:on that other board) with 2 aces out in the first half, against his teammates. He doesn't know why.
- East knows that NS were in 6S (edited:on that other board) with 2 aces out in the first half, against his teammates. He knows that N did gave the incorrect number of aces.
- East can work out that his partner can not have an Ace. But didn't really consider that after North's wrong explanation. Is East's level important and deciding for you in the ruling?
- At the other table bidding and play on the 1st trick was the same, but with correct explanation and a diamond was returned at trick 2.
Edit: - EW had a big lead after the 1st half. Playing equal in the 2nd half the result would be around 25-5.
...or is it just a case of who you believe and if you believe that MI was giving then that is sufficient to think that this caused the wrong play of East?

[dcohio]

You say the bidding was identical at both tables... are you sure the auction is right? If so north at both tables opened 1NT on a 5521?

[kgr]

dcohio, on 2011-December-11, 12:44, said:

You say the bidding was identical at both tables... are you sure the auction is right? If so north at both tables opened 1NT on a 5521?

thanks! corrected now

[blackshoe]

"The CC available to East". Which player, N or S, held this CC? Did the other member of the pair have a CC? What did it say?

Quote

- In the first half North Did incorrectly bid 4D iso 4C on 4NT.
- East knows that NS were in 6S with 2 aces out in the first half, against his teammates. He doesn't know why.
- East knows that NS were in 6S with 2 aces out in the first half, against his teammates. He knows that N did gave the incorrect number of aces.

If I'm reading this right, North "in the first half" is a teammate of EW in this half, so whatever he did is irrelevant. In the other two cases, what the Hell is the TD doing allowing a movement where players can discuss boards they have yet to play? And did the same team play as NS both times? Or are you talking about some other board?

Who has a big lead is irrelevant to the ruling.

If all that about the first half is evidence that the current N got the same agreement wrong "in the first half", and if the other CC (assuming there is one) corroborates the explanation from South, Then the explanation from South is correct and there is no MI. In which case the score stands. If some of that about the first half is evidence that the TD or the TO screwed up the movement, I'd have to think about a different ruling.

Was there a failure to alert or announce "transfer" after 2♥? Was South's 3♥ a legitimate transfer break? Do NS have a retransfer available on this auction? It smells an awful lot like unlawful use of UI by North here.

[c_corgi]

Are you sure the auction is correct? If so, West should not have been on lead and I am curious regarding the meaning of 3H and 4S. Also, if North is responding to RKCB then 5S would be the normal response, not 5 of either minor.

[Mbodell]

Yeah, this hand doesn't make any sense. The wrong person is declaring. The wrong hand is on lead. The 1nt opener is driving to slam? Players playing teams are taking a finesse at both tables when they can guarantee the contract by not finessing. Plus the answers to keycards are quite wrong.

[ahydra]

I'm a bit confused - why does MI over the number of aces matter here? Is East claiming that partner should have the CA?

North has seriously misbid as he has two keycards , so clearly East knows partner doesn't have an Ace, and hence playing the CK can't hope to gain much... (edit: esp with singleton in dummy!)

ahydra

[kgr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 14:41, said:

"The CC available to East". Which player, N or S, held this CC? Did the other member of the pair have a CC? What did it say?

Behind screens. Both E and W did have a convention card.
The convention card said answer to RKC: 41/30 of 5.
North explained to East: 5D=4 or 1.

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 14:41, said:

If I'm reading this right, North "in the first half" is a teammate of EW in this half, so whatever he did is irrelevant. In the other two cases, what the Hell is the TD doing allowing a movement where players can discuss boards they have yet to play? And did the same team play as NS both times? Or are you talking about some other board?

In the first half 16 boards were play at the 2 tables. North did make an incorrect response to RKC. That was on another board.

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 14:41, said:

Who has a big lead is irrelevant to the ruling.

If all that about the first half is evidence that the current N got the same agreement wrong "in the first half", and if the other CC (assuming there is one) corroborates the explanation from South, Then the explanation from South is correct and there is no MI. In which case the score stands. If some of that about the first half is evidence that the TD or the TO screwed up the movement, I'd have to think about a different ruling.

Was there a failure to alert or announce "transfer" after 2♥? Was South's 3♥ a legitimate transfer break? Do NS have a retransfer available on this auction? It smells an awful lot like unlawful use of UI by North here.

Edited in OP: This happened behind screens. East says he got wrong explanation of 5D bid and therefor did return Club K iso a D.

[kgr]

c_corgi, on 2011-December-11, 15:06, said:

Are you sure the auction is correct? If so, West should not have been on lead and I am curious regarding the meaning of 3H and 4S. Also, if North is responding to RKCB then 5S would be the normal response, not 5 of either minor.

sorry: Edited the auction and added the info that this happened behind screens.

[kgr]

I hope I corrected all mistakes in the OP (and didn't add any) and you want to do another try to give a ruling with the correct info.

[blackshoe]

What did South say when the TD asked him why he bid 5♦? Why did North bid 6♠ if he believed his partner had only one key card?

If South was replying according to "six-ace" blackwood, he does have 4 keycards! But except that he might have said he was doing that, we apparently have no evidence - did the CCs mention it? IAC, absent evidence they were playing 'six-ace", we have to rule it's either 1430 or 0341. Which it is, I don't know yet. What, wrt to the NS agreement, was the outcome at the other table? When you say North gave the wrong answer, what were the details?

Discounting the bit about what happened at the other table, which doesn't really tell us anything about the NS agreement except that they screwed it up, we have the following:

S has 3 key cards for spades. He bid 5♦, so that's evidence that the agreement was 1430.
North's CC says they're playing 0314, so that's evidence the agreement was 0314.
North said they've been playing 1430 for 20 years. That's evidence the agreement was 1430.
North said that South had shown one or four keycards. That's evidence the agreement was 0314.
Apparently South's CC says they're playing 1430.

The preponderance of the evidence says they were playing 1430. Therefore North's explanation to East was MI. Did the MI cause damage? I don't think so. It looks like NS are playing a strong NT, so it seems East should have known South can't have zero (or one, whichever) keycards. So I'm thinking result stands.

[aguahombre]

With the corrected auction, South has shown, as far as east knows one or four. If it is four, there are six in the deck (There would be for us, and South's 5D would be correct). If South only has one, then he Opened 1NT with a 7 or 8-count.

East knows all he needs to know.

[kgr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:07, said:

What did South say when the TD asked him why he bid 5♦?

No TD at place.
Case written to TD committee (hopefully more correct then my original post)

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:07, said:

Why did North bid 6♠ if he believed his partner had only one key card?

Note: change in OP: The CC's say 41/30
Probably North believed his partner had 3 Keycards. But according to East, North incorrectly explained this to East.
(Maybe he correctly thought this over, but incorrectly explained it when East asked it at the start of the play....like I'm making all these mistakes in my posts)

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:07, said:

If South was replying according to "six-ace" blackwood, he does have 4 keycards! But except that he might have said he was doing that, we apparently have no evidence - did the CCs mention it? IAC, absent evidence they were playing 'six-ace", we have to rule it's either 1430 or 0341. Which it is, I don't know yet. What, wrt to the NS agreement, was the outcome at the other table? When you say North gave the wrong answer, what were the details?

They play 5-ace KC 41/30.

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:07, said:

Discounting the bit about what happened at the other table, which doesn't really tell us anything about the NS agreement except that they screwed it up, we have the following:

S has 3 key cards for spades. He bid 5♦, so that's evidence that the agreement was 1430.
North's CC says they're playing 0314, so that's evidence the agreement was 0314.
North said they've been playing 1430 for 20 years. That's evidence the agreement was 1430.
North said that South had shown one or four keycards. That's evidence the agreement was 0314.
Apparently South's CC says they're playing 1430.

This is corrected in OP: They play 41/30 and that is on their CC.

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 16:07, said:

The preponderance of the evidence says they were playing 1430. Therefore North's explanation to East was MI. Did the MI cause damage? I don't think so. It looks like NS are playing a strong NT, so it seems East should have known South can't have zero (or one, whichever) keycards. So I'm thinking result stands.

Isn't it possible that East was 'confused' by that wrong info that they were playing 30/41. And he therefor knew that either C or H-Ace was out and therefor he didn't really need to think longer. Isn't there a link between MI and bad result then?

[c_corgi]

North admits they are playing 1430, so there is definite misinformation. If North thinks that 1430 means 5D shows 1or4 then it explains why they keep bidding slams holding the wrong number of aces; it does not explain why he played partner for 2or3 keycards. We need to know why North bid a slam off 2 keycards if 5D shows only 1. I am not sure why East should have to guess whether South has not got his 1NT bid or his response to Blackwood. The latter seems like an unusual psyche.

[blackshoe]

If South has a legitimate strong NT opening (and if I were East I would not be assuming he psyched), then he cannot have zero key cards, or one. So he has three or four. North has two. So either there are six key cards, or NS have them all.

Law 12 says "damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". What was the expected table result without the MI? It looks to me like 12 tricks, unless East returns a diamond. East should know NS have all the key cards, so he can count 12 tricks for NS: five spades, five hearts, one diamond, and one club. Since there's a stiff club in dummy, EW aren't getting any tricks from that suit.

Did East lead ♣K because of the MI? Why did he lead it? What did he expect to gain?

In general, if a player is truly led astray by MI, then we should probably adjust the score. However that does not mean that a claim of having been "confused" by MI should automatically lead to an adjustment.

[kgr]

c_corgi, on 2011-December-11, 16:55, said:

North admits they are playing 1430, so there is definite misinformation.

It is definitive as far as East's explanation of what happened, But North thinks that he gave the correct explanation.

c_corgi, on 2011-December-11, 16:55, said:

If North thinks that 1430 means 5D shows 1or4 then it explains why they keep bidding slams holding the wrong number of aces; it does not explain why he played partner for 2or3 keycards. We need to know why North bid a slam off 2 keycards if 5D shows only 1.

North already showed the wrong number of aces on another board the same day.
I think that North had South's number of Aces correct on the current board and therefor did correctly bid to 6S.
But the question then is: do you believe East when he says that he got the wrong explanation when he asked this at the beginning of the play?

c_corgi, on 2011-December-11, 16:55, said:

I am not sure why East should have to guess whether South has not got his 1NT bid or his response to Blackwood. The latter seems like an unusual psyche.

Or East - 'supposing' that there was an ace out- did not think long enough to realize that something was wrong. (didn't even realize that 2 aces were out if North's explanation was correct). He knew that the contract would go down by playing a ♣, then either ♣A or ♥A would come in & didn't think more about it.

[kgr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 17:10, said:

If South has a legitimate strong NT opening (and if I were East I would not be assuming he psyched), then he cannot have zero key cards, or one. So he has three or four. North has two. So either there are six key cards, or NS have them all.

Law 12 says "damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". What was the expected table result without the MI? It looks to me like 12 tricks, unless East returns a diamond. East should know NS have all the key cards, so he can count 12 tricks for NS: five spades, five hearts, one diamond, and one club. Since there's a stiff club in dummy, EW aren't getting any tricks from that suit.

Did East lead ♣K because of the MI? Why did he lead it? What did he expect to gain?

In general, if a player is truly led astray by MI, then we should probably adjust the score. However that does not mean that a claim of having been "confused" by MI should automatically lead to an adjustment.

I'm really 90% sure East would return a ♦ when he knows that South has 0/3 aces.
- Maybe he should also realize -after the possible MI- that something is wrong. (I personally don't think that this is required if we are sure enough that a ♦ would have been returned without the MI, but I'm not really an experienced TD. That's why I ask here)
- It is not 100% sure that there was MI. Maybe there was correct explanation, but East didn't hear it correctly or the information was misinterpreted in his brain?

[c_corgi]

Sorry, I misunderstood. But clear now

[blackshoe]

kgr, on 2011-December-11, 17:18, said:

I'm really 90% sure East would return a ♦ when he knows that South has 0/3 aces.
- Maybe he should also realize -after the possible MI- that something is wrong. (I personally don't think that this is required if we are sure enough that a ♦ would have been returned without the MI, but I'm not really an experienced TD. That's why I ask here)
- It is not 100% sure that there was MI. Maybe there was correct explanation, but East didn't hear it correctly or the information was misinterpreted in his brain?

I guess I don't understand why it makes a difference to East how many key cards South has, but okay, if you're convinced he would have led a diamond with the correct information, then he was damaged. As for not being 100% certain, you weigh the evidence, and if there's more evidence on the "MI" side than on the "no MI" side, then you rule there was MI. If it comes out 50-50, you rule MI. You only rule "no MI" if the preponderance of the evidence says so. You don't say to yourself "maybe he misheard it", that's just speculation. You have to weigh all the evidence you can collect.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-11, 14:41, said:

In the other two cases, what the Hell is the TD doing allowing a movement where players can discuss boards they have yet to play? And did the same team play as NS both times? Or are you talking about some other board?

It sounds like a multiple teams event with an insecure break. Definitely should have been avoided, but perhaps there were extreme circumstances -- such as too many teams showed up then there were sets of boards to accommodate? But if so, the director should have made it very clear to all the players that the break was not secure.