[bluejak]

You make it sound so black and white. But it is not like that. Just treat each case on its merits, and do not follow any 'rule' that says one thing or another.

For example, Meckstroth feels damaged by MI: I have little doubt he will tell you how, and you should be somewhat sceptical of offering something he does not request.

Mrs Guggenheim down at the club is upset because her opponent told her the wrong thing. She has no clue what she would have done otherwise and will merely get flustered if you ask her. That is no reason not to adjust for her: she might easily have done something different.

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on Oct 11 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

The OP also does not mention that there was an irregularity at the other table in this match which might have affected the ruling.

I don't understand how an irregularity at a different table can possibly affect a potential MI ruling at this table.

[RMB1]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 14 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

Zelandakh, on Oct 11 2010, 06:58 AM, said:

The OP also does not mention that there was an irregularity at the other table in this match which might have affected the ruling.

I don't understand how an irregularity at a different table can possibly affect a potential MI ruling at this table.

But it does explain a ruling along the lines of "They made a mess of the auction at the other table as well so lets call it +3 IMP to the team we think are cute".

Although the ruling was reported as +3 IMP to the team of NS to the vugraph operator, the scores on the web site show 0 IMP on the board. (There are some -2 IMP fines, but they were for late arrival.) So perhaps the TDs decided that it was too hard to equitably assign scores in both rooms and (as both EW pairs were at fault) awarded an artificial score of average.

There was no problem with NS explaining that they thought they were damaged. Of course, it appears they were explaining why what they did was not a mistake given the explanations/calls/signals there were, not how they would have called/played differently with a different explanation. That was left as an exercise for the TD.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2010-October-14, 18:15

[mfa1010]

If N had been told that 2♥ was natural, he would have interpreted 3♥ as a cuebid. Perhaps he would then have bid 3NT over the X? That would probably have let NS get the contract, either in 3NT or 4♠, and the -510 would have been avoided.