[bridgeboy]

---

In a Matchpoint game,

The above bidding occured. South meant the bid to show minors, North did not alert 2nt but when East asked about the 2NT after the 3S bid, explained the bid as "I'm not sure, no agreement" as she did not understand what it meant.

West opt to dbl 3S but it proved to be an insufficent +500. EW called the director after the hand.

How would you rule?

[Rossoneri]

You beat me to it. I'm also looking forward to hearing opinions.

[aguahombre]

What infraction is being alleged? North's bidding is consistent with no agreement.

[paulg]

I can't see an infraction. Presumably South has received UI from the lack of alert (depending on where this happened and the alerting regulations) but is unlikely to bid again opposite a hand that cannot overcall one spade.

[McBruce]

Even if N-S have an agreement that North has forgotten, East is taking a fair gamble at these colours doubling 3♠ with such a strong offensive hand. Another pertinent question: are E-W experienced enough to suspect that South wants North to pick a minor? If so, where's the damage?

[mgoetze]

Rossoneri, on 2011-August-13, 23:49, said:

You beat me to it. I'm also looking forward to hearing opinions.

If there are some more facts to be revealed which will make this case interesting, you can go ahead now. Otherwise, everything has been said.

[bridgeboy]

I must first make it known that I'm not a qualified TD. Indeed, when director was first called, I (South) thought the case is clear as there was really no infraction and the director seemed to concur.

However, to my astonishment, I was told the next day that 3 qualified directors discussed and ruled it as a case of damage due to misinformation.

The result was largely inconsequential. Just wondering if I should have appealed the ruling.

Thanks all for your comments Any further advice will be greatly appreciated.

[Cyberyeti]

bridgeboy, on 2011-August-14, 06:10, said:

I must first make it known that I'm not a qualified TD. Indeed, when director was first called, I (South) thought the case is clear as there was really no infraction and the director seemed to concur.

However, to my astonishment, I was told the next day that 3 qualified directors discussed and ruled it as a case of damage due to misinformation.

The result was largely inconsequential. Just wondering if I should have appealed the ruling.

Thanks all for your comments Any further advice will be greatly appreciated.

You should be communicated the reasons for the decision. Unless there's something we all missed, I'd have appealed.

[hrothgar]

bridgeboy, on 2011-August-13, 22:56, said:

---

In a Matchpoint game,

The above bidding occured. South meant the bid to show minors, North did not alert 2nt but when East asked about the 2NT after the 3S bid, explained the bid as "I'm not sure, no agreement" as she did not understand what it meant.

West opt to dbl 3S but it proved to be an insufficent +500. EW called the director after the hand.

How would you rule?

I agree with the masses...

I can't see how the the misinformation lead to the poor result.
No adjustment

[aguahombre]

bridgeboy, on 2011-August-14, 06:10, said:

However, to my astonishment, I was told the next day that 3 qualified directors discussed and ruled it as a case of damage due to misinformation.

Based solely on the facts as you gave them in the OP, what you were "told" has at least one falsehood. Either they did not rule that way, since there is neither damage nor misinformation shown; or they are not qualified.

[mgoetze]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-14, 07:45, said:

I agree with the masses...

I can't see how the the misinformation lead to the poor result.

I'm not sure you really do agree with the masses. I, for one, am not convinced that there was any misinformation.

[hrothgar]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-14, 10:38, said:

I'm not sure you really do agree with the masses. I, for one, am not convinced that there was any misinformation.

Fair enough...

I was definitely sloppy with my original post

[pran]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-14, 10:38, said:

I'm not sure you really do agree with the masses. I, for one, am not convinced that there was any misinformation.

If I had been the Director North/South would have to convince me that they had no agreements.

If they failed to do so I would rule that the agreement is the meaning assumed by South and that opponents were misinformed. In my opinion this is consistent with Law 75C: [...]the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary[...]

There seems to be a worrying tendency towards accepting assertion of "no agreement" or "not discussed" as a general getaway from the duty to inform opponents.

(Whether East/West were damaged is of course a separate issue)

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2011-August-14, 12:59, said:

If I had been the Director North/South would have to convince me that they had no agreements.

If they failed to do so I would rule that the agreement is the meaning assumed by South and that opponents were misinformed. In my opinion this is consistent with Law 75C: [...]the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary[...]

O.K. Just in case it was not obvious, already:

An agreement is what two or more people agree apon. The evidence to the contrary here, is not what South held (which merely indicates he agrees with himself), but what North bid with 4-card support for a minor and five bad spades. If you suggested their agreement might be 3-2-4-4, then there might be something to talk about; but that seems sillier than looking for damage other than what West caused himself by showing a defensive hand when he had an offensive hand and a somewhat oblivious client.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-14, 16:59, said:

O.K. Just in case it was not obvious, already:

An agreement is what two or more people agree apon. The evidence to the contrary here, is not what South held (which merely indicates he agrees with himself), but what North bid with 4-card support for a minor and five bad spades. If you suggested their agreement might be 3-2-4-4, then there might be something to talk about; but that seems sillier than looking for damage other than what West caused himself by showing a defensive hand when he had an offensive hand and a somewhat oblivious client.

I discussed this question about a year ago with a senior member of the Norwegian Law committee. As far as I understood his recommendation it was (unless convincing evidence to the contrary can be produced) to rule as if a partnership understanding does indeed exist and that this understanding is that of the player making the call to be explained.

To me this recommendation seems to match the relevant provision in Law 75C perfectly.

A side effect of this principle is of course that when the two players in a partnership has made their respective calls under two different assumptions as to what understanding should be in force then it is perfectly possible to have all explanations ruled as misinformation because none of them will be correct description of partner's calls! And I think this is desirable. The purpose of explanations is to keep opponents correctly informed of the meaning of an auction, not to protect a partnership mixing up their understandings against rectifications from misinformation.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-14, 16:59, said:

O.K. Just in case it was not obvious, already:

An agreement is what two or more people agree apon. The evidence to the contrary here, is not what South held (which merely indicates he agrees with himself), but what North bid with 4-card support for a minor and five bad spades. If you suggested their agreement might be 3-2-4-4, then there might be something to talk about; but that seems sillier than looking for damage other than what West caused himself by showing a defensive hand when he had an offensive hand and a somewhat oblivious client.

The bidding indicates that one of the players is mistaken about whether they have an agreement. If North's "no agreement" explanation was correct then South misbid (or assumed some meta-agreement, or that this was general bridge knowledge). If South's bid was correct, then North forgot their agreement.

It's a pretty common treatment that NT bids in competitive auctions that are unlikely to be natural show minors, or at higher levels they often show any two-suiter. South was probably assuming his partner would understand this, despite not having discussed it explicitly.

I'm also more sympathetic to West than some of the posters. Yes, he has an offensive hand, but he also has a very wasted spade suit. It sounds like NS are in a misfit, which would likely mean bad splits if he tried to play in his suit. East only gave a single raise, he might not be able to make game. Or even if he can, the opponents could be going for a huge number. North can't have a very good spade suit, since he didn't bid spades earlier in the auction. West was very unlucky that NS stumbled into a good fit when they were so confused.

But I don't think the misbid/misexplanation had anything to do with EW's bad result, it was just rub of the green.

[Bbradley62]

bridgeboy, on 2011-August-14, 06:10, said:

However, to my astonishment, I was told the next day that 3 qualified directors discussed and ruled it as a case of damage due to misinformation.

Is it a common occurrence for players to not know about rulings against them until the next day?

[alphatango]

pran, on 2011-August-14, 17:27, said:

I discussed this question about a year ago with a senior member of the Norwegian Law committee. As far as I understood his recommendation it was (unless convincing evidence to the contrary can be produced) to rule as if a partnership understanding does indeed exist and that this understanding is that of the player making the call to be explained.

To me this recommendation seems to match the relevant provision in Law 75C perfectly.

L75C said:

(Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) (emphasis added)

From what I read, "convincing evidence" is not the standard required by L75C. Rather, if there is any evidence that there is a mistaken call, then the parenthetical sentence in L75C does not apply and the proper standard appears to be L85A1 ("balance of probabilities").

[pran]

alphatango, on 2011-August-15, 00:34, said:

From what I read, "convincing evidence" is not the standard required by L75C. Rather, if there is any evidence that there is a mistaken call, then the parenthetical sentence in L75C does not apply and the proper standard appears to be L85A1 ("balance of probabilities").

To me the fact that a player has made a call under the apparent assumption (or expectation) that partner will understand the call as intended is evidence of an existing agreement (express or implied) to such effect. This evidence is of much higher probability than his partner's self-serving statement that they had no such agreement. The latter is also evidence that partner probably has forgotten the agreement rather than that no agreement exists.

[Rossoneri]

Bbradley62, on 2011-August-14, 23:22, said:

Is it a common occurrence for players to not know about rulings against them until the next day?

No. I shall fill in on some of the details.

This hand occurred during an evening club game, in one of the later rounds, with a playing director who had recently obtained his qualification. I was also playing, and was asked about the hand at the end of the session. Bridgeboy and his partner had left by then. Also, we both decided it would be best to consult the more senior directors the next day.

FWIW, West was not sure if there was damage, and both EW were not asking for any adjustments but also wanted to know what the correct ruling should be.

The rest of the facts that I was told/know:

- W said he could make a cue of 3♦ if 2N was explained as minors, and felt he was unable to describe his hand in better detail after the 2N bid.
- After the 2NT bid, W waited a few seconds for an alert, didn't receive one, and doubled. After 3♠, E asked what is 2N, and received a reply of "I don't know."
- After 2 passes, W now wondered if 2N was misexplained and was really the minors and if so, 4♥ may be going down on bad breaks and so he doubled.
- S (bridgeboy) told W that 2N was meant to be minors after he put down dummy.
- NS play together on some club nights and in mixed pairs events.

Due to the late hour, these facts were presented to the two senior colleagues the following day. They both felt that there was damage due to the MI and that the score should be adjusted back to 4♥+1.

I was the third, and I felt the same way as Pran did.

pran, on 2011-August-14, 12:59, said:

If I had been the Director North/South would have to convince me that they had no agreements.

If they failed to do so I would rule that the agreement is the meaning assumed by South and that opponents were misinformed. In my opinion this is consistent with Law 75C: [...]the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary[...]

There seems to be a worrying tendency towards accepting assertion of "no agreement" or "not discussed" as a general getaway from the duty to inform opponents.

(Whether East/West were damaged is of course a separate issue)

Personally, I am not completely convinced that this is entirely right, and I was planning to ask as well. Unfortunately I was not able to post earlier.

I must also add that when I informed Bridgeboy of the ruling, he did tell me that they had no prior agreement wrt the 2NT bid in that position, which made me even more doubtful. I'm not quite sure if there was some other misunderstanding along the way.

Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong. I'm more than happy to overturn the original ruling if this turns out to be the case.