[szgyula]

---

The bidding went as 1N-P-2H-P-P-2S-P-P-P. Screens were in use. N-S vul., dealer N. 1N was alerted to E (weak, 12-14) and was not alerted to W. E-W uses different defense against weak and strong 1NT openings. 2H was explained as natural, weak bid on both sides. W, as dummy, became aware of this during the play. After the play finished (down 4), W called the director. The director accepted the MI. W claimed that, according to the system, the 2S bid, against a pair playing strong NT shows a strong, long S (6-7 in length, some value in side suits) while over a weak 1NT it is a balancing bid with a 5 card suit. W claims that in the later case, he would have bid 2N with 15HCP and 1435 distribution with good stoppers in H (QJ9x). The director also accepted this claim. Now comes the funny part. The 2S contract, with double dummy, goes down 2. 2N, with double dummy, goes down 3. Thus, the director rules that 2S is a better contract for the NOS than the 2N, thus, no compensation. W argues that damage was done as the actual result was less favourable, compared to the expected result of 2N (we have a not very advanced pair as NOS). The director invokes 12C1b, saying that the NOS was in a better contract and the fact that they went down 4 is a major mistake, unrelated to the infraction.

This goes back to the age old question: If due to an infraction the NOS plays a different contract and they do not play too well, is this an "unrelated major mistake"?

For the record, the hands are

Lead CK (South).
W Q.QJ95.A86.AQT75, E K8754.86.9752.32
N AT32.A4.KQ3.J986, S J98.KT732.JT4.K4

Double dummy gives 6 tricks in S, 5 in NT. Actual results in the tournament were 2S-4, 2S-4, 2S-4, 3S-4 in Spades (all -200) and 2N-2 in NT (-100). Declarer (E) tried to get in his hand to draw trumps (trying to trump the 3rd club in spite of the likely Kx at South). W requests the acceptance of 2N as the contract and some weighted score considering the possible outcomes. The director refuses and lets the 2S-4 stand, since 2S is a better contract and thus, "no damage was" done. W does not accept claiming that 2S is a much harder contract than 2N.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2013-January-29, 10:26
Reason for edit: Add diagram

[mr1303]

What country are you playing in? I don't believe that 1NT is alertable in either EBU or ACBL land playing behind screens. That being the case, I agree with the director's ruling (as in outcome, not methodology).

[szgyula]

mr1303, on 2013-January-29, 04:00, said:

What country are you playing in? I don't believe that 1NT is alertable in either EBU or ACBL land playing behind screens. That being the case, I agree with the director's ruling (as in outcome, not methodology).

It is Hungary (2007 laws). 1NT was alertable (if weak) and the director ruled MI. He also ruled no damage as 2S (with infraction; actual contract) can be played for -2, while 2N (without infraction) could be -3. In the actual tournament it was -4 and -2 for other players.

The infraction was never questioned. The question is: If the NOS, due to the infraction plays a more complicated contract and fails to get the right play, is it an "unrelated major error" or not.

[iviehoff]

szgyula, on 2013-January-29, 03:51, said:

This goes back to the age old question: If due to an infraction the NOS plays a different contract and they do not play too well, is this an "unrelated major mistake"?

Actually, that's maybe not quite the right question. I'll take the ruling of Misinformation as given.

The "subsequent vs consequent" argument is complicated, because there are different criteria in different parts of the law, and, confusingly, MI turns out to be (possibly) different from other situations.

On the one hand, we have the definition of damage at 12B1, which seems clear:

"The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending
side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending
side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction,
an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have
been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b)."

Thus to assess damage, the relevant comparison, absent any "serious errors", is the table score vs the expectation without the infraction. Clearly, under 12B1b there is no such thing as "subsequent damage", if there are no "serious errors", etc. And indeed when adjusting for an Unauthorised Information infraction, unless we see one of these "serious errors", there is no discussion of subsequent and consequent.

However when there is MI, we do not get as far as applying L12, until we have first applied a (possibly) different test. L 21B3 tells us, in a MI situation:

"When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the
offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an
adjusted score".

This definition has the different, undefined, word, "advantage", rather than the defined word "damage". One might argue that the presence of the word "advantage" in 12C1(b) implies that "advantage" is precisely the converse of "damage", but this is not clear. Thus with the undefined word "advantage", the possibility arises of reading 21B3 to suggest that what matters is the situation immediately after the infraction, and thus there is no "advantage" if the losses came from failing to take advantage of the advantageous situation that existed for the NOS immediately after the infraction.

It would appear the director has ruled using this (contested, but common) interpreation of 21B3, rather than 12C1(b), while using language misleadingly to suggest he was using the latter. Of course, then there is the matter of whether it is indeed the case that the NOS expectation of playing in 2S is better than 2N. One should, of course, not judge that based on what happened at other tables, maybe they were different circumstances there. However pointing to double dummy outcomes is also plainly wrong. I'm not a play expert, but prima facie it does look like the practical expectation of the outcome playing in 2S was worse than playing in 2N.

I shall mention in passing that if the director really did mean 12C1(b), then he made a quite illiterate and wrong ruling under that law. Many directors have not taken on board the major change in this law that came in with the 2007 edition of the laws:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has
contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief
in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The
offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been
allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

First, it is clear that by "serious error" it means a very serious error, a rare things, not just playing rather badly. Second, the director has certainly not made any attempt to acknowledge or implement the second sentence of that law.

[szgyula]

Just to clarify things a bit: The director explicitly refered 12C1b. His argument was that

• 1. Taking two tricks less than possible with double dummy is a "serious error". "Obviously".
  
• 2. The infraction only resulted in a different contract being played. The serious error (not playing the double dummy way) is not caused by the infraction.

Just to clarify one more point: Due to MI the NOS players played different systems (one for strong NT, one for weak). Thus, the advantage of the OS is that they play the same system whil ethe NOS do not (screens in use).

[iviehoff]

szgyula, on 2013-January-29, 07:51, said:

Just to clarify things a bit: The director explicitly refered 12C1b. His argument was that

• 1. Taking two tricks less than possible with double dummy is a "serious error". "Obviously".
  
• 2. The infraction only resulted in a different contract being played. The serious error (not playing the double dummy way) is not caused by the infraction.

As I already said, if the director thinks this is a serious error, he is a long, long way off the mark. (And that is not the only mistake he made in implementing Law 12C1b.) A serious error is more at the level of ruffing your own winners. However I do agree if one misplayed 2S badly enough for the misplay to be deemed a serious error, then it would usually be a serious error unrelated to the infraction. For it to be related to the infraction, we would have to say that the misinformation affected the choice of play at the moment of the serious error in the play.

szgyula, on 2013-January-29, 07:51, said:

Just to clarify one more point: Due to MI the NOS players played different systems (one for strong NT, one for weak). Thus, the advantage of the OS is that they play the same system whil ethe NOS do not (screens in use).

Indeed it is an advantage, and it manifests itself in that the contract became 2S rather than 2N. So we end up in the same place.

Some of the director's arguments would have been more respectable if he had mentioned L21 rather than L12, but he would still have been wrong.

[barmar]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-29, 09:29, said:

For it to be related to the infraction, we would have to say that the misinformation affected the choice of play at the moment of the serious error in the play.

More relevant is that declarer was given correct information during the auction, so none of his errors could be related to the infraction. The infraction only affected West's bidding.

[szgyula]

barmar, on 2013-January-29, 10:36, said:

More relevant is that declarer was given correct information during the auction, so none of his errors could be related to the infraction. The infraction only affected West's bidding.

That is correct and that is how the TD ruled: only West received MI, which did affect his bid and he would have bid 2N. The question is the applicability of 12C1b, which was used to deny any adjustment. The argument goes like this: With double dummy, the 2S can be played for -2. The declarer went down 4, like all tables that played the same contract. The difference between the -2 and -4 is a "serious error" and it is not related to the infraction. The counter argument is that playing worse than the computer plays with double dummy is not a "serious error" and the bad result is somehow related to the infraction: Due to the infraction the declarer plays a contract with 6 trumps. Without the infraction his partner plays 2N. The former is a very unusual contract that one is not expected to play well at this level, while 2N is a quite normal contract (other tables went down one). Thus, the declarer (who got all the correct information) played a much harder contract than other declarers. So the 12C1b fails on two counts (not serious error and not unrelated). In my opinion.

One mor addition: West (dummy) became aware of the infraction quite late, thus, the double barell accusation can not be made, either.

[ahydra]

What about ruling that East's 2S bid, on a K7xxx suit and 3 points facing a possible flat 12-count opposite, is a wild or gambling action?

I'd like to know how the play went to judge whether going -4 was a serious error. It's quite possible it was, but the TD cannot simply say that it was just because Deep Finesse makes two more tricks than the human East. He should look at the play and try to understand why East played the way he did. (Edit: just to clarify, if the play can be judged as a serious error then it IS unrelated to the infraction. East got all the correct information; the fact that the contract should have been 2N is irrelevant, because we are playing in 2S).

In a similar vein, West's argument that they should get 2NT-3 automatically is shaky as well. Again, the TD needs to look at likely lines of play in 2N and decide how many tricks it could make. I wouldn't be surprised, particularly because the OP describes EW as "not very advanced", that 2NT would in practice go 4 off, therefore no damage.

ahydra

Edit 2: interesting theoretical question. Suppose analysis of the play reveals two errors by declarer, one of which is classed as a serious error and one is not. Each error cost declarer a trick. Can we adjust by only one trick?

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2013-January-30, 06:45, said:

What about ruling that East's 2S bid, on a K7xxx suit and 3 points facing a possible flat 12-count opposite, is a wild or gambling action?

[snip]

Edit 2: interesting theoretical question. Suppose analysis of the play reveals two errors by declarer, one of which is classed as a serious error and one is not. Each error cost declarer a trick. Can we adjust by only one trick?

I don't think it's wild or gambling, beyond the fact that balancing is always a gamble.

The NOS do not get redress for such part of the damage as is due to their own SEWoG, so if that's one trick, then they don't get redress for that one trick. They do get redress for the other one.

[VixTD]

Quote

Law 12C1(b): If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the
infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The
offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

The score obtained at the table was from 2♠(E)-4, so NS scored +200 and EW scored -200.

If the TD adjusts for the damage caused by misinformation by NS, he will give NS +150 and EW -150 for the hypothetical result from 2NT(W)-3.

If the TD believes that two of EW's undertricks in 2♠ were caused by a serious error unrelated to the misinformation, he should surely award NS +150 and EW -200 under law 12C1(b), as the non-offenders should receive redress only for damage which is in excess of this self-inflicted 100 trick points.

This still doesn't sound like the correct ruling to me, the TD should consider the numbers of tricks that are likely to be made in these contracts and weight the outcomes if necessary rather than just rely on Deep Finesse analysis, and as Iviehoff says they have to identify an egregiously poor play by EW to apply this law, but even if his judgement of these likelihoods is correct I think his adjustment is wrong.

[iviehoff]

ahydra, on 2013-January-30, 06:45, said:

What about ruling that East's 2S bid, on a K7xxx suit and 3 points facing a possible flat 12-count opposite, is a wild or gambling action?

E decision to bid 2S is prior to the moment at which the MI had potential effect - W's decision to pass out 2S - not subsequent. So not being subsequent, it doesn't matter whether it is SEWOG or not.

[ahydra]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-30, 08:33, said:

E decision to bid 2S is prior to the moment at which the MI had potential effect - W's decision to pass out 2S - not subsequent. So not being subsequent, it doesn't matter whether it is SEWOG or not.

As much as I don't really enjoy the debates on exact wording that often occur in these fora, the Law says "subsequent to the infraction". The infraction here was the incorrect non-alert of 1NT to W, which was committed between North's 1NT bid and East's Pass, and therefore the 2S bid is subsequent to the infraction.

That said, your interpretation is sort-of reasonable, since when discussing SEWOGAs the Lawmakers were looking for at least some correlation between the infraction and the SEWOGA, and East wasn't affected at all by the infraction.

ahydra

[szgyula]

ahydra, on 2013-January-30, 09:19, said:

As much as I don't really enjoy the debates on exact wording that often occur in these fora, the Law says "subsequent to the infraction". The infraction here was the incorrect non-alert of 1NT to W, which was committed between North's 1NT bid and East's Pass, and therefore the 2S bid is subsequent to the infraction.

That said, your interpretation is sort-of reasonable, since when discussing SEWOGAs the Lawmakers were looking for at least some correlation between the infraction and the SEWOGA, and East wasn't affected at all by the infraction.

ahydra

East, having all the correct information, knew that points are split roughly 20-20. Having a weak hand, he put (correctly) a significant strength to West (me). He definitly knew that I have more than opening strength. The fact that I did not bid, meant that I have either a balanced hand (not the case) or strength in opponents suit (which was the case). He knows that I do not have long minors, either. He decided to balance in the last seat and leave the decision to me (pass with spades, correct to NT with short spades). Due to the MI, I misinterpreted his bid as long spades and passed. I repeat: the meaning of his bid depends on the point range the opponents have for the 1NT.

Look at http://en.wikipedia....g_%28bridge%29. They have an example of T864.5.KQ65.JT94 to balance in a simmilar situation with a double. In this case the hand has less points but has a suit and we can not go beyond 2NT. We are in green, which also adds to the temptation. Scoring is MP. You can call it inferior, bad bridge, but gambling is too far, IMHO.

I also repeat: The 2S of East is based on all the information available and he received no MI. He decided to balance with 2S, which (on his side of the screen) is a pass or correct to NT bid. Which would have resulted in a ~50% score (2H was made on some tables, went down on others, double dummy gives 2H=.

[barmar]

The TD clearly misunderstands the SEWOG rule. Double dummy play is not the standard that players are ever expected to achieve, so failing it is hardly a "serious error". Only one out of four pairs playing in spades managed to do any better than this East.

[ahydra]

szgyula, on 2013-January-30, 10:23, said:

East, having all the correct information, knew that points are split roughly 20-20. Having a weak hand, he put (correctly) a significant strength to West (me). He definitly knew that I have more than opening strength. The fact that I did not bid, meant that I have either a balanced hand (not the case) or strength in opponents suit (which was the case). He knows that I do not have long minors, either. He decided to balance in the last seat and leave the decision to me (pass with spades, correct to NT with short spades). Due to the MI, I misinterpreted his bid as long spades and passed. I repeat: the meaning of his bid depends on the point range the opponents have for the 1NT.

Look at http://en.wikipedia....g_%28bridge%29. They have an example of T864.5.KQ65.JT94 to balance in a simmilar situation with a double. In this case the hand has less points but has a suit and we can not go beyond 2NT. We are in green, which also adds to the temptation. Scoring is MP. You can call it inferior, bad bridge, but gambling is too far, IMHO.

I also repeat: The 2S of East is based on all the information available and he received no MI. He decided to balance with 2S, which (on his side of the screen) is a pass or correct to NT bid. Which would have resulted in a ~50% score (2H was made on some tables, went down on others, double dummy gives 2H=.

I agree partner is marked with values. But doesn't green-on-red (cf. green-on-green) and MP scoring make bidding worse? If opps are red, they're much more unlikely to compete to the three-level and turn a plus into a minus. At IMPS your dodgy 2S contract is unlikely to get doubled and if it does go for 150 or 200 then it's only a small swing vs 110, whereas at MPs it's a bottom. Also, from the sample of results from other tables you've given, if you had been in 2NT-3 then you'd still get a bottom, and if 2NT-2 a joint bottom.

If the 2S bid is "pass or correct to NT", then it's slightly safer because you won't end up in 3C if partner has a 1435, but 2NT on a combined 18 (or even 20) isn't going to play well. That spade suit is hardly a trick source!

That Wikipedia example hand (for double) is way better than the East hand here (for 2S) due to ideal TOX shape and decent minor suits. The Wikipedia article also notes that doubling is "extreme" and risks partner passing the X, potentially for -470.

So while others may not agree, I would rule that bidding 2S on this East hand is wild or gambling. [I think I may be taking a less generous view than most when it comes to SEWOGs in general - mainly to ensure that the NOS can't simply stop playing bridge when they know they're getting a ruling in their favour.]

This is mostly a side-issue though. As myself and others have pointed out, the SE ruling based on "you didn't match the double-dummy result" is very poor. One needs to analyse how the play went in 2S, and might go in 2N.

ahydra

[szgyula]

ahydra, on 2013-January-30, 06:45, said:

What about ruling that East's 2S bid, on a K7xxx suit and 3 points facing a possible flat 12-count opposite, is a wild or gambling action?

Even if you accept it as gambling, there is one more point: The "punishment for gambling" is playing 2NT without infraction. The infraction made the gambling worse and FOR THIS PART correction should be made, which is the difference between gambling+infraction and gambling+no infraction. We end up with the expected outcome of 2N in a complicated way. Read the goal of adjustment, 12B1.

[campboy]

Whether there was damage depends on the table score not the double-dummy result, but likewise it also depends on how this pair might be expected to score in 2NT, not the double-dummy result in 2NT. What the TD should do is work out what weighting he might give to various numbers of tricks in 2NT and see whether the result would be more favourable for NOS than their table result.

[szgyula]

ahydra, on 2013-January-30, 11:23, said:

So while others may not agree, I would rule that bidding 2S on this East hand is wild or gambling. [I think I may be taking a less generous view than most when it comes to SEWOGs in general - mainly to ensure that the NOS can't simply stop playing bridge when they know they're getting a ruling in their favour.]

I certainly agree with that principle, but in this situation the NOS was practically not aware of the infraction. E (declarer) received no MI and he was not aware of the MI on the other side of the screen. W (dummy) was not aware of the infraction until trick 5 or so when S was murmuring, refering to his partner, "he has at least 12 points, so..." at which point W became suspicious and after the play called the director to clarify the situation. During the play dummy (W) was not allowed to call the director (43A1a) and did not do so. Thus, declarer was not aware of the infraction until the play was over. E only became aware of the infraction late, when he was not in the position to do anything.

But also see my comment about the gambling issue: Even if you rule gambling, the infraction made the result of gambling worse. To this extent, compensation should be made. Thus, mathematically you should award the expected result of 2N (if better than the actual table result). You may or may not include gambling in the justification, but the end result is the same.

[Fluffy]

I would need a lot more explanation to buy the MI that west is trying to sell me. He seems to be inventing it in the air. Unless no transfers over strong NT is common in Hungary what he said: 'against a pair playing strong NT shows a strong, long S (6-7 in length, some value in side suits) while over a weak 1NT it is a balancing bid with a 5 card suit.' makes no sense.