[heracles]

---

N E S W
P P 1C*1 1D
2C P P 2D*2
2H P 4H P
4N P 5S P
6H P P X
AP


1C is 16+ strong
before bidding 2D, west ask what is 2C
S ans it is 4-7 C suit
before X, W ask again what is 2H,
S ans it is 6-7 C+H 5-4 +

result 6HX=


TD is called before playing the first card,becoz he(W) think the auction must have problem. and after TD came, S state what he said once more, and N clarify he remember wrong that he think 2C show 8+ , suit
TD let the play continue, and 6HX was made
after the play
W claim he wont bid 2D if he know 2C is not 4-7
and therefore he claim he was damaged as he can pass off 2C

how would u rule?

[Echognome]

A lot of this depends on what NS's agreements actually were. If they were as stated by South (and retold by N), then I think NS getting to game is "rub of the green". North is always going to drive to game opposite a strong club, so when West kept the bidding alive, that's just tough luck.

Now whether North should bid on over South's 4♥ is another issue entirely. If there were screens in place (or it was online), then North has no UI and result stands. If this was f2f, then North has UI that South thinks he has 4-7 hcp. Of course North knows something is wrong in the auction when South passes 2♦. Is 4♥ enough of a forward going bid that North can take over with keycard? I'm not sure he can. So I would like to rule 4♥+2. Note that South has no UI, so they are always getting to game.

[DrTodd13]

North made a mistake. His bid did not match his partnerships agreement for what 2♣ meant. There is no penalty for forgetting or misbidding. If you can believe NS, every agreement was explained correctly. Getting unlucky like west did is just the "rub of the green." After 4N, south should probably say that it seems that north may have more than previously stated based on his subsequent aggresive bidding. I'm on the fence as to whether to remove the last X or not based on south's failure to indicate north may not have what he promised after 4N. In general though, I'm inclined to leave the result as is because west should know that people sometimes misbid and that evidently north has more than stated since he also saw the 4N bid.

[FrancesHinden]

I wrote a long reply to this earlier today, which somehow got lost. This is a good example of the type of ruling that has caused a great deal of discussion among TDs on some other fora.

Let's get the easy parts out of the way first.

1. UI. As it appears this hand came up at the table, North has UI from the description of the 2C bid. However, North also has the AI that partner passed what he thought was a forcing bid. So either South psyched the 1C opening (which is illegal in some jurisdictions) or forgot their agreement. In the circumstances, the 2H bid was remarkably ethical and restrained, as knowing partner thinks he has a weak hand it might well end the auction with game or higher cold. I would not consider adjusting on the basis of UI.

2. Misinformation or misbid? We can't rule until we determine what the NS agreement actually is. Is 2C systemically how South described it, or what North had? If South described their methods correctly, there has been no misinformation and there is no damage, hence no adjustment.

3. Now for the interesting bit. Let's assume that North was correct and that West was misinformed. West now says he would have passed out 2C had he known it was meant to be natural and FG. If we believe him, should we adjusted to 2C making the obvious 12 tricks? There are two schools of thought on this, and although I've read arguments from both sides who are completely certain they are right, neither school seems to have authority of the other. The difficulty is that 6Hx should have gone off, for a good score to EW. West doubled which clearly asks for a club lead, it goes off on a club lead, but East (must have) led something else.

School 1: EW didn't get a bad board as a consequence of the MI, it was merely subsequent to the MI; they should have got a good board and the MI was irrelevant to their result. Score stands.

School 2: What happened in 6Hx is irrelevant, because it was only due to the MI that NS reached 6H. EW shouldn't have been give the chance to defend badly because the contract should have been 2C. Score adjusted to 2C+4 for both sides.

[heracles]

thx all for yr reply. I am learning to be a TD. (not yet a TD)
And the hand is happen in a event which is not important.
and unluckily, I am the south.

It is very complex case I think. I feel great difficult to rule it.
At the table, director ask for evidence of the agreement(2Cis 4-7).
we have CC, but it wont write in such detail......
and I named the book of system we follow, director reject to accept this evidence.

Anyway, as a student of TD course, I really interested in the ruling rather than care about my result

there is some pts I really havent think of, such as the UI north take may lead him to bid 4N rather than let 4H close.

many thx~

btw, the ruling I face is 2C+4, I dont feel suprise of it, but I believe it should be different score for E/W, as their damage partly (major part) come from non-necessary 2D bid, the lightening X that pn difficult to understand, and finally the wrong defend
I think EW should receive 6HX= anyway, while NS adjust to 4H+2 or 2C+4,
that is much fair

[heracles]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 28 2006, 07:46 AM, said:

2. Misinformation or misbid? We can't rule until we determine what the NS agreement actually is. Is 2C systemically how South described it, or what North had? If South described their methods correctly, there has been no misinformation and there is no damage, hence no adjustment.

3. Now for the interesting bit. Let's assume that North was correct and that West was misinformed. West now says he would have passed out 2C had he known it was meant to be natural and FG. If we believe him, should we adjusted to 2C making the obvious 12 tricks? There are two schools of thought on this, and although I've read arguments from both sides who are completely certain they are right, neither school seems to have authority of the other. The difficulty is that 6Hx should have gone off, for a good score to EW. West doubled which clearly asks for a club lead, it goes off on a club lead, but East (must have) led something else.

School 1: EW didn't get a bad board as a consequence of the MI, it was merely subsequent to the MI; they should have got a good board and the MI was irrelevant to their result. Score stands.

School 2: What happened in 6Hx is irrelevant, because it was only due to the MI that NS reached 6H. EW shouldn't have been give the chance to defend badly because the contract should have been 2C. Score adjusted to 2C+4 for both sides.

really thx for yr detail reply, the logic is very clear.
for 2, South descibed it correctly, bt north remember a different thing
how even it is difficult to provide, other than a detail system notes,
but do u think the acution passing 2C is a strong evdience to prove what they are playing?

the table ruling is quite near what 3 said,
but I would like to ask
1. it is quite clearly what is going on at the table, West should reasonable logical come to the true ans, if it stand, west clearly is trying a double shoot, if the x fail, he must protect from 6H is not possible to reach.
2. the linkage between the MI and damage is not stronger than the bad defend of EW. they can score the best with 6Hx, but they miss it only, the C lead is quite clear, if west need the D/H lead, the x is not reasonable.

[blackshoe]

The footnote to Law 75D2 says

Quote

the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Some TDs read this as requiring that the OS prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a misbid, but that's not what it says. It says you examine the evidence, and use your judgement.

In this case, the evidence is the statements of North and South. South mentioned a book. If he could present a copy of that book to the TD, that would have to be considered in evidence, but simply naming a book won't cut it. OTOH, South stated what he believed to be their agreeement, and North confirmed it, saying he had misbid. IMO, this is sufficient reason to rule misbid, so I disagree with the table ruling. I might have agreed, had I been at the table, because North's attitude or mannerisms may have indicated he was just going along with what South said, not that he was sure of their agreeement, but we have not been presented with any such evidence here.

What you have to do here is compare the evidence it was a misbid - South's statement of their agreement, and North's corroborating statement - with the evidence it was a misexplanation, which is that North's hand doesn't match South's explanation. IMO the former outweighs the latter.

[hotShot]

South pass after 2♣ clearly shows that south believed that his explanation was right. This pass is AI to north, so we don't need to discuss UI abuse here.

If you want the TD to consider your system notes, you have to give them to him prior to playing the first board. (Otherwise you might have different sets of system descriptions to use.) As TD i would only accept the CC that was put on the table, if you have to get a CC out of your pocket, i won't accept it as evidence.

Since the CC is not detailed enough, i may have to consider MI (missinformation) here. If north has 4-7 HCP and south passes, the missing 6-10 HCP must be with east. This makes the 2♦ bid a lot more attractive.
So the 2♦ bid is clearly a consequence of the MI, so there is damage.
The score should be corrected to 2♣+4 both sides.

[Echognome]

hotShot, on Jul 28 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

If you want the TD to consider your system notes, you have to give them to him prior to playing the first board. (Otherwise you might have different sets of system descriptions to use.) As TD i would only accept the CC that was put on the table, if you have to get a CC out of your pocket, i won't accept it as evidence.

Unless you are playing in a major international tournament, I don't imagine this to be practical in the slightest. We actually bring a copy of our system notes with us, but haven't had to use them for an appeal (yet). Very few other pairs do. I cannot imagine giving them to a TD before hand, but if we were involved in an appeal I couldn't imagine them NOT being submittable evidence. I am fine with needing notes so as not to make up agreements on the spot, but your view here seems a bit too rigid for my taste.

[awm]

North/South reached a contract which should have gone down on normal play and defense. If east had lead a club as his partner requested to set 6♥ a trick, would they be asking the director for a ruling at all? I don't think so.

It seems clear that east/west would have gotten a good result on "normal" defense (i.e. east leads the suit his partner's lightner double asks him to lead). So no adjustment for east/west.

As for north/south, it depends a lot on their actual agreement. If their agreement is "2♣ game forcing" then the misexplanation was a significant factor in their good result and they should receive 2♣+4. But there's no real reason to believe this is their agreement -- they have indicated that 2♣ NF was their agreement and cited a book that backs that up. Of course there is some judgement required here by the director/committee as to whether N/S are being truthful or have sufficient evidence to show their agreement is in fact 2♣ not forcing.

My feeling is that result stands for both sides, although I could see adjusting the N/S result (to 2♣+4) if they can't sufficiently back up the claim that north misbid.