MI and UI Case

mauriceC

Hi all, new TD here.

I've recently ruled a MI Case and would like to know if my ruling was correct.

The bidding and the hand:

2D was not alerted by North.
According to NS's convention card, 2D should be Asptro (showing spades and another suit).
North thought Asptro was off for a passed hand, so he treated 2D as natural and passed.
East doubled 2D for penalty, then South bid 2S.
The final contract was 3C by EW going 4 off.
EW claimed damage from the misinformation (North's failure to alert 2D).

Ruling:
After checking NS's convention card, which didn't indicate that Asptro was off for a passed hand, I judged that South's 2D was not a misbid.
North's failure to alert 2D provided MI to EW and UI to South.
Before addressing the MI, South's 2S bid was based on UI received from North's failure to alert.
Passing the double would have been a logical alternative for South without the UI.
Therefore, I am adjusting the score to 2DXS-3.

Afterthought:
I know I should have conducted a poll indeed. My initial thought was imagining if North had announced 2D as Asptro at the table, would South pass 2DX? I would and I believe passing is definitely a logical alternative. Also, if a poll were to be done, should we ask people what they would do after the X, knowing that North has alerted 2D as Asptro?

Thanks.

Robin_BarkerTD

Hi. This is a difficult ruling!

It is difficult for the TD or the forum to determine if Pass is a logical alternative.

If Pass is not a logical alternative, EW were still misinformed, East may double with the correct information, but if West has the correct information they may understand East's double as diamonds, and pass out 2S.

If Pass is a logical alternative and the double (of 2D) is passed to North, there is some chance that North will remember and again NS end up in 2S.

gordonrainsford

If EW were told "we play 2D as spades and another in the direct seat but have not discussed if that still applies in the passout seat", might East not pass out 2D?

Robin_BarkerTD

@gordonrainsford said:
If EW were told "we play 2D as spades and another in the direct seat but have not discussed if that still applies in the passout seat", might East not pass out 2D?

Yes. 2D undoubled -3 is an alternative if 2DX -3 is not the ruling.

mauriceC

I’ve considered the alternative ruling to be East would pass 2D with correct information and adjusted to 2DS-3.

In practice, 2DXE-3 and 2DE-3 result in the same zero for E/W. But assuming the scoring is IMPS and the ruling matters more, should I deal with the MI first from (because if East passed 2D the auction ended there) or deal with the UI, which means polling to see if passing 2DX is a logical alternative, then perhaps weighted scores?

gordonrainsford

@mauriceC said:
I’ve considered the alternative ruling to be East would pass 2D with correct information and adjusted to 2DS-3.

In practice, 2DXE-3 and 2DE-3 result in the same zero for E/W. But assuming the scoring is IMPS and the ruling matters more, should I deal with the MI first from (because if East passed 2D the auction ended there) or deal with the UI, which means polling to see if passing 2DX is a logical alternative, then perhaps weighted scores?

You need to consider both and adjust for whatever outcome would be more favourable for the non-offending side.

mauriceC

Thank you both.

Senior_Kibitzer

@mauriceC said:

In practice, 2DXE-3 and 2DE-3 result in the same zero for E/W.

I assume that you mean 2D or 2DX by South, which surely must be a good score for EW?

mauriceC

@Senior_Kibitzer said:

@mauriceC said:

In practice, 2DXE-3 and 2DE-3 result in the same zero for E/W.

I assume that you mean 2D or 2DX by South, which surely must be a good score for EW?

Yes, I mean 2D or 2DX by South.
Thanks for spotting the typos.