wrong imformation
North is declarer in 4H. West bids 2NT after 1S. East alerts and offers information saying both minors wk. North plays west for both minors but when game finishes she finds out that west is very strong with 21 points. North can make 4 H if west got both minors and plays after J of h coming down by w for no more h and goes off one when Q of H comes down by W. Please let me know best judgment.
Comments
1) Find out what partnership agreement is:
2) If the agreement is 2NT is the minors/ weak then there is no comeback as a correct explanation is given.
3) If the agreement is strong, balanced then you have to rule based on misinformation. (What would NS have done if told West was strong)? .
4) If there is no agreement then you have to rule on what would NS have done if told that the West call was 'no agreement'
In each case you are also going to have to look at the effects of the UI from the description of the 2NT call.
Rulings under MI comes under law 75D3 - and for UI, law 16B
When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner. If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed.
IMHO because West thought the bid was strong balanced and East thought the bid was Weak, minors - it does not mean that there is no agreed meaning if, for instance, both convention cards shows one or the other.
So what follows is based on the assumption that 2NT did actually mean strong balanced and an incorrect explanation was given. (option 3)
1) Would NS have reached 4!h? If not all the time then what other possible contracts (by both sides) have been reached?
2) Would the play have been different? if so in what ways?
This looks like a weighted decision, you may have 4!h making, going off, 3!h making (perhaps doubled!) or maybe EW would be doubled for penalties. (Don't forget that East thinks West is weak in the minors and West is not allowed to know that East thinks that, so in another auction EW may bid 4!c, 4!D or even 5!C/ 5!D or 6NTX) You should have to poll to get the final contract(s) and then decide how to play them (don't use a DDS programme - people don't usually play DD). Once you work out the results then see how it compares with the table result - and adjust if NS are damaged.
Really depends on what the pair have agreed; if anything. If the agreement is Unusual No Trump then unless W has taken advantage of the UI the result stands. If the agreement is strong then there is a case for penalising E/W if damage has occurred. On the face of it; it is probably most likely that they have no partnership agreement and E has said what he thought it would mean and got it wrong - which is itself an infraction. With a very inexperienced partnership then; as I recently posted in the Reserving Rights thread, opponents should be very careful not to alienate players who have made an honest mistake through inexperience.
We are not talking kitchen bridge Johnlw. We are talking serious
match.
John, when you talk of "penalising" E/W, I think you mean adjusting the score, which is a very different thing.