A ruling problem on misinformation
2S was alerted as a transfer to clubs, but the correct explanation should be 2S showed either 11 points or a transfer to clubs. NS got a bottom with 3DXN-2 and requested for an adjustment of the score. He claimed that, with the correct information, he would not have bid 3D.
My ruling is that North would have passed over 3C if 2S was correctly explained, after which East would have bid 3NT as West had shown a maximum by bidding 3C instead of 2NT. I didn't conduct a poll as I thought it's straightforward.
Depending on the lead and play, 3NT might make on a diamond lead but would go down with other lead. However, even with a diamond lead, declarer would still need to find the SQ and play the hand correctly, which I would not assume.
So, taking all factors into account, I ruled the board as 3NTW-1.
Now, some TDs suggest that 3D bid should stand, because “2S transfer bid need not be weak and that North has taken wild and gambling action so probably deserves the score obtained. There is misinformation but the misinformation does not say that East can't have 11 points and Diamonds. North assumed it was weak and made a rash bid.”
I believe that 3D is far from being a wild or gambling action. If West does not include 11 points in the explanation of 2S, East is less likely to hold an invitational hand, so bidding 3D becomes a much safer action.
I am now thinking of conducting a poll to see what North would do over 3C if 2S had been correctly explained. If pass is found to be a logical alternative, then we should allow for the possibility that North would pass over 3C.
Is that the correct procedure? Thanks.
Comments
I don't think so. The "logical alternative" rule applies when a player has UI, which North does not in this case.
I similarly don't think that N's 3D is wild and gambling - although possibly somewhat aggressive. Also, if N assumes (in error) that East is weak, then that is just that - an error. A mistake is not the same as wild and gambling.
If a transfer could be strong, then it should perhaps have been mentioned - especially if customary usage is weak.
Finally, if the 2S was a transfer to clubs, should it not have been announced under BB4G2?
If the logical alternative procedure applies to UI cases only but not MI, is it up to the TD to determine what would have happened if the non-offending side had received the correct explanation?
Correct - Logical alternative only applies to UI. However whenever there is MI, there is UI as well. Here East has UI from his partner mis-describing the meaning of the bid).
Yes it's up to the TD, usually on the balance of probabilities, looking favourably on the Non-Offending side. Don't forget we can have weighted assigned adjusted scores.
I know East has UI. If I believe East's X made use of the UI, I can use polling and the concept of logical alternative to determine whether the X is legal.
But how do I determine what would have happened over 3C if 2S was explained correctly? Am I allowed to use polling to help me decide what is likely to happen? In my view, passing over 3C is obvious, but after discussed with some TDs, some people would overcall 3D anyway. However, it shouldn't matter what I or other people would do over 3C. I think the crucial question is whether the North at the table might have bid differently with correct explanation of 2S, and my answer is yes. So, I believe score should be adjusted.
At times these "what would have happened" questions can be hard to answer. This case seems fairly straight forward though.
If you believe this N would pass over 3C, then adjust.
Simples
("Some people" sounds like a logical alternative, which doesn't apply here.)
I don't think wild or gambling comes into it. 3C should surely also have been alerted as showing a maximum. If 2S shows long clubs that does make a diamond bid more attractive. I'm a little bit less convinced that North definitely lets the hand go with the right explanation, same as Maurice.
That's where the polling can help you, or sometimes just chatting to one or two experienced players will help. A weighted score with maybe 20-30% of 3Dx is a possibility. 3NT -1 seems reasonable.
I was polled on this yesterday.
As Jeremy and James say, forget LAs and forget "gambling".
What I said was that with the MI, I might bid 3D or I might pass. With correct information, I would be more likely to pass than with the MI. This seemed to be a general view.
With MI cases, we are encouraged to look at weighting of outcomes and to give some benefit of doubt to the NOS (non-offending side). I would expect you to rule North passing somewhere between most of the time and all of the time, so it is tempting to simply rule that North would pass.
If North passes, East will surely bid 3NT, but North might well lead a diamond rather than a heart after the revised auction, and some of the time, 3NT will, I reckon, make.
So, even if you rule a contract of 3NT 100% of the time, you might be advised to weigh in that it makes for some proportion of the time, but I would think not too great a proportion.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
When estimating the number of tricks in 3NT, should I take the declarer’s standard into account?
Also, if there is a two-way finesse, should I simply treat it as 50–50, or should I favour the NOS by assigning a lower success rate to the finesse, say 30%?