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%?
60/40 to the NOS is usual for a strictly 50/50 decision.
Where does it say that?
I think White Book 8.12.14 covers the concept:
"Sympathetic weighting is the practice of biasing the weighting in an assigned adjusted score in favour of the non-offending side to ensure that that side does not lose out. Sympathetic weighting is not explicit in the laws, but it is not disallowed and is recommended by the EBU RC."
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I would say yes but with much caution. It is too easy to assume a strong declarer will play perfectly. We also don't always know how strong individual players are. Usually a TD will have some idea of the strength of the field, so that can give some guidance.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Try googling "sympathetic weighting".
If West believes that his partnership agreement is that 2S is a transfer to minors and alerted that as such notwithstanding that is was wrong it was honest error and as such does not break any law. East cannot speak and so the question is . . . .. as East knows that North has given wrong information East should not be allowed to take advantage of that knowledge and so I would rule that the double be taken out and the contract scored as 3D not doubled.
Polling - what is 'polling'
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/notes-on-polling-&-consulting.pdf
Transfer to clubs
It may be an honest error but it is still misinformation as NS are entitled to a correct explanation of EW's methods. See Laws 75, 20 and 21
East is under no obligation to bid badly because they know North has been misinformed. Double is completely obvious with this hand. East's obligation as a defender is to call the TD as soon as the play is over and give the correct explanation. I don't see how the Laws could be used to justify adjusting to 3D undoubled.
I think the eventual conclusion above is correct, though some people haven't appreciated that this is BBO with self-alerting (that partner doesn't see), so West is not aware of the misinformation (and as someone else posted, should have self-alerted the 3C bid).
The hand was played in face-to-face with no screen. I merely use the BBO handviewer to show the hand.