Was there damage?

[Herb]

Matchpoints, club game
N-S Vul

East holds

A8
KQ54
AQ96
T65

Bidding:

N E S W
P 1NT* 2S 3H**
P 4H P P
P

* 15-18
** Natural - a 5+ or 6 card suit, not forcing.

At the end of the bidding, S announces that there was a failure to
alert, that her bid was Hamilton, showing Spades and a minor. [OK, I
know that she shouldn't have announced that at this time, but I digress.]

At this point East states that had he known the bid showed Spades and a
minor, he would have passed, and calls the director, who says that he'll
look at it after the game is over.

The result was 4H down 1. Nine tricks were made at most tables, where
the contract was usually 2H or 3H.

Was East in fact damaged, or did he just judge badly regardless of the
opponent's calls?

- Herb

[Adam Beneschan]

Since East stated after the auction and before the play (and before he
saw partner's hand) that he would have passed had he known the correct
agreement, I'm inclined to take him at his word, although I think I'd
ask him to elaborate a bit more to make sure he's not preparing for a
double shot--if 4H makes there's no damage, and if it doesn't make
then he's cleverly set himself up for an adjustment by making this
statement. I don't think most players would be this devious, though.
So I'm inclined to rule that there was damage.

This may be an example why it might be better to require defenders to
announce their mistaken explanations at the end of the auction,
instead of the end of the play. If South had waited until the end of
play, as he should have, then East's statement about what he would
have done would have to be taken with more skepticism, since he now
knows the result. Of course, requiring defenders to announce their
mistakes earlier would lead to additional UI for the defender's
partner, which we'd then expect him to deal with according to the
Laws.

-- Adam

[Fred.]

If the error were disclosed before the end of
play I would think that both the incorrect and
correct descriptions would usually become UI.

Some players and directors might well short
cirucuit trying to find correct LA's.

Fred.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<5b965449-6d04-4d02...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,

I'm more skeptical. I can't see anything about his hand that changes
depending on whether 2S shows one or two suits. Do they have different
agreements about what 3H means depending on this? It makes it more
likely that hearts will break badly, but he knows he's in at least a 9
card fit, so that's not likely to be too much of a problem.

He has a minimum 1NT, and partner didn't even invite, so I consider his
4H to be a gambling action. I think he IS trying for a double shot.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Adam Beneschan]

On Feb 1, 4:51 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <5b965449-6d04-4d02-a3a9-288a64026...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,

You seem to be alluding to the standard that if a player takes a
"wild, irrational, or gambling" action after (say) a hesitation,
hoping to get a good score if it makes and argue for an adjustment if
he doesn't, the director should rule it a "double shot" and not
adjust. But in this case, East presumably didn't know about the
irregularity at the time he made the "gambling" 4H bid.

-- Adam

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<38161b73-f455-472e...@i10g2000pbl.googlegroups.com>,

Good point. Maybe he suspected, since Hamilton is a pretty popular
convention?

I still would need to be convinced how his hand is better when South is
one-suited instead of two-suited. Since his claim that he wouldn't have
bid it with correct information is self-serving, I'd like some
explanation of the logic to back it up.

[Herb]

His logic, which he explained at the time, was that he knew he had a
borderline bid, and the odds of a favorable position for the DK were
sufficiently less if there was known minor suit strength to his left.
He also stated that if 4H was made, he would accept the score for 3H
making 4!

The director ruled that there was no damage.

Incidentally, there was no UI to North from South's premature
announcement about the failure to alert, because North said something
like "oh yes sorry, I forgot to alert".

- Herb

[Barry Margolin]

In article <y2mWq.13143$Ub2....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>,

A bit of a stretch, I think. With his hand, I'd suspect that LHO's
minor is clubs, not diamonds.

[judyorcarl]

On Feb 1, 7:51 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <5b965449-6d04-4d02-a3a9-288a64026...@x6g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,

I don't understand your statement that partner didn't even invite.

Nothing about the post suggests that 3H was a save by agreement,
expecting to go down.

Maybe partner wouldn't have gone to 3 in a noncompetitive auction, but
surely he expects to make frequently, if not usually.

Carl

[OldPalooka]

On Feb 1, 3:05 pm, Herb <H...@the.herb.garden> wrote:

Why are the choices a binary 'was damaged' or 'badly judged'? 4H is
obviously aggressive if 3H is competitive to invitational, but not
necessarily unreasonable.

East's explanation about the DK sounds plausible but looks wrong to
me. Regardless I would be inclined to roll back to 3H if that
explanation was made before the play of the hand, _and if the DK were
actually off side and that was the reason 4H was set_. This is a
curiosity to me that a probably erroneous inference that turns out to
be true can constitute damage.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Barry Margolin skrev:

> I'm more skeptical. I can't see anything about his hand that changes
> depending on whether 2S shows one or two suits. Do they have different
> agreements about what 3H means depending on this? It makes it more
> likely that hearts will break badly, but he knows he's in at least a 9
> card fit, so that's not likely to be too much of a problem.

> He has a minimum 1NT, and partner didn't even invite, so I consider his
> 4H to be a gambling action. I think he IS trying for a double shot.

I agree with all this.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Herb skrev:

> Incidentally, there was no UI to North from South's premature
> announcement about the failure to alert,

Of course there was.

> because North said something like "oh yes sorry, I forgot to
> alert".

It is still UI, and "the partner may not choose from among
logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been
suggested over another by the extraneous information."

... whether he already had the information or not.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

judyorcarl skrev:

> I don't understand your statement that partner didn't even invite.

> Nothing about the post suggests that 3H was a save by agreement,
> expecting to go down.

It doesn't really change anything. If he invites and his partner
accepts the invitation with a minimum hand, then partner is
gambling.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <4f2a5029$0$288$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> judyorcarl skrev:
>
> > I don't understand your statement that partner didn't even invite.
>
> > Nothing about the post suggests that 3H was a save by agreement,
> > expecting to go down.
>
> It doesn't really change anything. If he invites and his partner
> accepts the invitation with a minimum hand, then partner is
> gambling.

But judyorcarl is right about my statement. I misunderstood "not
forcing" to mean "not forward going".

So maybe he *did* invite, but opener really doesn't have a hand that
should accept. But now he's just stretching, not wild.

[Dave Flower]

Actually, I think that the incorrect explanation discourages a bid of
4H. It suggests longer spades, rendering it less likely thst there is
a spade ruff in the East hand.

I would therefore allow the bidding to stand. However, it is quite
possible that the defence benefited from UI, and I would not hesitate
to adjust the score if appropriate.

Dave Flower

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Barry Margolin skrev:

> But judyorcarl is right about my statement. I misunderstood "not
> forcing" to mean "not forward going".

> So maybe he *did* invite, but opener really doesn't have a hand that
> should accept. But now he's just stretching, not wild.

Okay, I can accept that point of view. After all his hearts are
pretty good.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<4be363a0-3ea2-437f...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

Dave Flower <DavJF...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:

> I would therefore allow the bidding to stand. However, it is quite
> possible that the defence benefited from UI, and I would not hesitate
> to adjust the score if appropriate.

But North claims he did remember what they were playing, he just forgot
to alert. So he doesn't appear to have benefited from it.

[Dave Flower]

On Feb 2, 10:40 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article

> <4be363a0-3ea2-437f-9f1e-dbfca5242...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

>  Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>
> > I would therefore allow the bidding to stand. However, it is quite
> > possible that the defence benefited from UI, and I would not hesitate
> > to adjust the score if appropriate.
>
> But North claims he did remember what they were playing, he just forgot
> to alert.  So he doesn't appear to have benefited from it.
>
> --
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA

I'm not so sure. In fact South has two pieces of UI;

1) South did not alert

2) South announced, illegally, that they had forgotten to alert

Suppose now, South has two logical alternatives, on suggested by the
first piece of UI, the other by the second. It seems absurd, but it
seems that South cannot play without violating Law 16B1a.

Can anyone resolve this problem ?

Dave Flower

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<2fb84ef9-8602-4c2e...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Dave Flower <DavJF...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:

> On Feb 2, 10:40 am, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4be363a0-3ea2-437f-9f1e-dbfca5242...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
> >
> > > I would therefore allow the bidding to stand. However, it is quite
> > > possible that the defence benefited from UI, and I would not hesitate
> > > to adjust the score if appropriate.
> >
> > But North claims he did remember what they were playing, he just forgot
> > to alert.  So he doesn't appear to have benefited from it.
> >
> > --
> > Barry Margolin
> > Arlington, MA
>
> I'm not so sure. In fact South has two pieces of UI;
>
> 1) South did not alert
>
> 2) South announced, illegally, that they had forgotten to alert

Both were done by North.

>
> Suppose now, South has two logical alternatives, on suggested by the
> first piece of UI, the other by the second. It seems absurd, but it
> seems that South cannot play without violating Law 16B1a.
>
> Can anyone resolve this problem ?

If they each demonstrably suggest different LAs, then they probably
cancel each other out, and the combined UI probably doesn't suggest
anything specific, so South is not constrained.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Dave Flower skrev:

> I'm not so sure. In fact South has two pieces of UI;

(North has UI - not South)

> 1) South did not alert

> 2) South announced, illegally, that they had forgotten to alert

> Suppose now, South has two logical alternatives, on suggested by the
> first piece of UI, the other by the second. It seems absurd, but it
> seems that South cannot play without violating Law 16B1a.

> Can anyone resolve this problem ?

You mean North's problem:

Yes. If one action is demonstrably suggested over another (LA) by
UI, then he must not choose that action.

If five different actions are equally much suggested, and no
alternative exists, then North is free to chose any of them.

If some of them are less suggested than the rest, then those are
his options.

[Lorne]

"Herb" wrote in message
news:QyjWq.18426$%Q3....@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...

.....................

I can see no reason why knowing N has a 2-suiter makes a difference. N
presumably has some points to bid and E knows that some of these are in one
or both minors so the fact they may be in a 4/5 card minor rather than a 2/3
card one is of little consequence. In fact you are more likely to bid on a
weak hand when 2-suited rather than single suited so if anything West is
slight favourite to be a little stronger over a 2-suited call.

[Dave Flower]

On Feb 2, 12:47 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:

Thinking it over, I now realise that there are, in fact, three items
of UI

1) North's failure to alert

2) South's announcement that it there should have been an alert

3) North's statement that 'he forgot'

Now assuming that (3) is true, and not self-serving, the UI under (2)
is duplicated by AI. However, we are left with (1) and (3); it is
practically self-evident that the situation is (3). So South has the
UI that North remembered the convention; how this might have affected
the defence cannot be judged without seeing the four hands, and
knowing haw the defence actually went.

Dave Flower

[Thomas Dehn]

Bad luck for him. If he wants not to be ruled against
on the assumption that he forgot their agreement,
he has to alert.

Of course N/S could provide evidence supporting the claim
that N did not forget. But that evidence has to be
stronger than the evidence of the failed alert.



Thomas

[richlp]

> Dave Flower- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm confused as to why 3 is relevant.

North's failure to alert is UI to South who must proceed as if North
had alerted. South is not allowed to select an action in either the
bidding or play which assumes that North forgot the meaning of his
bid. The fact that he has UI to this effect should have no impact on
his choices.

What am I missing?

[Jürgen R.]

"Bertel Lund Hansen" <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4f2a85e4$0$287$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

> Dave Flower skrev:
>
>> I'm not so sure. In fact South has two pieces of UI;
>
> (North has UI - not South)
>
>> 1) South did not alert
>
>> 2) South announced, illegally, that they had forgotten to alert
>
>> Suppose now, South has two logical alternatives, on suggested by the
>> first piece of UI, the other by the second. It seems absurd, but it
>> seems that South cannot play without violating Law 16B1a.
>
>> Can anyone resolve this problem ?
>
> You mean North's problem:
>
> Yes. If one action is demonstrably suggested

"could demonstrably have been suggested" is not at
all the same as "is demonstrably suggested"

[Dave Flower]

> What am I missing?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The fact that South has UI indicating that North forget to alert (as
opposed to forgot the convention) also prohibits South from any action
on the bidding or play that assumes South forgot the convention.

This would appear to possibly put South is a position with no legal
play.

I would suggest in this case that the two items of UI be considered as
one, to wit 'North forgot to alert'. Consequently, applying L16, South
must defend on the assumption that North forgot the convention

Dave Flower

[David Stevenson]

Herb wrote

>Matchpoints, club game
>N-S Vul
>
>East holds
>
>A8
>KQ54
>AQ96
>T65
>
>Bidding:
>
>N E S W
>P 1NT* 2S 3H**
>P 4H P P
>P

A confusing diagram. Please use standard format which always has West
to the left.

W N E S

P 1NT* 2S
3H** P 4H P
P P

>* 15-18
>** Natural - a 5+ or 6 card suit, not forcing.
>
>At the end of the bidding, S announces that there was a failure to
>alert, that her bid was Hamilton, showing Spades and a minor. [OK, I
>know that she shouldn't have announced that at this time, but I digress.]
>
>At this point East states that had he known the bid showed Spades and a
>minor, he would have passed, and calls the director, who says that
>he'll look at it after the game is over.

Good try. This is what is known as the double shot: he can safely say
this garbage, and not call the TD if 4H makes

>The result was 4H down 1. Nine tricks were made at most tables, where
>the contract was usually 2H or 3H.
>
>Was East in fact damaged, or did he just judge badly regardless of the
>opponent's calls?

Since the meaning of 2S does not affect his 4H bid in any way, he
judged extremely well in making a cost nothing attempt to influence a
naive TD.

No damage, no adjustment, I congratulate East on his try.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

>Now assuming that (3) is true, and not self-serving,

Whether a statement is true or not does not affect whether it is
self-serving.

[David Stevenson]

Adam Beneschan wrote

>You seem to be alluding to the standard that if a player takes a
>"wild, irrational, or gambling" action after (say) a hesitation,
>hoping to get a good score if it makes and argue for an adjustment if
>he doesn't, the director should rule it a "double shot" and not
>adjust. But in this case, East presumably didn't know about the
>irregularity at the time he made the "gambling" 4H bid.

IWoG is out of date and has been replaced by SEWoG.

The double shot is not illegal per se. It is only illegal if a NO
takes a SEWoG action: there are many legal double shots.

[David Stevenson]

Herb wrote

>Incidentally, there was no UI to North from South's premature
>announcement about the failure to alert, because North said something
>like "oh yes sorry, I forgot to alert".

First and foremost, there *was* UI from the illegal statement. The
fact that you do not believe it mattered does not mean it was not UI.

Second, while it may or may not be relevant here [ok, probably not]
there was UI from the failure to alert.

Third, North's comment is self-serving. That does not mean, as Dave
Flower suggests, that it is either a self-serving lie, or not
self-serving and not a lie. It means that less weight should be given
to self-serving statements ***by both sides***. It is not unheard-of
[to put it mildly!] for someone accused of something to tell porkies.
The reason I stress for both sides, while not relevant here, is it never
ceases to amaze me how many comments on RGB and in other forums throw
doubt on the OS's self-serving statements while taking the NOS's
self-serving statements as gospel.

So, when I originally answered the OP I said there was no damage from
the apparent MI, merely a double shot attempt by East. I always assume
that the OP includes anything relevant unless there is a clear omission,
and I would have expected some further comment in the OP if UI had been
involved. Still several posts in this thread have looked at the UI
problem.

The following was UI:

The failure to alert
The unfortunate and illegal statement about the failure to alert
The comment that the failure to alert was a forgetting to alert only

In theory the TD should check whether *any* of those three affected
N/S's bidding or play. But I doubt that they did.

[Dave Flower]

On Feb 3, 2:33 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Flower wrote
>
> >Now assuming that (3) is true, and not self-serving,
>
>    Whether a statement is true or not does not affect whether it is
> self-serving.
>
> --
> David Stevenson            Bridge      RTFLB     Cats         Railways
> Liverpool, England, UK     bluejak on BBO        Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

> <webjak...@googlemail.com>       EBL TD          Tel: +44 151 677 7412

> bluejak666 on Skype        Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

To a certain extent it does; if it is not true, it is very likely to
be self-serving

Dave Flower

[Fred.]

Yes it has only 15 HCP, but it has 7 contols, 3-1/2 QT, 4-card trump support,
and no minor honors in spades. I agree with opener's view of it as borderline.
Switch the black suits and I would consider it clearly in the maximum
range despite the minimum point count.

I do think they need to agree to non-forcing competitive or non-forcing
invitational, and might have agreed the latter without telling the opponents,
each other, or themselves.

Fred.

[David Stevenson]

richlp wrote

>On Feb 2, 7:01 am, Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:

>> Thinking it over, I now realise that there are, in fact, three items
>> of UI
>>
>> 1) North's failure to alert
>>
>> 2) South's announcement that it there should have been an alert
>>
>> 3) North's statement that 'he forgot'

[s]

>I'm confused as to why 3 is relevant.
>
>North's failure to alert is UI to South who must proceed as if North
>had alerted. South is not allowed to select an action in either the
>bidding or play which assumes that North forgot the meaning of his
>bid. The fact that he has UI to this effect should have no impact on
>his choices.
>
>What am I missing?

That what people should do and what people do are not the same.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

>On Feb 3, 2:33 pm, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dave Flower wrote
>>
>> >Now assuming that (3) is true, and not self-serving,
>>
>>    Whether a statement is true or not does not affect whether it is
>> self-serving.

>To a certain extent it does; if it is not true, it is very likely to
>be self-serving

Ok, if it is not true it is fairly likely to be self-serving, but may
not be.

But it is the other way round that is important: self-serving
statements are often true, and are more likely to be true than false.

The reason for the self-serving approach is not that all self-serving
statements are false, which is what you made it sound like, but that
self-serving statements are more likely to be false than other
statements.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955

<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412

[Steve Willner]

[lots of trouble sending this; apologies if this is a duplicate]

On 2012-02-01 6:05 PM, Herb wrote:
> Matchpoints, club game
> N-S Vul
>
> East holds
>
> A8
> KQ54
> AQ96
> T65
>
> Bidding:
>
> N E S W
> P 1NT* 2S 3H**
> P 4H P P
> P
>

> * 15-18
> ** Natural - a 5+ or 6 card suit, not forcing.
>
> At the end of the bidding, S announces that there was a failure to
> alert, that her bid was Hamilton, showing Spades and a minor.

> At this point East states that had he known the bid showed Spades and a
> minor, he would have passed, and calls the director, who says that he'll
> look at it after the game is over.
>

> The result was 4H down 1. Nine tricks were made at most tables, where
> the contract was usually 2H or 3H.
>
> Was East in fact damaged, or did he just judge badly regardless of the
> opponent's calls?

There always seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion over
misinformation (MI) rulings. The primary question is _not_ whether East
(in this case) "judged badly" after receiving the MI. The right
question is what East would have done if given correct information.

The whole business about "serious error" or "wild or gambling" is
strictly secondary. Here it seems very clear that 4H is not "serious
error" as the Laws use the term. That's reserved for something like a
revoke or failing to cash the setting trick when you see it in front of
you. "Wild or gambling," whatever it means, doesn't include raising
partner to game with great 4-card support and a decent hand overall.

As is often the case, what East would have done if given correct
information in the first place is a question of bridge judgment. The
Director should not take East's word as final, but here it does seem to
me that South having a second suit makes 4H less attractive. If the
suit is diamonds, the finesse is losing. If it's clubs, probably more
likely, losers in clubs may be hard to get rid of, and there could be a
trump promotion. So I find East's argument credible, but I note that
others do not. This is why Directors should consult on all judgment
rulings. If I were being consulted, I'd want to hear East's argument in
a bit more detail, but I'd be inclined towards score adjustment.

[Dave Flower]

I would argue the other way; were 2S to show a single suiter, the
chances of a spade ruff in the short (East) hand are reduced, as South
is likely to hold 6+ spades, whereas a 2-suiter may, dependoing on
agreements, promise only four spades.

I therefore agree with you that it is a matter where several opinions
should be sought

Dave Flower