[shevek]

To what extent to players jeopardize their right to an adjustment by failing to call the director at the time.

This was a case of misinformation.

---

This drifted 3 off. North was adamant that 3♦ was a game interest relay.
South not sure. No director call.

EW approached me at the end of the 9-board match, wanting +300/500 against 4♥x.
After quizzing NS, it was clear they had no clear agreement.

SHould I adjust?

[mr1303]

What do EW claim that they would do differently, if they knew that 3D was "undiscussed"?

In the absence of a strong claim to do something differently, I see no grounds for an adjustment. This seems like "This was a rubbish contract that went 3 off. Had we known it was a rubbish contract we would have doubled at some point".

[nige1]

 shevek, on 2014-November-08, 21:17, said:

To what extent to players jeopardize their right to an adjustment by failing to call the director at the time. This was a case of misinformation. This drifted 3 off. North was adamant that 3♦ was a game interest relay. South not sure. No director call.
EW approached me at the end of the 9-board match, wanting +300/500 against 4♥x. After quizzing NS, it was clear they had no clear agreement. SHould I adjust?

---

Again, Booby Wolff's "convention disruption" was rewarded with a good score . IMO ...

• EW saved time by waiting until after play, to ask for a ruling, because had they called the director earlier, he would probably have just asked them to play on.
• The director should adjust if NS had no clear agreement, because EW can make game but might well have been inhibited from entering the auction by NS misinformation.

[barmar]

This is the kind of thing that Wolff meant when he came up with the concept of "convention disruption". How can NS play a convention like this opening NT showing an unknown 2-suiter, and not have agreements about the followup bids?

Unfortunately, there's nothing in the Laws that says that players have to have reasonable agreements. They're allowed to agree to use a convention and not agree about its followups.

But if the followup doesn't have an agreed meaning, it's MI to tell the opponents that it does.

[shevek]

 mr1303, on 2014-November-08, 21:38, said:

What do EW claim that they would do differently, if they knew that 3D was "undiscussed"?

In the absence of a strong claim to do something differently, I see no grounds for an adjustment. This seems like "This was a rubbish contract that went 3 off. Had we known it was a rubbish contract we would have doubled at some point".

If West hears from South that 3♦ is p/c, he can infer an auction gone off the the rails.

[shevek]

 nige1, on 2014-November-08, 22:12, said:

Again, Booby Wolff's "convention disruption" was rewarded with a good score . IMO ...

• EW saved time by waiting until after play, to ask for a ruling, because had they called the director earlier, he would probably have just asked them to play on.
• The director should adjust if NS had no clear agreement, because EW can make game but might well have been inhibited from entering the auction by NS misinformation.

Did you mean "waiting till after the play"?
They waited till after the MATCH, 40 minutes.

[nige1]

 shevek, on 2014-November-08, 22:25, said:

Did you mean "waiting till after the play"? They waited till after the MATCH, 40 minutes.

I agree that, as soon as North corrected South's explanation, all players at the table were duty-bound to call the director. So all were at fault. But a team-mate argues that, in this kind of situation, it's sometimes unclear how badly you were damaged until after you discuss the hand-records with partner/team.

[mr1303]

Again I ask the question, what do EW claim they would do differently?

The agreement, so far as I can ascertain, was no agreement, not that 3D was P/C

[blackshoe]

 nige1, on 2014-November-08, 23:18, said:

I agree that, as soon as North corrected South's explanation, all players at the table were duty-bound to call the director. So all were at fault. But a team-mate argues that, in this kind of situation, it is sometimes unclear how badly you were damaged until after you discuss the hand-records with partner/team.

Law 20F5 says that when a player (North in this case) believes that his partner's explanation of one of his (North's) calls is incorrect, he (North) must call the director at the first legal opportunity (which in this case, for this NS, is as soon as the final pass has been made in the auction). North has thus committed a very serious infraction of law. Law 9B says that the director "should" be called after attention is drawn to an irregularity, and that any player "may" do so.I do not believe it's appropriate to call EW "at fault" in such a case. In particular, I would have to have a very good reason to not give NS a PP, but I would require a presumably different very good reason to give one to EW, and I suspect neither reason exists in this case.

[pran]

This auction appears to me the closest one can come to a completely random auction (no agreement on any of the calls).

1: Is there any law against such an auction?

2: How shall it be treated?

In this case I feel for the principle that "no agreements" should be treated as "the actual hand is the agreement", and that the result on the board should be adjusted to a reasonable result with opponents knowing what hands North and South actually held (without allowing for North and/or South to having called differently absent any irregularity).

Consequently I would prefer a score adjustment to 4♥X -3.

[RMB1]

Were there screens? - in which case a TD call at the end of the stanza is entirely reasonable.

Otherwise, I think South should [call the TD at the end of the auction and] explain that he was not sure about the meaning of 3♦

[barmar]

 pran, on 2014-November-09, 02:45, said:

This auction appears to me the closest one can come to a completely random auction (no agreement on any of the calls).

I think they agreed about the opening 2NT bid.

[pran]

 pran, on 2014-November-09, 02:45, said:

This auction appears to me the closest one can come to a completely random auction (no agreement on any of the calls).

 barmar, on 2014-November-09, 11:39, said:

I think they agreed about the opening 2NT bid.

I don't Accept that.

South has no strength justifying any forcing call so p/c is a reasonable explanation on South's bid. However, why should South bid 3♦ rather than 3♣ unless North has specifically shown Diamonds as one of his suits? The 3♦ bid appears insane.

Knowing North's Cards I don't accept that he can have intended to show Diamonds as one of his suits, nor can I infer from OP that South made any statement to such effect.

I accept that North may have intended to show a two-suiter, but I do not accept that South can have had any (agreed) understanding of any of North's calls (including the opening 2NT bid), nor can he have had any reasonable understanding of his own calls.

[sfi]

 pran, on 2014-November-09, 15:24, said:

South has no strength justifying any forcing call so p/c is a reasonable explanation on South's bid. However, why should South bid 3♦ rather than 3♣ unless North has specifically shown Diamonds as one of his suits? The 3♦ bid appears insane.

South is willing to play in the 5-3 heart fit if partner has hearts and clubs. 3D may be misguided, but it's hardly insane.

Playing 3D as a game interest relay is, to me at least, the bizarre part of the auction. But once North opens 2NT and South chooses 3D it's hard to see how E-W are damaged, no matter what the true explanations are.

[nige1]

 mr1303, on 2014-November-08, 21:38, said:

What do EW claim that they would do differently, if they knew that 3D was "undiscussed"?

 sfi, on 2014-November-09, 18:13, said:

It's hard to see how E-W are damaged, no matter what the true explanations are.

IMO, it should be unnecessary for E-W to volunteer self-serving claims. A director should appreciate that it's harder to compete when North tells you that South is making a game-try.

[sfi]

 nige1, on 2014-November-09, 18:31, said:

IMO, it should be unnecessary for E-W to volunteer self-serving claims. A director should appreciate that it's harder to compete when North tells you that South is making a game-try.

I wasn't asking for E-W to say what they would do differently - I was claiming that I don't see what they would do differently. West is clearly not competing over 3D. East is clearly not bidding over 3NT, having passed initially. Would either side double? Maybe West will, but West could well have doubled anyway.

No chance E-W are getting to game after this start though.

[shevek]

 nige1, on 2014-November-08, 23:18, said:

I agree that, as soon as North corrected South's explanation, all players at the table were duty-bound to call the director. So all were at fault. But a team-mate argues that, in this kind of situation, it's sometimes unclear how badly you were damaged until after you discuss the hand-records with partner/team.

I suggest your team-mate needs to put in more effort. If you wonder whether you might have been damaged, it's not enough to put an asterisk on your scorecard. The least you should do is call and explain. If analysis is not a strength or time is very short, you can tell the director "I think we could have made something in spades or maybe doubled them."

[gnasher]

 shevek, on 2014-November-09, 20:47, said:

I suggest your team-mate needs to put in more effort. If you wonder whether you might have been damaged, it's not enough to put an asterisk on your scorecard. The least you should do is call and explain. If analysis is not a strength or time is very short, you can tell the director "I think we could have made something in spades or maybe doubled them."

Or you can just say "I think we were misinformed, and I haven't yet thought about whether we were damaged."

[Aardv]

2NT shows an unspecified 2-suiter, and they have no agreement as to continuations? I'm not sure that there's damage from misinformation, but I'm unhappy with North-South's approach to the game, which arguably is contrary to Law 74.

[barmar]

 Aardv, on 2014-November-10, 07:05, said:

2NT shows an unspecified 2-suiter, and they have no agreement as to continuations? I'm not sure that there's damage from misinformation, but I'm unhappy with North-South's approach to the game, which arguably is contrary to Law 74.

It's not an unspecified 2-suiter. It's 2 suits of the same shape, so either ♣+♥ or ♦+♠.

As I mentioned above, not having agreements about continuations is what Wolff calls convention disruption. But I don't see how it violates L74. The only clause related to bidding is 74C1 "using different designations for the same call", is that what you mean?