[sanst]

sanst, on 2025-April-10, 14:14, said:

What can one write after blackshoe? I'll try to add still something,
Why didn't N start with hearts? He (if N is female, I apologize) bid spades, but notwithstanding S puts 3♡ on the table in a non forcing position. After east's 2NT S can remain silent and pass, but for N it must be abvious the S has hand with very good hearts and no spade support. But N still leads spades. That's blatant use of UI, the information being the non alert of the 2♡ bid of N. North knows from that,that S has forgotten the agreement, which is also clear from his statement at the end of the hand, and shouldn't use that. But he does which is a serious infraction and deserves a slap on the wrist.
Now for the score, assuming N starts hearts. If these are no such good players, S might play the king, giving EW three hearts tricks, two spades, four clubs and at least one diamond trick, resulting in 3NT+1. Even if S plays the 10 in the first trick, it's still 2 hearts tricks, so 3NT=.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-April-10, 06:57, said:

So we are relying on a Directors motivation, memory and potential biases. A deviation recording system, available online to all Directors would be ideal, but we are nowhere near having the ability or desire to implement that.

No, we are relying on the Club Director being competent and attentive. If she has poor memory, no motivation and biases then this is not the right job

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2025-April-10, 14:10, said:

This is the MI side, but you still need to also deal with the UI, correct? If South's bid freely showed hearts, despite North leading spades, a heart lead would be a logical alternative, and avoiding it demonstrably suggested by the lack of alert. Though I realised I missed the fact that South passed originally, so perhaps 3♥ would be some form of fit bid in their system, which would negate this.

I follow your legal logic, but not sure it is supported by bridge logic - one has to be sure a heart lead would be a logical alternative, which you and sanst seem to take for granted. South said hearts not spades, but West has a strong NT and said he could stop hearts. I would poll if this seemed a critical issue.

Now that we finally found the courage to look at the hand diagram, having taken the first trick in spades, playing the minors for K in South seems an obvious line and inevitably successful, however much we fear the hearts despite holding AQJ983.
West will have to explain to me why he went down and how it was related to the MI.

[sanst]

To me, this is not a case of MI in the first place, but of the use of UI by N. N should bent over backwards not to use the UI from the missing alert. Here the start with hearts is certainly a logical alternative given the lousy spade hand of north and south's obvious preference of hearts.
After a spades start, W must decide which minor he prefers, because the hand of E can't be reached again. Besides the spade start must be confusing for W, with both N and S showing hearts in the auction. It certainly isn't a serious error that he didn't figure out that there was MI and that N holds spades.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-April-10, 13:30, said:

The first thing the director should do when called after the play (as you were, right?) is to read and explain Laws 20F4 and 20F5 to the table. Make sure they understand that before correcting MI they must call the director to the table. In this case that means the declaring side should have called the director before the opening lead was chosen. The defending side has to wait until the play is over, but still must call the director before correcting the MI.

And this is where it gets even more interesting. I was a player in this 10 table, (sanctioned) game, I was North, I was not playing/directing.
To be honest, the process I would need to go through after an MI/UI case like this makes my head spin, and I understand why CD skip thise step. If I was trying to do this, all the while keeping a 20+ table game running - impossible.
Perhaps after I had some practice I could pull it off and what I will do is make an Artificial Adjusted Score and then go through the AssAS process after the game.
No one is going to care, only I will know I took a shortcut. There are no MP's, just bragging rights at stake.

I'm a little puzzled at the comments regarding North taking advantage of the UI. I actually thought I was avoiding making use of it, but I see I may have that backwards.

[blackshoe]

Bending over backwards is not something I could do when I was young and relatively limber. I wouldn't dare to even try it now.

Jilly, "impossible" is a serious overbid, even for a club director.

You do not have to make an ArtAS and then go back and change it. Just leave the table result if you're in a hurry to publish the scores. If you then change that score after everyone has gone home, send an email to the two affected pairs and explain your ruling via that route. When others call and complain and ask why their scores went down (they don't complain when their scores go up, do they?) just tell them there was a score adjustment.

If you have more experienced directors in your area, ask them to give you some problems (hopefully from real-life situations) in this area. If you don't I suppose you could look around the web and see what you can find. The EBU and EBL websites would be good places to look, IMO.

[jillybean]

I don't recall a Director ever coming back to tell me they had assigned a AssAS, do Club Directors do this?

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2025-April-10, 19:32, said:

I'm a little puzzled at the comments regarding North taking advantage of the UI. I actually thought I was avoiding making use of it, but I see I may have that backwards.

You may well be right, it's still unclear. If your partner had alerted your bid as showing spades, then bid 3♥ anyway, what sort of hand would you expect them to have?

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2025-April-10, 21:10, said:

I don't recall a Director ever coming back to tell me they had assigned a AssAS, do Club Directors do this?

Some do. Not many. It's the right way to do things, IMO.

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2025-April-10, 19:32, said:

I'm a little puzzled at the comments regarding North taking advantage of the UI. I actually thought I was avoiding making use of it, but I see I may have that backwards.

You have to act like your partner correctly alerted and explained your bid and your actions should be based on that. That's not that easy and one of the most difficult things to explain to the players.
In this case you should have assumed that your partner knows that you have spades. I don't know what your agreement would be about the 3♡ of your partner, but if it's 'hearts, no spades' or 'please, start hearts' I would decide that you should have led a heart. Your partner can have a spade singleton and KQ1096 of hearts. Also with no agrement I think a heart lead is called for. Without spade support from your partner your spades are probably worth nothing. Please, don't let's get into a discussion about opening 2♡ with this hand nv vs v in the first seat.

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2025-April-10, 21:10, said:

I don't recall a Director ever coming back to tell me they had assigned a AssAS, do Club Directors do this?

They certainly should. It's not only a case of common courtesy, but the players have the right to appeal the decision. If you can't do it during or directly after the session, inform them by email, whatsapp or a call, or whatever means of communication you use.
It's independent of the kind of AS, artificial or assigned.

[mycroft]

I've been at a regional, and then, well, let's just say "other things".

So I haven't seen the last bit of this, including the hands.

I would *love* to know the lead to 3NT. If it's a spade, and not a heart, I'd really want to know why. A zero-entry hand that has three card support for a suit partner was willing to bid at the 3 level? (okay, convince me that 3♥ is a raise to 3♠ that wants a heart lead. But still, as sanst says, *south wants a heart lead!*) In fact, I'd be wondering about whether 4♥ is a logical call over a clearly speculative 3NT bid (unless 2NT was guaranteed to have INV values). Probably not - any hand (except, say, KQJTxxxx and out, I guess) that is getting 300 or 500 in 4♥ is setting 3NT on repeated heart leads.

A spade lead drips of Unauthorized Panic, the secondary version - "Sorry partner, bidding 4♠ to wake you up is too dangerous, so I'll lead them to wake you up instead." But assuming the second round duck of the A, it doesn't look like north ever gets in to run the spades. Having said that, if declarer *didn't* duck the second round of spades, they 100% are going to if told North has spades. Even my novices will find that one.

You know, when declarer calls me at the end of the hand because the defenders misexplained and she went down, if she went down because of the misinformation (as opposed to "they did something wrong, we deserve a good score" or "they did something wrong, what happens now?" I *guarantee* their answer to "do you do something different with the correct information" is Yes. In fact, they're likely screaming it at me before I get to ask the question (frankly, usually before I can ascertain what the table result was, sometimes even the contract!) Even if they're unsure, they're still answering Yes, and then when I ask what, *then* they go into the tank trying to recreate the play. More than 90% of the time misinformation actually affected the play, declarer knows exactly how (or at least when). Yes, I know that this time the defenders called the director (as they should). But still.

If you're trying to figure out how people can "understand the UI", tell them "you overcalled their 1NT with 2♥, to which partner dutifully announced 'Spades'. [if they try to argue here that partner didn't, just barrel through] Then, over 2NT lebensohl, partner bid 3♥. What does she have?" Now, you can accept "but she didn't". And then explain "and you're not allowed to know that, in fact you have to bid as if my scenario applied." Sometimes, it works. Eventually. If they're familiar with screens, you can phrase it as "you overcalled 2♥ showing spades, and the tray comes back with partner's 3♥. What does that mean?" Or if they're familiar with online self-Alerting, you can phrase it as "you overcalled 2♥ and explained it as spades, and partner bids 3♥. What does that mean?" But those two have the failing that the player will *automatically* say "oh partner must have forgot" (again, because of the UI they actually have). There's a reason some pairs score 3-5% worse at the virtual club than they do at the table - they have to guess whether "partner forgot" or if it's a normal auction online. They never have that problem at the table. And "I don't understand UI" (no, you just use it, and you don't even know it) is why.

[akwoo]

mycroft, on 2025-April-18, 19:33, said:

More than 90% of the time misinformation actually affected the play, declarer knows exactly how (or at least when).

This is true above a certain level, but not with beginners. Beginners are playing fairly randomly, and a fly going by actually affects the play. And, yes, probabilistically speaking, having the right information leads to a higher likelihood of a correct play, though it's all intuitive, random, and unexplainable by declarer, who after all isn't at the level yet of being able to explain why they're doing what they're doing.

[mycroft]

True - and what is the definition of a beginner? (seriously, when do we tell people "you've played enough bridge to know WTH you're doing" or "you've played enough bridge to find your own partners/lessons/..."?)

But even beginners will say "well, when he showed out on the second round of hearts, I got confused because he bid them". They have no idea what they were going to do "normally", but they do know what the misinformation did to their (lack of) plan.