[blml] Please MS answer these three questions

[Hirsch Davis]

Herman De Wael wrote:
> I am about to shut up about this problem.
>   
Good.
> But not before I ask the MS adepts to ask themselves the following 
> three questions, and realize that they don't care about the game of 
> bridge.
>   

There is no such thing as "MS". There are those who read the Laws, and 
follow the Laws and WBFLC interpretations.  And those who don't.

> The bidding goes:
>
> W   N   E   S
>              1He
> 4Sp 4NT pas 5Di
> 5Sp Dbl all pass
>
> Before bidding 5Sp, West asks what 4NT is, and South says "Blackwood". 
> West then asks how many aces South has shown, and North says "one". It 
> turns out North has a minor two-suiter, and North admits having 
> intended 4NT as showing this.
>   
This should not have ever happened. The actual agreement will have to be 
determined by the TD. However, the explanation by S is UI to N.  He 
cannot alter his intended bidding based on that explanation, nor can he 
alter his understanding of the meaning of the S calls. N can say 
"diamond preference" or "TD please".  Nothing else.

> When asked why he replied "one", North states that South is always 
> better in the system than he is. If South says it's Blackwood, then it 
> is. South concurs that 4NT to him is always Blackwood.
> North/South cannot show any system card or system notes that confirm this.
>   

OK, they get a procedural penalty for failure to fill out the system 
cards, and the TD finds out the actual system anyway.

> North is not from Belgium, nor does he have an H, D or W among his 
> initials.
>
> Four questions:
>
> 1) Provided that the story is true (South is always right), was North 
> correct in replying one ace?
>
>   
No. I disagree with Richard Hills that the UI can be used by N to 
clarify his agreements to himself. He cannot change what he believes the 
agreement to be based on UI. He should definitely attempt to "not hear" 
the S explanation.

> 2) How should the Director establish that the story is true?
>   

Haven't you ever made a table ruling?  Ask the players what the system 
is away from the table.

> 3) If the Director decides to believe North, what is the score 
> correction going to be (assume that West would not bid 5Sp if told 
> that 4NT shows minors, but not double either)
>   

Believe N about what?  That he originally misbid? If so, there is no 
adjustment, as the opponents had received all of the actual agreements.  
Since N's bidding is consistent with diamond preference, there is likely 
no problem.  If S misexplained, it's a different story, and an 
adjustment may be in order.

> 4) If the Director suspects that North is less certain about the 
> system than he's letting on, is the score correction any different 
> (you may assume that West would double if he knows the full story)
>   
Degree of certainty is immaterial. Find out the actual system. Then 
figure out if you're dealing with misbid or MI.  Assume MI over misbid 
if in doubt. Not complicated.
> As a side question: does it matter why West asks the question?
>   
Normally not (see Sven's answer).
> As a teaser: are you happy with all these rulings you may have to make?
>
>   
Sure, as long as they're in accordance with the Laws.

Hirsch