[kaustabh]

In the recently held Singhania Invitational pairs tournament in India following deal came up in Round 17 on the third day.

Board No. 4

Scoring: IMP

North and East were screen mates & South and West were screen mates

---

West opened the bidding with 3H. Tray came to N-E side. North having no bid passed. Here East looking at his hand knew what is happening and decided to bid 4C. Tray was then pushed to S-W side. West informed S that 4C is natural. S then doubled (in his opinion to show a very good hand with other two suits), West bids 4H and tray was then given to N-E. Seeing the double and sensing something N asked East the meaning of 4C bid. He asked specifically to East what your partner has taken 4C as. Because meaning of South’s double is only clear depending on what was explained to him as 4C. East mentioned 4C is cue bid. Ofcourse N clarified that double is club suit as per their partnership understanding. However E bids 4N and tray was given to S-W. S saw North has not taken any action and decided to pass. West bids 5C and finally bidding ended at 5H with no action from S and East accomplished his mission of keeping NS away from their biddable little slam (grand slam not biddable).



After North led the club and S cashed his 4 tricks with 5H going two down, North asked South, what was 4C explained to him (N knew some thing was wrong as his partner didn’t had Club suit. S informed he was told 4C as natural and N informed he was told cue bid. Different explanations on both sides. North said if he had the same explanation as South, they would have reached 6D. Ofcourse EW didn’t agree, tempers got raised, resulting in heated arguments and director was called. Facts were established and director after some time came back – ruling table result stands. Not satisfied with director’s ruling NS decided to appeal.



Appeal committee also ruled table result stands as South failed to double 4NT. Nothing was mentioned at all in the appeal ruling about different explanations on both sides of the screen altogether. They didn’t even check the convention card of EW, as to what treatment it mentions after 3H opening. The onus was on S to double 4NT. Therefore the whole culprit in their opinion was S and that is why table result stands. Different explanations on both sides of the screen didn’t matter to them at all. Where as I am sure if any one of that player was in North’s seat, only then it would have mattered to them also.



Dear friends, I request all of you to give your comments.

[helene_t]

I agree that S may have caused the bad result himself by failing to double 4NT. If so, I would have given a split score in a pair tournament. Maybe stupid question but: can one give a split score at teams?

BTW I don't understand why this lead to a headed discussion, wasn't it clear that there was misinformation? EW just apologize and then let the director do his job, seems easy

[RMB1]

I don't like North asking East "how your partner will take 4♣": just ask what 4♣ is, and expect an adjustment if the explanations differ.

I don't like East "mentioning 4♣ is a cue bid": it seems a misleading or incomplete description.

I don't like

Quote

"Different explanations on both sides. North said if he had the same explanation as South, they would have reached 6D. Ofcourse EW didn’t agree, tempers got raised, resulting in heated arguments and director was called."

I think the "director was called" should occur at the end of the first sentence, then perhaps the raised tempers and heated arguments could be avoided.

I don't like that no one (TD or AC) determined the partnership understanding of 4♣.

I don't think failure to double 4NT was a serious error, but not doubling the final 5♥ does seem a serious error. I would adjust for both sides on the basis of misinformation, but I would deny NS relief for the damage that was self-inflicted (by not doubling 5♥).

If the correct explanation of 4♣ is natural, then North would understand the X as take-out and would bid diamonds, reaching 5♦ or 6♦.
If the correct explanation of 4♣ is cue-bid, then South would presumably not X (if that showed clubs) and would perhaps bid 4♦, reaching 5♦ or 6♦.
If the correct explanation of 4♣ is no agreement then I would need to discuss the likely continuations with NS. I suspect that South would not double (as X probably still shows clubs), so South would bid diamonds and again they would play in 5♦ or 6♦.

I would apply the appropriate law (Law 12C1c or Law12C1e) to some combination of 5♦+2, 5♥X-2 (EW might still go on to 5♥ over 5♦) and 6♦+1. For NS, I would reduce their adjusted score by the difference between the scores for 5♥X-2 and 5♥-2.

[PeterE]

helene_t, on Sep 1 2010, 04:11 AM, said:

Maybe stupid question but: can one give a split score at teams?

Of course you can.

Suppose the contract at the other table was N:6♦+1

Now, if you judge that all of N/S' damage was self-inflicted, you may split the score in (the exact score depends on your decision)
N/S: W:5♥-2, +200; and
E/W: N:6♦+1, -1390

N/S' team then score +200 -1390 = -1190 => -15 IMP
E/W's team then score -1390 +1390 = 0 => 0 IMP

If they score - say - 35:14 IMP on the other boards (from N/S' view), then
N/S' final score is 35:29 IMP (16 VP with - say - 16 boards played), whereupon
E/W's final score is 14:35 (10 VP).

[bluejak]

I was just writing some sort of lengthy reply when I discovered Robin had written everything I wanted to say! So after Robin's post I write:

me2

helene_t, on Sep 1 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

I agree that S may have caused the bad result himself by failing to double 4NT. If so, I would have given a split score in a pair tournament. Maybe stupid question but: can one give a split score at teams?

I suggest you have a look at Law 12C1B, which applies in both the ACBL and elsewhere, ie it applies in both Law 12C1C and Law 12C1E jurisdictions. Note that both Robin and Peter refer to losing partial redress: where a side makes a SEWoG it only loses that part of the redress that was caused by such action.

Note that not only do you have split scores at pairs [different sides get matchpoint scores that do not add up to a top] and at Round Robin or Multiple teams [different sides get imp scores that do not add up to zero] but also applies to knockout teams. At such times you work out the two imp scores and average them [Law 12C4].

[mycroft]

The only thing I have to say relates to:

Quote

He asked specifically to East what your partner has taken 4C as.

I realize this is a situation where, if the explanations are wrong, there's going to be a TD call, and probably an adjusted score, but I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. And I'm not required to.

"Our agreement is cue raise. I have no idea what partner will say, but I assume he remembers our agreement."

The case is interesting, because "club cue for hearts", "heart raise with clubs", "natural (likely with some heart support)" is a normal continuum showing clubs and hearts; where on that line is their agreement (should they actually have one), and where on that line N/S switches agreements may still cause problems. Here, of course, it was clear, but it might not be with different agreements and different explanations.

[aguahombre]

The experts are doing fine; they don't need my input on the ruling. But (see Mycroft, for instance) --I think "cue bid" is just as bad as naming a convention, and would never answer such when asked about a bid.

I always say whether it shows a control, shows a source of tricks, or whatever our agreement is.