[LH2650]

ACBL

The East convention card had the jump raise marked as limit, and the West card had it marked as preemptive. A preemptive raise is alertable, but no alert was given because of East's understanding of the agreement. NS claimed that they would have played 4♠, had they known about the preemptive raise. 4♥ was down 2. 4♠ makes if the ♠ Jack is captured. There was no announcement of a failure to alert, and the director was called at the end of the hand. How would you rule?

---

[nige1]

 LH2650, on 2015-August-03, 19:07, said:

ACBL
The East convention card had the jump raise marked as limit, and the West card had it marked as preemptive. A preemptive raise is alertable, but no alert was given because of East's understanding of the agreement. NS claimed that they would have played 4♠, had they known about the preemptive raise. 4♥ was down 2. 4♠ makes if the ♠ Jack is captured. There was no announcement of a failure to alert, and the director was called at the end of the hand. How would you rule?

---

IMO, whether it was misinformation or misbid depends on what the EW agreement really is. If the agreement is "pre-emptive" or West believed it to be, then West should have called the director and explained, at the end of the auction. In the absence of more evidence to show that the EW agreement is "limit", the director might rule misinformation and adjust to 4♠=. The ACBL sensibly shuns weighted-score fudges

[sfi]

How do N/S suggest they would have entered the auction? If 3H is preemptive, North might have a takeout double, and this would get them there. But South hardly has a 4S bid after choosing to pass over 1H for some reason.

I would like to poll people about action with the North hand and see how much more likely they would be to act over a preemptive 3H, and assign a weighted score based on that. Maybe something like 50% 4H, 30% 4S= and 20% 4S-1.

[blackshoe]

No weighted scores in the ACBL. The NOS get the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. The OS get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred (Law 12C1{e}). These scores need not balance (Law 12C1{f}).

[FrancesHinden]

Before ruling, I want to know how NS were planning to get to 4S after the explanation of 'no agreement' for the 3H bid.

[NickRW]

I'm a long way from convinced that they would have actually bid 4♠ and not entirely convinced they would have made it if they did. Personally, I think +200 for 4♥-2 is already quite a reasonable score and at least as likely as anything better.

[LH2650]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-04, 04:17, said:

Before ruling, I want to know how NS were planning to get to 4S after the explanation of 'no agreement' for the 3H bid.

North claims that he would have made a takeout double if he had known the raise was preemptive. I would want a little more for that, but as South, I would certainly bid 4♠ after the double. I do not know what North would have done over "no agreement", but will ask him.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2015-August-03, 20:15, said:

The ACBL sensibly shuns weighted-score fudges

I think that weighted scores are perfect for this kind of situation.

PP to E/W for not mentioning possible MI.

[sanst]

I'm also wondering about the way NS would reach 4♠. My gut feeling is, that their argument is based on knowledge about the actual hands. If W gets the ♠Q and S the ♥2, the bidding would probably be the same but 4♠ a disastrous contract. The result should stand, but W deserves a free lesson, maybe even a PP, for not calling attention to the MI. And both EW should be told in no uncertain terms that they should agree about calls like this. I know TD's who would give a PP just for this.

[FrancesHinden]

Any adjustment to 4S is not possible. Why would East ever pass out 4S opposite what he thinks is a pre-emptive raise? If you decide that North would double 3H, then I agree that South will bid 4S but then East will double it.

[FrancesHinden]

 LH2650, on 2015-August-04, 07:42, said:

North claims that he would have made a takeout double if he had known the raise was preemptive. I would want a little more for that, but as South, I would certainly bid 4♠ after the double. I do not know what North would have done over "no agreement", but will ask him.

North of course is somewhat biased by knowing the hands. A poll of peers would be interesting because I think very few people would double after 1H P 3H (no agreement).
Looking at the results of other tables won't help you, because some Souths will overcall on the first round, and some Wests will not bid 3H.

[Lanor Fow]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-04, 09:11, said:

Any adjustment to 4S is not possible. Why would East ever pass out 4S opposite what he thinks is a pre-emptive raise? If you decide that North would double 3H, then I agree that South will bid 4S but then East will double it.

Did you mean opposite what he thinks is a limit raise?

[LH2650]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-04, 09:13, said:

North of course is somewhat biased by knowing the hands. A poll of peers would be interesting because I think very few people would double after 1H P 3H (no agreement).
Looking at the results of other tables won't help you, because some Souths will overcall on the first round, and some Wests will not bid 3H.

I decided that it would be inappropriate to ask the person who held the North hand, but tried 6 others, stating that there was no agreement as to the meaning of 3♥. All passed.

[nige1]

 LH2650, on 2015-August-05, 19:36, said:

I decided that it would be inappropriate to ask the person who held the North hand, but tried 6 others, stating that there was no agreement as to the meaning of 3♥. All passed.

If the director is satisfied (from other evidence) that there is no agreement about the meaning of 3♥, then that might be fair.

The director might still be concerned, however, that East-West have different convention-cards.

Also, at the end of the auction, West failed to point out East's failure to alert West's earlier 3♥ as "pre-emptive" or "no agreement". This might justify a PP, or at least provide North-South with another bite at the cherry.

[FrancesHinden]

 Lanor Fow, on 2015-August-04, 09:42, said:

Did you mean opposite what he thinks is a limit raise?

Yes

[steve2005]

 nige1, on 2015-August-05, 20:15, said:

If the director is satisfied (from other evidence) that there is no agreement about the meaning of 3♥, then that might be fair.

The director might still be concerned, however, that East-West have different convention-cards.

Also, at the end of the auction, West failed to point out East's failure to alert West's earlier 3♥ as "pre-emptive" or "no agreement". This might justify a PP, or at least provide North-South with another bite at the cherry.

If their convention card is marked pre-emptive that's pretty good evidence of what their agreement is. That east forgot what they're playing is their problem. If they can prove that's not their agreement then their looking at a possible procedural penalty for having an cc filled out incorrectly.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2015-August-15, 02:38
Reason for edit: "their" => "they're"

[WesleyC]

With only 3 spades, a defensive orientation and a partner who couldn't act over 1H, I would never double 3H with the North hand.

Also the play in 4S isn't trivial. After a heart lead crossing in clubs to lead a spade towards the Q is probably right, but it does have risks.

I think table result should stand.