[mr1303]

Scoring: MP

---

Bidding proceeds:

1D (X) 2C (2H)
P (3D) P (3NT)
X (4D) P (P)
X

NS play strong NT 5 card majors. 1D was alerted as "Could conceivably be 3 cards but that is rare". Our specific agreement is that it is only on 4432 shape that it can be 3 cards.

3D was also alerted as "showing some bid hand, and when there are two suits bid by the opponents should show the suit he has stopped rather than the one he hasn't"/

Is there any infraction, and if so, do you adjust?

[helene_t]

What's the problem, the explanation of the 1♦ opening and/or of 3♦? Both were probably correct. Even if a more correct explanation of 1♦ had been "better minor, based more on honour strength than length" or some such, I don't see how EW was damaged.

Results stand.

[Rebound]

I'm afraid I don't see a problem here either.

[ArcLight]

From the bidding diagram supplied, North opened 1 Diamond with A9, is this correct?
Are the opponents complaining that the alert "Could conceivably be 3 cards but that is rare" was deceiving, that it "guaranteed" 3+ diamonds?


(I find it difficult to follow some of the hands/bids on other folders because they are gfrequently poorl;y laid out or unclear)

[EricK]

Who is complaining and about what?

Is East complaing that opener has too few trumps and so trumps break better than he could have hoped?

Or is North complaining that the opponents should be left in 3NTX?

Eric

[Joe de Balliol]

I suppose EW are complaining that North psyched - arguably he did but I don't see any grounds for adjustment.

J

[hotShot]

Seems 1♦ is not what it should be, but players are allowed to make mistakes or psyche. If i have no reason to think that this is a regular partnership that often bid 1♦ with just 2 cards, than there is no reason to adjust.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

Is there any infraction, and if so, do you adjust?

There may have been an infraction.
I cannot see any reason to adjust.

NS may have given MI (would North frequently open that type of hand 1D?), but I don't believe that has damaged EW.

EW may have UI from the alert of 3D, but I don't believe pass of 3NTx is a LA for a player of East's apparant calibre.

If EW appeal I would keep the deposit. If NS appeal I probably wouldn't.

Is this the appeal from the evening session that I managed to avoid chairing by being in a section that finished later?

[hrothgar]

Its worth making on additional (quick) comment

To some extent, the ruling may depend on the jurisidiction in which the event took place. For example, the ACBL uses the concept of a "deviation". Players are permited to upgrade/downgrade the strength of their hands. They are also able to adjust suit length by one card.

The purpose of this rule is to avoid problems like this one by explictly permitting players to use judgement without running afoul of the disclosure regulations.

[mr1303]

I (South) called the director about the UI for the pull of 3NTX. Simultaneously my RHO also called the director about the opening of 1D on a doubleton. The net result was that the result stood, and an official repremand to me for not explaining my partner's bidding properly, which seemed incredibly harsh to me.

[helene_t]

I didn't think of that UI problem. I think I would give EW the benefit of the doubt, unless I felt some body language clues or such suggesting the use of UI.

[Fluffy]

EW bids are horrific, I agree that 4♦ is likelly based on the UI.

[Winstonm]

Quote

3D was also alerted as "showing some bid hand, and when there are two suits bid by the opponents should show the suit he has stopped rather than the one he hasn't"/

I am guessing this is a typo and should read: "some big hand," ?

If so, the auction to West's perspective should be based on some long, good suit, obviously not hearts or spades due to West's holdings in these suits, not clubs due to the bid by South, so that leaves diamonds. West bid his hand normally, showing hearts against a normal t.o. double and then the club stop when he thought he was facing a strong hand - and East pulled....the key issue here is whether West knew from past experience that this pull showed not a strong hand but a weaker hand with simply long diamonds? In other words, would the pull normally be forcing and a slam try perhaps or just expressing doubt about the final contract with a stong hand, a singleton club, but non-solid diamonds?

If East/West are complaining about the 1D opening, little can be done unless this is a pattern of opening the better HCP minor regardless of length and giving incorrect information knowingly. The only real damage is that a 1C opening would have allowed a diamond overcall - sorry, but unless it is specifically agreed not to do this then North has violated system and he took the risk that partner as well as defender's could be misled.

Looks like a good case for a "no harm, no foul" call to me with a mental reminder to watch and see if further bidding indicates agreements undisclosed.

Winston