[kgr]

Following conditions were the same at 2 tables: North has a 5=4=2=2 distribution and 4HCP. They play 5 card Majors and 4 card ♦.
In a MP tournement the bidding goes:
1♣-1♦
2♣- All Pass.
 
At one table North said before the start of the play that South should have alerted 1♦ because they agreed 2 weeks before that 1♦ could be artificial weak. They played the hand and the TD was called after the hand.
East had a 5 card ♦ and could have overcalled 2♦ if he knew that 1♦ did not always promise ♦. Both 2♣ by NS and 2♦ or 2♦+1 by EW can make.
The TD decided to change the score to 2♦+1 for EW.
 
At the other table East took his pass card partly out of the bidding box before the final pass, but then he wanted to change it to 2♦. TD was called and he decided that the pass should stand and 2♣ was the contract.
After the hand EW called the TD and N told him that they did not have an agreement about 1♦. He simply gambled to bid 1♦, hoping that S would bid a major. The TD decided the result of 2♣ was not changed.
 
N on the first table was VERY angry about these ruling and said that he would never return to the club.
....unlucky situation for the TD or should he have avoided this?

[kenrexford]

Sounds right to me.

If 1♦ is artificial, then the failure to alert was the problem.

If 1♦ was a goofy bid, then the failure to alert a possible goofy bid was not a problem.

Now, if Responder makes this goofy bid occasionally, then there is a de facto undisclosed agreement. That could itself be a problem. But, if this was truly a new idea popped out of the blue on his partner, no adjustment.

[ArtK78]

The rulings are not unreasonable, but I do have a problem with East at table one. When informed prior to the play of the hand that the 1♦ bid was, by agreement, artificial, the director should have been called. One should not wait until the play of the hand is over if one has a problem with the auction. If East wanted to bid 2♦ after being informed that 1♦ was artificial, he should make that desire known before he sees the result of the play in 2♣. This is the classic "double shot" - East gets to find out whether he has a good result in 2♣; if not, he complains that he should have been allowed to bid 2♦. Now, if the TD is informed of the problem before the play commences and says "call me back if there is a problem" then East is entitled to his double shot. But by failing to notify the TD as soon as the problem is known to exist, East should not be allowed to profit from not calling the TD.

[jdonn]

I think the club should throw a party that the first north is never coming back. He didn't even get some sort of penalty, the score was simply changed to what it probably would have been had his partnership alerted properly. Why would that upset him?

At the second table I agree there was no failure to alert, but why didn't the director let east change his bid? He didn't even fully remove the card from the bidding box, so it's a UI problem but nothing more and that aspect probably wouldn't have mattered in this case.

So I'd say the director went 1 for 2, but the wrong player at the wrong table got mad. Actually make that 2 for 3 since there were 2 rulings at the second table.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Mar 3 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

At the second table I agree there was no failure to alert, but why didn't the director let east change his bid? He didn't even fully remove the card from the bidding box, so it's a UI problem but nothing more and that aspect probably wouldn't have mattered in this case.

I think it is more than a UI problem. It is a change of call problem.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that once a card is removed from the bidding box it is a bid, and any change to the bid chosen has to be due to a mechanical error rather than a change of mind. We were not told what "partly out of the bidding box" meant. Was the bid card removed from the bidding box but not placed on the table? Was the bid card still partially in the bidding box? In the latter case, I don't see how it can be interpreted as a bid or why the director would not allow a change of the call. How could anyone tell what the bid was if it was not removed from the bid box?

While it is a practice that should be avoided, I see players fingering one card and then another card in the bid box all the time, and no one ever calls them on it. Why, in this case, would the TD not allow a change of call? How far out of the bid box was the pass card?

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Mar 3 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

We were not told what "partly out of the bidding box" meant. Was the bid card removed from the bidding box but not placed on the table? Was the bid card still partially in the bidding box?

Seriously?

[barmar]

I have a slight problem with the first ruling. Just because a bid could be artificial doesn't mean it is. In many cases the player actually does have the suit, so it can be dangerous to overcall on the assumption that they don't. E.g., I think most people defend a "could be short" 1♣ the same way they defend a natural 1♣, i.e. (1♣(could be short))-2♣ is still Michaels.

So would East really have bid 2♦ with the alert and explanation "either natural or weak with both majors"? It's easy for him to claim this after the hand is over. That's why he should call the TD immediately after the auction, as Art said. Once he sees dummy, I think it's too late.

[kgr]

ArtK78, on Mar 3 2009, 09:01 PM, said:

The rulings are not unreasonable, but I do have a problem with East at table one.  When informed prior to the play of the hand that the 1♦ bid was, by agreement, artificial, the director should have been called.  One should not wait until the play of the hand is over if one has a problem with the auction.  If East wanted to bid 2♦ after being informed that 1♦ was artificial, he should make that desire known before he sees the result of the play in 2♣. 

I agree. But this situation is typical with a playing TD. RHO 'preserved his rights' and they played the hand. Most probably RHO did not know that he could have changed his call.

kenrexford said:

Now, if Responder makes this goofy bid occasionally, then there is a de facto undisclosed agreement. That could itself be a problem. But, if this was truly a new idea popped out of the blue on his partner, no adjustment.

Difficult to tell. TD will not always be called if it happens.

jdonn said:

I think the club should throw a party that the first north is never coming back.

We tend to prefer that as much as possible players come to the club.

jdonn said:

At the second table I agree there was no failure to alert, but why didn't the director let east change his bid? He didn't even fully remove the card from the bidding box, so it's a UI problem but nothing more and that aspect probably wouldn't have mattered in this case.

I'm not sure if the card was completely removed from the bidding box or not.

[blackshoe]

Whether a card "removed from the bidding box" constitutes a bid depends in part on where it occurred. The ACBL's bidding box regulation says that "A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." The EBU's regulations says, iirc, that a call is made when the bidding cards are removed from the box "with intent". So in the ACBL, this doesn't look like a call made, but in the EBU perhaps it does.

[Codo]

I hate the ruling at the first case. The TD allowed E/W a double shot:

When 2 Diamond is right, the TD will change the score, when it is wrong, let them play 2 Club.
So E/W failed to call the TD at the right time. When North explained that they had been misinformed, there had been a chance to take the last pass back and bid 2 Diamond. They failed to use this chance, so the score stands.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on Mar 3 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

The rulings are not unreasonable, but I do have a problem with East at table one.  When informed prior to the play of the hand that the 1♦ bid was, by agreement, artificial, the director should have been called.  One should not wait until the play of the hand is over if one has a problem with the auction.  If East wanted to bid 2♦ after being informed that 1♦ was artificial, he should make that desire known before he sees the result of the play in 2♣.  This is the classic "double shot" - East gets to find out whether he has a good result in 2♣; if not, he complains that he should have been allowed to bid 2♦.  Now, if the TD is informed of the problem before the play commences and says "call me back if there is a problem" then East is entitled to his double shot.  But by failing to notify the TD as soon as the problem is known to exist, East should not be allowed to profit from not calling the TD.

I follow your reasoning, but there is an important fact that is often overlooked.

You claim that East was taking a double shot for calling the director after the hand had been played. In your opinion, East should have called the director before the play. I agree that the TD should have been called before the play. But I disagree that it should have been East who should have called. The laws say specifically that North is supposed to call the director in this situation (Law 20F5).

Other than the infractions committed by NS (misexplanation by South and failing to call the TD by North) all players broke Law 9. All players should have called the TD once it was clear that the explanation was wrong. This law 9 is a general law regarding calling the TD in the case of any irregularity.

But law 20F is the law that deals specifically with wrong explanations. And it is very specific about whose duty it is to call the director: The partner of the player who gave the wrong explanation (North in this case).

Accusing East of double shooting comes close to blaming him for the fact that North didn't call the director.

On a more practical side, I think that none of the players knew when the director was supposed to be called and by whom. They all messed it up because of a lack of understanding of the rules of the game. Then the TD needs to clean up the mess. He needs to come up with as fair a ruling as possible. I think his ruling was the fairest that was possible. If North would have wanted to avoid any possible double shooting by East, North should have called the director when he was supposed to.

Rik

[barmar]

While players are supposed to call the TD when there's been an incorrect explanation by their partner, in my experience this practically never happens. Everyone simply corrects the explanation at the appropriate opportunity.

So although it's not technically East's responsibility to call the TD at that point, he is certainly entitled to do so (any player may call the TD when an irregularity has been pointed out, even dummy), and should certainly do so if he thinks it could affect the result. Waiting until the end of the hand is still a double shot.

[brianshark]

On the surface, my unqualified opinion is:

On table 1, the director should have been called immediately. Then the TD would have let East take back his pass and replace it with 2♦ if that was his wish. By not calling the TD, EW forfeited their right because to be allowed to change later would be a double shot.

On table 2, I thought you are allowed to fiddle with your bids before you make the final decision. I thought a bid wasn't made until the card is sitting on the table in front of you. And while obviously there is UI on west who knows his partner had a close decision between pass and 2♦, East's 2♦ call should be allowed.

So in my opinion, both calls were wrong.

[jtfanclub]

brianshark, on Mar 4 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

On the surface, my unqualified opinion is:

On table 1, the director should have been called immediately. Then the TD would have let East take back his pass and replace it with 2♦ if that was his wish. By not calling the TD, EW forfeited their right because to be allowed to change later would be a double shot.

On table 2, I thought you are allowed to fiddle with your bids before you make the final decision. I thought a bid wasn't made until the card is sitting on the table in front of you. And while obviously there is UI on west who knows his partner had a close decision between pass and 2♦, East's 2♦ call should be allowed.

So in my opinion, both calls were wrong.

Agreed on both.

In some case one table 1, because I know the opponents, I'll just call the director. Double shots like this simply shouldn't happen.

On table 2, I might have called the director to reserve my rights, but I would be very unhappy if my opponent was forced to bid something they didn't want to bid because of a nervous habit.

[mycroft]

I think everything I want to say has been said by one of several people, but still:

- Yes, this kind of MI requires the TD. And usually not calling the TD doesn't matter. It's one of the cheats we do. I'd probably ask East why I was being called now, and leave the result (or do my "mean trick"; adjust for NS only, depending on what could happen after 1C-1D), explaining that if I had been called at the proper time, East would have had the opportunity to replace her final pass with 2D, and also a chance to talk to me about what he would have done over 1C-1D directly (which might have led to an adjusted score after the hand, if there was a case for it). As it was, East has voluntarily given up her right to bid 2D after 2C-p-p, and next time she'll know better.

- If I thought that North-South were griefing the opponents, I would get on their case about not calling the TD when the MI occurred, but probably only to the extent of a stiff warning (because, of course, "everybody does it", and this doesn't seem like the kind of auction where the MI is likely to lead to a change wish. Good practise or bad practise, I always call the TD before correcting MI that I believe is likely to have affected the auction (because I know, and my opponents may not, the Laws). I would have guessed wrong on this one).

- I would have investigated the second table, and, if I found there was no issue, only strongly warned the second N/S about these kinds of "goofball" bids, because they get remembered by partner. Once it becomes a partnership understanding, they get into the first table's territory; they will have to Alert it as the first table does, and failure to do so, because they haven't "agreed to it, it's just happened often enough to be memorable", can be punished more strictly than just your average MI.

- In the ACBL, there's no question that the pass at the second table was not made. UI, but it wasn't made. In other jurisdictions, maybe more question.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on Mar 4 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

While players are supposed to call the TD when there's been an incorrect explanation by their partner, in my experience this practically never happens.  Everyone simply corrects the explanation at the appropriate opportunity.

So although it's not technically East's responsibility to call the TD at that point, he is certainly entitled to do so (any player may call the TD when an irregularity has been pointed out, even dummy), and should certainly do so if he thinks it could affect the result.  Waiting until the end of the hand is still a double shot.

I am aware of the fact that in practice in these cases, the TD is rarely called by the offending side.

I just want to point out that the non offending side is accused of double shooting, while you have more reason to accuse the offending side of trying to get away with their misexplanation. After all, the offending side has two bridge laws that tell them to call the TD and the non offending side only one.

In reality, I think there is no need to accuse anyone of anything (other than ignorance). I just think that neither side knew when they were supposed to call the TD (a result of the common practice of not calling the TD for misinformation). It is most likely that both sides thought that the TD should be called after the hand. This means that the non offending side didn't try to double shoot and that the offending side didn't try to get away with their misexplanation. Call it innocent ignorance.

In the end, the TD gets this mess on his plate and he needs to sort it out. I think it is fair to rule that the non offending side could have bid 2♦. It leads to the result that was likely achieved if there hadn't been misinformation. I also see that it has the unwanted side effect of giving the non offending side a double shot.

But what do you think is fair? Letting the offending side get away with a misexplanation ànd with the fact that they didn't call the TD when they were supposed to? That to me is clearly not the way to clean up the mess.

If the non offending side were more experienced players than the offending side, I have a lot of sympathy for the split score: The non offending side gets to keep their poor result (they should have called the TD immediately). The offending side gets the score adjusted to allow for a 2♦ bid (and tell them that they would have had a chance to get the table result [in the play] if they would have called the TD when they were supposed to).

In either case, the offending side will get his score adjusted. And therefore, they have no reason to be upset.

Rik