[Fluffy]

Scoring: IMP

N - E - S - W
ps-1♣-2♣!-ps
2♥-ps-2♠-ps
3♠-ps-4♠-X
ps-ps-ps

---

2♣ was alerted as majors by north.

South didn't say anything after the biding was over. I don't know if he must alert opponetns of this, or he just "should". Or if he might face any penalties for not doing so.

West led ♣10 hoping to find partner's suit. Declarer discarded a heart, while east won ♣A.

east was a bid desperate on sight of this dummy and tried ♦AK wich was ruffed.

west went on tilt, missedefending even more. club ruffed in dummy, ♦Q discarding heart, ♥A, another club west ruffing with an honnor, and west tried to cash ♥K wich was ruffed and after cashing ♠AK and ♣K dummy was srprisingly high making +590.

EW argued that the first 2 mistakes were greatly influenced by the missexplanation given by north but Director decided that the defence was so horrible that it deserved to stand the result.

[suprgrover]

Fluffy, on Sep 27 2009, 03:35 PM, said:

EW argued that the first 2 mistakes were greatly influenced by the missexplanation given by north but Director decided that the defence was so horrible that it deserved to stand the result.

The only thing that seems to be a mistake is trying to cash the ♥K. At that point, if West exits with a diamond, even if it gives up a ruff-sluff, East can uppercut declarer and create a second trump trick for West. Exiting with (either) trump works as well, as declarer has to lose either a heart of a club at the end. And I don't see any normal way for E-W to ghet more than 4 tricks here.

I see a couple of problems here. First, North made a bare-minimum bid with a huge double fit for partner; his actions are suspicious at best. Second, West knows at trick 8 that declarer has at most 5=3 in the majors (because partner followed once to each suit). I would deny E-W redress only if it is clear that cashing the heart cannot gain.

[campboy]

What is the actual agreement for NS? If 2♣ systemically is majors, but South has misbid, then there is no reason for South to say anything. On the other hand, if South thinks the explanation is wrong then he must correct it at the end of the auction (before the opening lead).

[dan_ehh]

If the correct agreement is that 2♣ is majors and south misbid then there should not be any rectification.
However, if "natural" is the correct agreement then declarer is required to announce this before the opening lead. I will cancel the double because west surely doubled based upon the trump trick and strong heart holding.
However I do believe that there was a "failure to play bridge" on defense here, because with a void in dummy, a singleton in hand, and south with 2 (or maybe 3 at the most if the michaels bid was made with 5-4), east must have at least 9 clubs, and quite possibly 10. This is impossible according to the auction so west should have woken up and asked what's up with the 2♣ bid.

[aguahombre]

If North believed his own explanation, why did he bid 2 (only) hearts? Not sure it matters, but if there is a question about their real agreement, the 2H bid would lean toward misinformation rather than misbid.

[bluejak]

Quote

South didn't say anything after the biding was over. I don't know if he must alert opponents of this, or he just "should". Or if he might face any penalties for not doing so.

'must': Law 20F5B. It is not normal to penalise for this, but the benefit of doubt will be towards the opponents now: if he had told them at the right time, and then they went wrong in the defence he would have got the benefit. But this assumes the explanation was wrong.

Quote

EW argued that the first 2 mistakes were greatly influenced by the missexplanation given by north but Director decided that the defence was so horrible that it deserved to stand the result.

Oh yes? And where is this in the Law book, may I ask? Law 12C1B gives a standard for denying part or all of the redress for the non-offending side, but the TD is still required to adjust against N/S. N/S appear to have found a very generous TD!

Quote

I see a couple of problems here. First, North made a bare-minimum bid with a huge double fit for partner; his actions are suspicious at best.

In England we look at fielded misbids, and this looks a bit like one. Elsewhere [where was this?] the concept seems unknown, but a fielded misbid is a breach of Law 40.

Putting it simply, there are only two reasons why North bid only 2♥. Either he is an extremely poor player ["I only had four points" ] or he has seen this partner get this 2♣ bid wrong before. If the latter we have a concealed partnership understanding.

I suppose there is another possibility: despite what he told the opponents, perhaps he was not sure himself what the 2♣ meant. This excuses the 2♥ bid but not the explanation.

Quote

However I do believe that there was a "failure to play bridge" on defense here, because with a void in dummy, a singleton in hand, and south with 2 (or maybe 3 at the most if the michaels bid was made with 5-4), east must have at least 9 clubs, and quite possibly 10. This is impossible according to the auction so west should have woken up and asked what's up with the 2♣ bid.

A "failure to play bridge" is only a reason to deny redress in the ACBL: the standard elsewhere is shown in Law 12C1B. Was this in the ACBL?

[suprgrover]

bluejak, on Sep 27 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

A "failure to play bridge" is only a reason to deny redress in the ACBL: the standard elsewhere is shown in Law 12C1B.  Was this in the ACBL?

Is it really ACBL policy anymore? The only definitive commentary from the ACBL about Law 12 in the New Laws is the following, from the Fall 2008 Laws Commission minutes:

Quote

The Commission concurs with the WBF Committee’s interpretation of 12C1(B) in that a player’s expertise be considered in determining whether that player’s error was a serious one that contributed to that player’s side receiving an unfavorable result.

(In a more perfect world, the ACBL would have things like the Orange and White Books that make it possible to know what its current thinking is, instead of commission minutes buried in websites.)

[Edited to remove accidental emoticon]

[bluejak]

Fascinating. Well, I have been invited back onto ACBL appeals, so ask me again after San Diego.

[blackshoe]

It's very hard to tell what current ACBL policy is. They seem like a bunch of mushroom growers.

[peachy]

suprgrover, on Sep 27 2009, 06:38 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 27 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

A "failure to play bridge" is only a reason to deny redress in the ACBL: the standard elsewhere is shown in Law 12C1B.  Was this in the ACBL?

Is it really ACBL policy anymore? The only definitive commentary from the ACBL about Law 12 in the New Laws is the following, from the Fall 2008 Laws Commission minutes:

Quote

The Commission concurs with the WBF Committee’s interpretation of 12C1( in that a player’s expertise be considered in determining whether that player’s error was a serious one that contributed to that player’s side receiving an unfavorable result.

(In a more perfect world, the ACBL would have things like the Orange and White Books that make it possible to know what its current thinking is, instead of commission minutes buried in websites.)

How did you manage to find these minutes?
I did a "test drive" on ACBL website, looking for laws commission minutes. Impossible.

[LH2650]

http://www.acbl.org/...ionMinutes.html

[Fluffy]

suprgrover, on Sep 27 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 27 2009, 03:35 PM, said:

EW argued that the first 2 mistakes were greatly influenced by the missexplanation given by north but Director decided that the defence was so horrible that it deserved to stand the result.

The only thing that seems to be a mistake is trying to cash the ♥K. At that point, if West exits with a diamond

I wasn't at the table, but west explaind that he felt endplayed not knowing spade was passive. Dummy's ♦10 was pitched on the club when he ruffed high, diamond was a tripple ruff play wich should promote, but didn't seem so safe to him.

[Fluffy]

There was also some argument about automatic -3 IMP penalty for giving wrong information.


About their agreements. They didn't have anything written (michael's cuebid, with around here can be played with either 2♣ or 2♦ as majors). South was the teacher and north the sponsor.

[bluejak]

Convention disruption is alive and well, eh? You are intriguing me more, and more, Fluffy: please tell where 'around here' is!

The WBF have stated that automatic penalties for getting system wrong are inappropriate. Also, I do not like the sound of "some argument about ...": who is arguing? Does that mean that the TD did not issue a PP to N/S and E/W told him he should? That is not sporting.

I think North being the sponsor may explain the strange 2♥ bid.

[Fluffy]

I told you before, this is Spain. The zone: Madrid. We have our own translations of conventions as probably happens on every country where english is not spoken by half the population.

Arguing? well, everybody came to discuss the board after lol.

As to the result comitee finally decided that north's bidding was unacceptable and that 4♥ must be the final contract. Not sure about how many downs.