[bluejak]

Scoring: IMP

.W .N. .E. .S
.... 1♠ 3♦ Dbl
3♥ 3♠ .P. .4♦
.P. .P. .P.

3♦ was alerted
and described as
hearts and clubs

Result:
4♦ -4 by S
Lead:
♥Q

---

There is no doubt that E/W play 3♦ as natural, weakish.

This is from the local league.

[Cyberyeti]

If W is going to describe this as ♣/♥ then only bid 3♥ either he's being extremely cute, or he realised his mistake before he bid and should have informed the opps.

Why S didn't bid 3N rather than 4♦ I don't know, on the auction as it was explained, he has no reason to suspect partner isn't 6124, so there is no guaranteed diamond fit, but don't regard what he did as bizarre enough to deny redress.

With the correct explanation, the most likely result EW were going to obtain is 3Dx-4 and if W tried to wriggle it could be worse.

I think I'd adjust to 3Dx-4 (E) for both sides due to the MI.

[jdonn]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

If W is going to describe this as ♣/♥ then only bid 3♥ either he's being extremely cute, or he realised his mistake before he bid and should have informed the opps.

Why S didn't bid 3N rather than 4♦ I don't know, on the auction as it was explained, he has no reason to suspect partner isn't 6124, so there is no guaranteed diamond fit, but don't regard what he did as bizarre enough to deny redress.

With the correct explanation, the most likely result EW were going to obtain is 3Dx-4 and if W tried to wriggle it could be worse.

I think I'd adjust to 3Dx-4 (E) for both sides due to the MI.

West thought 3♦ showed hearts and clubs. He was never going to pass it. You can't force him to simply because he gave a wrong explanation.

I think north's 3♠ bid is so bizarre and terrible that I don't believe it has anything to do with the misexplanation. It let EW off the hook and everything that happened from there is due to NS's actions as well, so I rule no adjustment.

If there is an appropriate procedural penalty for the misexplanation then of course give that to EW, but that should be pretty uncontroversial based on whatever regulations are in use.

[Cyberyeti]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Oct 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

If W is going to describe this as ♣/♥ then only bid 3♥ either he's being extremely cute, or he realised his mistake before he bid and should have informed the opps.

Why S didn't bid 3N rather than 4♦ I don't know, on the auction as it was explained, he has no reason to suspect partner isn't 6124, so there is no guaranteed diamond fit, but don't regard what he did as bizarre enough to deny redress.

With the correct explanation, the most likely result EW were going to obtain is 3Dx-4 and if W tried to wriggle it could be worse.

I think I'd adjust to 3Dx-4 (E) for both sides due to the MI.

West thought 3♦ showed hearts and clubs. He was never going to pass it. You can't force him to simply because he gave a wrong explanation.

No I'm asking why he didn't bid 4 or 5 hearts with a known 6-5 fit and opponents not sure of how big their diamond fit is.

What was N supposed to do, this being England, 1♠ may only have shown 4, he may not have been certain what X would be, too good to pass, 3♠ is not ridiculous.

[jdonn]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 5 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

West thought 3♦ showed hearts and clubs. He was never going to pass it. You can't force him to simply because he gave a wrong explanation.

No I'm asking why he didn't bid 4 or 5 hearts with a known 6-5 fit and opponents not sure of how big their diamond fit is.

So you think he's not being forthcoming? But why would he ever bid 3♥ opposite a natural and weak 3♦? That alone is enough evidence to be sure he was being honest.

As for why he just bid 3♥ if he was opposite hearts and clubs, maybe he thought since south doubled he had a chance to get doubled there. Maybe he knows this NS pair has no idea what they are doing (after all, they proved that soon after) so there was no need to preempt them. Maybe, as you mentioned, "he's being extremely cute" and he was walking the dog.

I think you are punishing him for nothing more than what you consider poor bidding judgment. And it wasn't even one of the 3 worst actions of the auction (which would be the 3♠ 4♦ and final pass by NS)!

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry, I edited my previous post as you were typing.

Also if your partner's WJO is doubled essentially for penalties and you know this is habitually KJxxx and out, you are very likely to want to remove it with a singleton and QJ to 6. With a lot of pairs NV the WJO can be pretty random, and partner doesn't have to be void in hearts. With my normal partner I'd bid 3♥ here as our WJOs can be the weak side of filthy.

The 4♦ bid in my view is bad but not ridiculous.

[woefuwabit]

This is how I've ruled in similar situation. If EW have a convention card that describes that they are playing Ghestem, then result stands. Not sure if EW should receive a procedural penalty, but I did not award this. If there is no convention card, then I'll give benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side, rule that there is MI, and adjust the result to 3♥x where there are 10 tricks for the defense... down 6.

[jdonn]

woefuwabit, on Oct 5 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

This is how I've ruled in similar situation. If EW have a convention card that describes that they are playing Ghestem, then result stands. Not sure if EW should receive a procedural penalty, but I did not award this. If there is no convention card, then I'll give benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side, rule that there is MI, and adjust the result to 3♥x where there are 10 tricks for the defense... down 6.

What is the damage? It still seems to me the damage to NS was self-inflicted and had nothing to do with the explanation of 3♦. Is south saying he wouldn't he made a negative double of a natural 3♦, or north saying he wouldnt' have bid 3♠, or what? And if they make those claims, what is the justification?

Maybe it's just me, but it keeps seeming to me in this thread that people want to punish E/W for making a mistake, rather than rectify any potential damage it caused to N/S.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

What is the damage? It still seems to me the damage to NS was self-inflicted and had nothing to do with the explanation of 3♦. Is south saying he wouldn't he made a negative double of a natural 3♦, or north saying he wouldnt' have bid 3♠, or what? And if they make those claims, what is the justification?

Firstly there was clearly MI; that part is clarified by the OP. So the only question is what was the damage, and was there a serious error after it?

If West had not alerted 3♦, South would have made a negative double, presumably showing four hearts, and North would have doubled 3♥. After the explanation "hearts and clubs", which is quite a rare treatment, North-South were uncertain what South's double of 3♦ showed. I would play "values and looking for a penalty", in which case North should double 3♥, but one can understand North-South having a problem with it. North's 3♠ is a poor bid, I agree, as is South's 4♦, and whether they are serious errors would depend on the calibre of player that they are (I suspect no better than intermediate). It looks like 3♥X -6 for East-West however, and either the same for North-South, or the table score if they are deemed to have committed a serious error.

And I presume one cannot have a split N/S score for the serious error part - either the error is serious or it is not - but someone will know the precedent on this.

[awm]

Suppose that E/W had explained the 3♦ bid as showing diamonds. Then south makes his negative double, and west bids 3♥. It seems really obvious now to double for penalty with the north hand (he knows E/W are in his side's 7+ card fit) and 3♥X goes for a big number.

Now, we need to determine whether N/S made a big mistake here. To understand this requires that we know N/S agreement about the meaning of their calls over a 3♦ bid showing hearts and clubs. If double shows penalty interest, it seems like north should really be doubling 3♥ anyway (he has extras and a strong heart holding). Of course, it's also possible that double shows diamonds, in which case north has a tough problem and 3♠ (while perhaps inferior) is not crazy. However, if the double showed diamonds then south's 4♦ bid (showing an awful five-card suit twice?) seems nonsensical and south should bid 3NT with both round suits controlled.

My view is that N/S had an accident here, and that the E/W MI might've contributed to that. In any case if E/W explained their agreements correctly it is extremely likely that they end in 3♥X (or 4♦X if east is allowed to pull given his void). On the other hand, N/S bidding is awful from at least one side of the table.

N/S table result. 4♦-4 by South, -200.
E/W adjusted to 3♥X-6 by West, -1400.

[bluejak]

There are a number of posts here and in other threads which I have initiated here and in rec.games.bridge which give me the impression that a lot of posters are only used to rulings tending to involve good players. Maybe there is a tendency in other jurisdictions for rulings in clubs to be given without much consideration or consultation.

The one thing that is quite clear to me - and I have no idea who the players are - is that the players are very poor on both sides,and I really think more sympathy shoudl be offered to them.

Quote

No I'm asking why he didn't bid 4 or 5 hearts with a known 6-5 fit and opponents not sure of how big their diamond fit is.

My opinion? Because he is a very poor player, and he has only got eight points. Ridiculous? Yes, of course, but I expect I am right.

Quote

If there is an appropriate procedural penalty for the misexplanation then of course give that to EW, but that should be pretty uncontroversial based on whatever regulations are in use.

We follow the WBF Code of Practice which states that unless MI is often repeated PPs are unsuitable.

Quote

This is how I've ruled in similar situation. If EW have a convention card that describes that they are playing Ghestem, then result stands. Not sure if EW should receive a procedural penalty, but I did not award this. If there is no convention card, then I'll give benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side, rule that there is MI, and adjust the result to 3♥x where there are 10 tricks for the defense... down 6.

There is no doubt as to what they are playing, and you are prepared to base a ruling on the principle that there is doubt? And this is how you ruled in a similar situation, ie amongst players who clearly are pretty poor? I do not approve.

Quote

And I presume one cannot have a split N/S score for the serious error part - either the error is serious or it is not - but someone will know the precedent on this.

If you read Law 12C1B I think it is very clear as to what you can and cannot do. But I am not entirely clear what it is you are suggesting.

Quote

My view is that N/S had an accident here, and that the E/W MI might've contributed to that. In any case if E/W explained their agreements correctly it is extremely likely that they end in 3♥X (or 4♦X if east is allowed to pull given his void). On the other hand, N/S bidding is awful from at least one side of the table.

There is nothing in the Laws about awful bidding, which is a great relief to me at least.

What is the legal basis for splitting the score?

[bluejak]

Having consulted with two people both of whom post here, this is my reply [with one small bit expunged which was silly!

Your teams asked for a ruling on Thursday on board 17. Liz has asked me to rule. I have consulted and this is my ruling.

After 1♠ from North, East bid 3♦, which is a natural bid. However, it was described as showing hearts and clubs. This means that North-South were misinformed, and East had unauthorised information that partner had taken it as something different from the hand held.

I have decided that East's actions were evident, ie there was no apparent use of unauthorised information. But North-South were damaged because they would have taken different actions if they had known it showed diamonds.

If they had known, South might have made a negative double, quite likely would. No doubt West would have bid 3♥ anyway since s/he would still believe it showed hearts and clubs. Now North might double, or bid 3♠ as s/he did. East would bid 4♦ over a double, but might pass or bid 4♦ if North bid 3♠. South might bid 3NT if East passed 3♠ - though I notice s/he did not when it seemed the obvious bid with the information s/he had.

If North finds a pass over 3♦ [not too likely, but possible], West will bid 3♥, East will bid 4♦ and then North and South might start doubling.

I understand the actual result was N/S got -200, while in the other room E/W got -200, a swing of -9 imps.

So there are a lot of possibilities. I have decided to do a weighting on the likely results as follows [shown as scores for North-South]:

. 10% of 1100 = 10% of 14 imps = 1.4 imps
+ 20% of 800 = 20% of 12 imps = 2.4 imps
+ 20% of 400 = 20% of 5 imps = 1.0 imps
+ 20% of 200 = 20% of 0 imps = 0.0 imps
+ 20% of 140 = 20% of -2 imps = -0.4 imps
+ 10% of -50 = 10% of -6 imps = -0.6 imps

which adds up to 3.8 imps, rounded to +4 imps. Thus xxxxxx get +4 imps rather than -9 imps, an increase of 13 imps.

This is a ruling of first instance. Any appeal should be lodged within 24 hours of the receipt of this email by telling Liz Stevenson, Chief Tournament Director, <xxxx@xxxxxx.org>, telephone number as below.

[jdonn]

First you say

bluejak, on Oct 7 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

I have decided that East's actions were evident, ie there was no apparent use of unauthorised information.

Next you say

Quote

If they had known, South might have made a negative double, quite likely would.  No doubt West would have bid 3♥ anyway since s/he would still believe it showed hearts and clubs.   Now North might double, or bid 3♠ as s/he did.  East would bid 4♦ over a double, but might pass or bid 4♦ if North bid 3♠.

You said east's actions were evident and he didn't take advantage of UI, but that if the auction had gone the same way with the same bids and nothing changing but the UI that east didn't use anyway, he might have bid 4♦ at the same point where he actually passed. Haven't you totally contradicted yourself?

Frankly it's the second part that is ridiculous. Show me the east that would bid 4♦ after 3♥ by partner when north has taken him off the hook.

I understand it's just one statement in a long and complicated ruling. Maybe it was simply careless typing?

[bluejak]

He passed after a penalty-ish double of 3♦. I am not certain that that means he will automatically pass after a takeout double of 3♦.

[jdonn]

Wow that is REALLY hard to believe. But ok, it's just one point in a long ruling so whatever.

[MFA]

NS are misinformed and I would rule on that basis. I would not consider any of NS's bids a serious error, because the thread seems to indicate that the level of the players is low in general.

Still taking the level of the players into account it's far from clear that NS would actually have been able to optain their maximum if they had got the right information.

A weighted score seems right. I would probably have been a little more generous to NS than bluejak, but perhaps the 6-way split is just right in this somewhat random game of bridge.

Quote

There are a number of posts here and in other threads which I have initiated here and in rec.games.bridge which give me the impression that a lot of posters are only used to rulings tending to involve good players.

That goes to some extend for me. But I think, btw, that it's only fair to assume that when hands are posted at these forums the level of the players is at least decent. Otherwise maybe a note about it would be in order.

[bluejak]

Ok, here's the note: when I post a ruling it involves poor players far more often than not!

[lamford]

And I must admit that the ruling was a pretty good effort at guessing what poor players would do; the only question I had regarding 12C1b was that I presume that you must make a decision on whether there was a serious error (in which case no redress for North-South) or no serious error (in which case they get full redress). There is no in-between - you have to decide one way or the other, just as with a permitted LA. Of course, in a match, one can decide there was serious error in which case there would be a split score with the offending side getting the full adjustment against them and the NOS getting, say, the table score because of their serious error. Sorry if I have not made a good job of expressing this!