[helene_t]

Tolani Grand Prix, second elimination round of the pairs. This is played without screens.

EW: a local top pair whose team was eliminated in the first round of the knock-out round, and therefore joined the pairs elimination.
NS: Unknown pair, their CC lists tons of unusual treatments.

South dealer:

Pass-Pass-1♥-Pass

At this stage North said "oops" and wants to pick up his 1♥ bidding card, but East objects, saying he cannot undo a bid. It is not quite clear exactly how far East has progressed towards playing his pass card when North says "oops". I think he had pulled it out of the bidding box but not moved it towards the table.

North accepts East's refusal and the bidding continues:
Pass-Pass-1♥-Pass
1♠-Pass-Pass

At this point, East (sorry, I wrote North, edited) says he wants to know what inference he can make from this auction, including the fact that North said "oops". The director is called. The director says that North(!) and East have to be taken apart for North to answer several questions, in particular what he would have bid instead of 1♥ (!).

After that the auction proceeds to 2♠ by South which seems like a normal contract (South tried not to take advantage of UI by bidding 2♥ next turn with her 5-3 majors and seven points: NS play 5-card majors but frequently op a 4-card major in 3rd seat with a minimum opener, this is also mentioned on their CC. N corrected back to 2♠ with his 4-3 majors). Possibly the fact that 2♠ was played by South (North intended to open 1♠ instead of 1♥) cost a trick but the TD was not called further.

Comments please as the board gave rise to some fighting in the bar afterwards when all four players had had too much scotch.

[RMB1]

helene_t, on Oct 21 2009, 01:10 PM, said:

North accepts East's refusal and the bidding continues:
Pass-Pass-1♥-Pass
1♠-Pass-Pass

At this point, North says he wants to know what inference he can make from this auction, ...

Should this be East who wants to know what inference ... ?

You do not say what the TD actually ruled.

The ruling by East could be wrong: if North said "oops" as soon as he realised that he had bid 1♥, and bidding 1♥ was a mechanical error (not a change of mind) then North can make his intended call even though East has called.

Robin

[helene_t]

RMB1, on Oct 21 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

You do not say what the TD actually ruled.

The TD said that North had to tell East what he (North) intended to bid instead of 1♥.

Sorry it was indeed East who wanted to know what North intended to bid.

[bluejak]

First, if E/W is a top local pair then I give East a little PP for giving rulings at the table. Not only should he not do so, but giving a totally wrong ruling is pretty awful.

Second, I tell North to call the TD in future and not to trust opponents when they give rulings.

Third, I shoot the TD.

Yes, the ruling is dreadful, crazy, and following no known Law. Once North has not been allowed to change his call, no-one has any right to force him to say what he wanted to change it to.

Fourth, I buy a Law book for the TD to be buried with him.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on Oct 21 2009, 09:35 AM, said:

The ruling by East could be wrong

A "ruling" by a player is always wrong (Law 10A, Law 81C).

[cherdanno]

I rule the TD has to pay for the rounds of scotch.

[helene_t]

cherdanno, on Oct 21 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

I rule the TD has to pay for the rounds of scotch.

East insisted on paying our drinking bill (I was South).

[aguahombre]

Nah, as South you would have called the director when east starting making his "ruling".

[Sadie3]

Yeah, I was wondering why East got away with saying North couldn't change his bid and that no TD was called at that point. The late TD call really muddied the waters and if it were me, I am not sure I would have allowed any discussion of anything at that point. I think I would have said...discussion ended, assume what you want, play and call me at end if you still think that there is some irregularity you wish to report.

[gwnn]

helene_t, on Oct 21 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Oct 21 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

I rule the TD has to pay for the rounds of scotch.

East insisted on paying our drinking bill (I was South).

so wtp? if the ruling had been less stupid, maybe you would have had to buy east the drinks