[nige1]

IMO: North-South were misinformed. Few players play high-level doubles as clearly penalty. North's removal to 5♠ may be poor judgement but it is not wild and gambling and with the correct explanation he might have passed. North-South could allow 5♦X to make, but since they are victims, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ie 5♦X-1.

[pran]

jeremy69, on Jan 1 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

Quote

My actual ruling would depend heavily on the level of the tournament, and this doesn't seem to be very high????

Not sure how you can divine the potential strength of a tournament from one possible result but it is a national tournament and had a number of good players as well as weaker ones.

Quote

My actual ruling would depend heavily on the level of the tournament

Do you then have different law books according to the strength of the tournament or perhaps in a Swiss different regulations or interpretations of the law according to the table number of the problem?

Judgement rulings very often depends on the level of the event and the experience of the players.

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 31 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

[SNIP] ... unless they can explain why they are damaged (other than 'unhappy') I would rule that the table result stands ... [/SNIP]

A victim's explanation of how he thinks he is damaged is important evidence. IMO, however, even if a victim can't give a coherent explanation or even if his reasoning is clearly wrong, then the director should still investigate possible damage. North-South were misinformed. Here a director might sympathise with North that ♥ Axxx in one of LHO's putative long suits has more defensive potential than Jxx

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Jan 1 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

I think it was MI, because they stated that they had an agreement when they didn't.

E/W did have an agreement.

However, you are correct to say that there was MI, because the correct explanation was: "we've agreed to play our 2NT overcalls as 'unusual', although we did not have time to discuss what this means".

Given the correct explanation, North and South would both assume (as East did) that 2NT showed both minors, which is exactly what they assumed when given the actual explanation at the table. Hence there is clearly no damage from the MI.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Jan 1 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

I know how important it is to always follow the exact letter of the laws, and how it is quite proper to use all the laws to one's advantage. Sometimes, I fail to do this if I feel the opponents might need clarification in a live auction. My bad.

Sarcasm. How very useful.

Quote

As already established by my many posts, I would be a crummy director.  And if I were a judge, lawyers would avoid my courtroom if they wanted Law untainted by personal standards.

I think you will find that a judge whose decisions are "tainted by personal standards" may find himself out of a job — unless those standards are pretty close to those of the community at large.

[bluejak]

Many - probably most - of these rulings were given by other TDs after consulting with me. The rule in the EBU is that the table Director makes the final decision, so they do not have to follow any advice I give them. While I expect most of these TDs gave the rulings I advised I cannot be sure. So I shall tell you what I advised, but cannot always guarantee it is what the TD actually ruled.

We considered whether there was MI. We decided there was, but could not see any damage therefrom, for reasons as given in various answers on this thread.

We considered whether West used UI in bidding 5♦ but again felt that passing 5♣ was not an LA since partner had passed originally. We even considered - as mentioned above - the idea that 5♣ should show something like 3=2=2=6, ie a sort of pass or correct.

We had wondered whether 5♠ bid was bad enough to come under Law 12C1B. We decided it probably was, but since we decided not to adjust this did not matter.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Jan 2 2010, 10:52 PM, said:

We had wondered whether 5♠ bid was bad enough to come under Law 12C1B. We decided it probably was, but since we decided not to adjust this did not matter.

It's a good thing that it didn't matter as it is the TDs, not the North player, who appear to have made a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) in this case.

North's 5♠ bid converted a virtually certain -550 into a better score for his side (even if your reported table score of -500 is accurate this time; 5♠x looks to be -300 at worst). How can an action which improves one's score be a "serious error"? I suppose that some "wild or gambling" actions might improve one's score, but it would be very unfair to describe a winning competitive decision in such a way.

[bluejak]

It is hardly necessary to be a result merchant either as a TD or a player. Partner makes a penalty double of 5♦: you have shown no defence but have an ace. Why on earth would you be thinking of -550?

The 5♠ bid is dreadful and only a result merchant - which you are not, Jeffrey - would think otherwise. Perhaps you should reconsider the hand.

[greenender]

jallerton, on Jan 2 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

E/W did have an agreement.

However, you are correct to say that there was MI, because the correct explanation was: "we've agreed to play our 2NT overcalls as 'unusual', although we did not have time to discuss what this means".

Given the correct explanation, North and South would both assume (as East did) that 2NT showed both minors, which is exactly what they assumed when given the actual explanation at the table.  Hence there is clearly no damage from the MI.

Correct.

In England, at any rate, the number of people who play a 2NT overcall of 1♠ to show the reds is very small. The number who think that "unusual" is an accurate, let alone a sufficient, description, of that method, is far smaller still.

I agree with the ruling, and as bluejak said the question of SEWoG thus became moot, but I agree with his analysis of the 5♠ bid.

The fact that 5♦X was a likely make was a function of W's extreme distribution, which was unlucky for N/S, but N might have reflected that E had gone to the 5 level thinking W had ♣s. Now that it seems apparent to the world that W has the reds, it is surely more likely that E may well have bid higher than he would have done had he known it was reds. Another reason to pass.

This actually looks like a double shot by N, FWIW.

[greenender]

nige1, on Jan 1 2010, 07:31 PM, said:

North-South could allow 5♦X to make, but since they are victims, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ie 5♦X-1.

Surely not, in a jurisdiction where weighted adjustments are not just permitted, but the norm in appropriate cases.

If you were going to adjust, you assess the likelihood of 5♦X being allowed to make, and then adjust that weighting slightly in favour of the NOS (sympathetic weighting). You would only allow the NOS the benefit of defeating the contract 100% of the time if you thought that they would actually defeat it, say, 90+% of the time.

As I feel that it is more likely than not that 5♦X would make, then the adjustment would be, say 50-50. If one were adjusting.

[vigfus]

Hello All HNY
Score stands.
There is not question there was UI and MI. But did that matter on this hand ?
I say No. All players at the table know when the 5♦ call is made, there is some MI.
There is NO way that west it going ot PASS the 5♣ bid ever. I am sure 99% of west players will not do that in this auction.
I rule that 5♦ bid is an logical alternative on this board.

[jallerton]

greenender, on Jan 5 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

I agree with the ruling, and as bluejak said the question of SEWoG thus became moot, but I agree with his analysis of the 5♠ bid.

The fact that 5♦X was a likely make was a function of W's extreme distribution, which was unlucky for N/S, which was unlucky for N/S, but N might have reflected that E had gone to the 5 level thinking W had ♣s

Yes, but as North is entitled to assume that West has bid legally, he might also have reflected that West must hold extreme distribution in order for pass to not be a logical alternative.

But anyway, let's assume for the moment that the West hand is less distributional, by swapping one or two of East's spades with one or two of East's red cards. Now even Geoffrey Boycott's mother would make 5♠ for +450 and unless E/W can take 5♦x at least three off in practice [which seems unliklely] then the winning action is to bid 5♠. Matchpoint pairs is a difficult game.

Quote

his actually looks like a double shot by N, FWIW.

What do you mean. exactly? Let's make the far from clear assumption that North has already decided during the auction that he is going to ask for a ruling. Now he has the choice of:

{a} passing and ending up with the score from defending 5♦x or, if the ruling goes in his favour, an assigned score from defending 5♣x; and

{b} bidding 5♠ and ending up with the score from declaring 5♠ or, if the ruling goes in his favour, an assigned score from defending 5♣x.

Clearly, it is in North's interests to take whichever action out of pass and 5♠ he believes will maximise his table score. Whether he opts for {a} or {b} he will still have the "double shot" of calling the TD. Bluejak has confirmed in other threads that the "double shot" of calling the TD to investigate a potential infraction is perfectly legal.

Bluejak said:

It is hardly necessary to be a result merchant either as a TD or a player. Partner makes a penalty double of 5♦: you have shown no defence but have an ace. Why on earth would you be thinking of -550?

The 5♠ bid is dreadful and only a result merchant - which you are not, Jeffrey - would think otherwise. Perhaps you should reconsider the hand.

I take it from your comments that you consider 5♠ to be clearly inferior to pass (though I suspect that if you were to poll peers of North, you might discover that 5♠ is a logical alternative!). Maybe you would even go so far as to say that bidding 5♠ in this situation is bad bridge. However, that does not mean that you should consider denying redress to the non-offenders. The EBU White Book makes clear:

EBU White Book said:

Non-offending opponents in #90.4.2 whose actions on the board are wild or gambling are not entitled to an adjustment (see #12.1.3 (). ‘Wild or gambling action’ is action markedly worse than bad bridge, and does not include defensive errors in a contract the non-offenders should not have been defending.

In the context of this auction, if the North were to pull the double of 5♦ to 6NT, that would be an example of an action markedly worse than bad bridge, in my opinion. Then North would know that he was doing something severely off-centre, i.e. 'wild or gambling'.

In making his actual call of 5♠, the TD has no reason to believe that North was not trying to do his best; bidding 5♠ is simply nowhere close to 'wild or gambling'.

[bluejak]

You have shown a distributional hand: you have shown no defence particularly: you have shown playing tricks in support of spades: your partner doubles 5♦ for penalties.

You hold a distributional hand: you have more defence than shown, because you have an ace: you have playing tricks in support of spades: pulling partner's penalty double is a beginner level effort, or at the very least is a wild effort, and is a complete gamble.

You expectation when pulling partner's penalty double, holding more defence than shown but not more distribution, is to change plus 100 or plus 300 to -50. An unbelievable effort.

And, to make it worse, partner has shown defence to clubs and diamonds.

I would not play again with a partner who pulled my penalty double on that heap of filth unless she was very sexy, very much a beginner, or paying me.

[campboy]

I think the question of whether a successful action can be wild or gambling is a distraction. If an action was successful, how can it matter under the 2007 laws whether it was wild or gambling? Law 12C1b says that in the WoG case the player "does not receive relief [...] for such part of the damage as was self-inflicted". But if the action was successful, none of the damage can have been self-inflicted.

[bluejak]

5♦ doubled is cold off on the correct defence. The 5♠ bid earned a well merited -500. It is difficult how you can characterise changing +100 to -500 as "successful".

[campboy]

Apologies, I misread the previous posts and didn't realise that Jeffrey was talking about a different distribution.

[jallerton]

No need to apologise, Campboy; you were right the first time. When Bluejak siad "correct defence", he meant "best double dummy defence".

As Frances remarked early on in this thread:

Frances said:

If West is declarer I would expect the contract to make much of the time. Why on earth would North pull out the ace of hearts as the opening lead? I agree the auction is relevant, but on the given auction it's far more likely that dummy has a singleton heart than partner. And I can't see any reason to lead a club (from Jxx) rather than a spade, when you know that dummy thought that 5C was a good contract opposite the minors. If West had been 1660 instead of 0661 would you suddenly suggest that a spade was obvious? And what about all those textbooks telling us it's always right to lead a trump against two-suited auctions?

I made +550 on this deal, and I didn't find the chosen spade lead surprising or particularly worthy of criticism.

Let's say that there was a one in five chance of North finding an inspired lead.

Before North pulled the double to 5♠, N/S's expected MP score was 80% of MP [-550] plus 20% of MP [+100].

After North pulled the double N/S's expected MP score was (say) x% of MP [-100] plus (100-x)% of MP [-300] (It is hard to envisage how 5♠ goes 3 off.)

Of course the matchpoints would need to be computed to confirm, but it seems fairly clear to me that the pull to 5♠ improved North's expected MP score and thus no damage was inflicted by the 5♠ bid.