[ulven]

Somewhat related to previous topic. Say the auction goes:

1D - (2D) - X - (3D)
pass - (3H) - pass - (pass)
?

1D is 11-15, could be singleton (Precision-style).
No alerts, your partner still asked about 2D before doubling and that was natural.
X was therefore T/O and 3D a natural raise. RHO look a long time before passing on 3H. What should you now base your final action on?

That the opponents had a misunderstanding (regardless if misbid or wrong explanation) and that LHO misbid and has 55 M's (Michaels)?
That RHO thought they had a misunderstanding and banked everything on that (by passing in the middle of the auction)?
That everything is ok but RHO decided that prospects for higher contracts were bleak given the fact that his opponents both opened the bidding and made a voluntary T/O X, simply breaking discipline and passed a forcing bid?
Once again, should I assume no infraction has taking place and base any potential further action on that (even if giving me a double-shot) or not?

Say I can see that diamonds are breaking badly and would have doubled 4D, what about doubling 3H in matchpoints? A decision that is correct if no infraction has taken place (i.e. natural overcall and raise). But double would be very clearly a "wild and gambling" call if 2D bidder has 55 in majors. What happens now when this indeed was the case?

Yes, it was wild and gambling IF LHO had the majors. In fact a call you wouldn't consider a logical alternative given THAT information. What if the thought of an infraction, for some reason, didn't even enter one's mind? If I was playing a against a regular partnership and didn't even consider a misunderstanding? IF they had diamonds, the call wasn't "wild and gambling".

If I have an easy pass regardless, no problem, and the maybe an score adjustment. But if I have an easy pass in one case (infraction) and a possible bid in the other case (no infraction). If I take action and there was an infraction I now may have to live with the table result because my action was deemed "wild and gambling". Sure it was, when they didn't have those cards.

What responsibility/rights do you have here?
Most importantly: Are you required to realise an infraction have taken place? What if you didn't?

I think the laws are seriously lacking in describing rights and responsibilities for the non-offending side when an infraction MAY have occured in the auction. No whistle is blown and offense or no offense can't be judged until after we have concluded the auction. The non-offending sides choice of bids if frequently highly dependent on that ruling when anything other than pass is an option (given that no infraction has occured). Just saying "wild and gambling" isn't allowed isn't guideline enough neither for players who may find themselves in this situation, nor for TD's and jurors who may be unable to comprehend how reasonable the chosen bid may have been if the information was "correct".

Comments?

[mink]

As you presented this problem, I think you can be quite relaxed, because even in case that their methods are natural after your 1♦, your LHO has used UI (answer to your partner's question). But what if partner did not ask, but simply double assuming that 2♦ must be natural if not alerted? Now you need to know what their methods really are, maybe by consulting their cc. Therefore, as a TD, I would always assume misinformation if there is no cc or the topic is not covered by the cc available.

Karl

[bluejak]

I would call the TD, tell him I am worried about the possibility of MI, and ask him to make sure what the opponents' methods are. I expect he will send the 3♦ bidder away from the table and check with the 2♦ bidder whether they have an agreement over 2♦, and, if so, what it is.

True, this may not help. But it means you will not now suffer from MI difficulties. EBU advice is that while certain things may be delayed until the end of the hand, eg UI considerations, in the case of potential or actual MI, call the TD immediately.

[ulven]

Thanks for comments. I'd like to see comments about this also: "Most importantly: Are you required to realise an infraction have taken place?"

What if you don't realise that something might have happened? Reiterating: You play against a regular partnership and it doesn't enter your mind that it was perhaps Michaels. Now you can no longer call the TD in the middle of the auction, get someone sent away, and figure out what's going on. Will this have any impact on a later ruling whether my action is "wild and gambling"?

Say I double, the contract makes (55 M's) and I honestly say "I didn't suspect this, they're regular partnership, firm explanantion, no 'maybe'". TD says: "I don't believe you, you must have realised what was going on and still decided to double. That was certainly "wild and gambling" because you knew".

Therefore, in the eyes of the Law, am I required to realise something might have happened and could this affect the ruling?
Is it enough that I may have realised... as in when partner's UI prohibits me from choosing a logical alternative because I may have been influenced?

My take would be no to these questions but there has been a ruling in Sweden by the "supreme" Appeals Committe a few years back, that they didn't believe that the player had failed to know something was amiss and therefore was struck with the "wild and gambling" argument for that very reason. Not because the action was wild and gambling due to information assuming no infraction had been committed, but it was wild and gambling because "he had to have known". Is this correct? Are you required to realise something has happened and if you don't, are you fried?

[bluejak]

If you are asking whether an AC/TD can make a mistake in judgement, of course they can.

If you do not realise something, and it is assumed you must have, sorry: we have all had bum rulings in our careers.

But worrying on a specific hand about whether you will get a bad ruling is merely going to age you prematurely, and do no good.

[ulven]

I don't care about this particular ruling now. No use beating a dead horse .
I want to know if it had any basis in the law if I would find myself in this situation in the future.

Can AC/TD claim "you should/could have known" as a valid reason for declaring an action "wild and gambling"?

[bluejak]

Of course. They have made a bridge judgement.

Whether they should is, of course, a matter for a specific hand. I would expect it to be a very rare conclusion.

[ulven]

The way I see it is that this is in many ways a situation comparable to the "hesitation" auction in this thread:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0&#entry466361

My point is, and I fail to see any support for an opposite view, that all actions should be made on the premises that no infraction has taken place. There may be some responsibility to try to asertain what is going on, but to use the example in the initial post, partner of the opening hand did ask about 2D despite no alert because this is a somewhat frequent source of misunderstandings.

In the eyes of the law there can be no burden on the non-offending side to "know" something is amiss (perhaps unless the cards in their hands very clearly indicate things doesn't add up). There is merit in calling the TD and sending one opponents away but failure to recognize the need for this should not damage the non-offending side. The situations I've used this possibility (which is maybe 5-6 times) is typically when the answer to a question is indecisive or of the "I don't know" kind. I've never done it after a clear and to-the-point reply. To do it in the latter case might be a source of UI to partner (my partner questions the reply because he sees it doesn't add up).

The judgement whether any additional call is "wild and gambling" should therefore be made with the information the player in question had available ussuming to infraction. As in Rik's post in referenced thread above. This gives the ever suspicious some "double-shots" but this is legal as I understand it.

So AC/TD can not claim "you should/could have known" in itself as a valid reason for declaring an action "wild and gambling". They can only claim "wild and gambling" if their bridge judgement says the call made was not a logical alternative if everything was legit.

Any objections? If so, on what grounds (using the example in this thread)?

[axman]

ulven, on Jun 5 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

The way I see it is that this is in many ways a situation comparable to the "hesitation" auction in this thread:
http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0&#entry466361

My point is, ........, that all actions should be made on the premises that no infraction has taken place.

I find it refreshing that some hold this view.

Pointing out that, as the law is written someone that holds this view is likely to find himself on the short end most of the time. For the view to be tenable it is necessary to acknowlege the prinicple of continuity which states that events that are connected remain so until the connection is severed; together with the corollary that once the connection is severed it remains severed. As of this date the lawmakers are reluctant to take on such a challenge.