ruling question
patri...@gmail.com
The auction goes
1S P 4H# P
P X 4S P
P X AP
# A splinter, marked on both convention cards. Not alerted.
After the auction is over, the 4H bidder (me) informs the doubler that
there was a failure to alert, and that we should probably call the
director. And so we do. She initially rules that the doubler can take
back his second double only, which he does. We play 4S undoubled,
making 4.
A round or two later, the director informs us that she's rolling the
auction back to the first double, and allowing the doubler to take
that one back. So we get -300 for down 6 undoubled in 4H.
Was the director's ruling correct? Which Law applies here?
I am not terribly fond of the doubler's actions, especially the second
double with zero trump tricks. I never got a look at the doubler's
hand, but presumably it contained four or five hearts to an honor or
two. But I guess that if I had to bet, I'd bet that the director made
the right ruling.
(My hand was:
AQJx
x
KJxxxx
xx.
Yes, a splinter might not be everyone's choice, but I think it's
reasonable.)
Robin Barker
actual auction when misinformation has happened and other changes by
way of an adjusted score. A call by the non-offenders can only be
changed if their partner has not yet called. So if the misinformation
comes to light at the end of the auction it is only the last pass by
the non-offenders that can be changed.
In this case the TD should only have offered the non-doubler the
chance to change his final pass. Nevertheless, it is very likely that
the doubler would not have doubled 4H if he had known it was a
splinter and the so the adjustment to 4H off lots looks right,
regardless of the earlier part of the ruling.
Robin
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
> ACBL-land. Matchpoints.
>
> The auction goes
>
> 1S P 4H# P
> P X 4S P
> P X AP
>
> # A splinter, marked on both convention cards. Not alerted.
>
> After the auction is over, the 4H bidder (me) informs the doubler that
> there was a failure to alert, and that we should probably call the
> director. And so we do. She initially rules that the doubler can take
> back his second double only, which he does. We play 4S undoubled,
> making 4.
>
> A round or two later, the director informs us that she's rolling the
> auction back to the first double, and allowing the doubler to take
> that one back. So we get -300 for down 6 undoubled in 4H.
>
> Was the director's ruling correct? Which Law applies here?
>
> I am not terribly fond of the doubler's actions, especially the second
> double with zero trump tricks. I never got a look at the doubler's
> hand, but presumably it contained four or five hearts to an honor or
> two. But I guess that if I had to bet, I'd bet that the director made
> the right ruling.
That seems like a good bet. She made two different rulings, so
chances are she made the right ruling at least one of those times.
But seriously: the second ruling is correct (which is what I think you
meant). If the doubler had known that 4H was, by agreement, a
splinter, he would have known that N-S were having an accident and
would have passed. That's the standard we use when deciding whether
there was damage.
> (My hand was:
> AQJx
> x
> KJxxxx
> xx.
> Yes, a splinter might not be everyone's choice, but I think it's
> reasonable.)
I'm going to channel Eric briefly and make an argument based on one
hand:
Kxxxx KJxx AQ Ax.
Do you want South to hold back because of wasted values in hearts?
Yes, I know one hand by itself doesn't prove anything, but here you
want to show partner that you have a trick source in diamonds if he
has some kind of fit---and you want him to pull in a notch if he has
wasted shortness opposite your suit. This information is going to be
much more important for slam purposes than the fact that you have a
singleton heart, IMHO. If necessary, you can cue-bid later to tell
him that you have second-round control of the suit.
-- Adam
David W.
I am not an expert in the laws (perhaps DS will chime in), but Robin's
post appears to concur with the relevant law:
Law 21.B.1 (a)
"Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has
not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other
rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision
to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation
given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert
promptly
where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed
misinformation."
and
Law 21.B.3
"When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the
offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an
adjusted score."
That said, I believe the director misapplied the law. An option to
4th seat to change the pass was not offered (error). An offer to the
doubler of 4S to withdraw the call was (error).
Irregardless of whether or not the director later recognised the
error, Law 40.B.4 seemed to then have been applied:
"A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to
provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these Laws
require is entitled to rectification through the award of an
adjusted score."
The question I have is whether or not the non-offenders deserved the
windfall of the forgotten agreement. Certainly, the offenders should
get the worst score that was at all probable (i.e. -300). But does
that mean that the non-offending side get the best of it? This is not
a case where misinformation was introduced in a competitive bidding
scenario that caused a pair to misjudge. Do the non-offenders not
have some responsibility here? Certainly if the balancing doubler had
_known_ that 4H was a splinter, s/he would never have doubled. Could s/
he have known? What if they had asked, thereby taking the chance that
it awakens the opening bidder? Upon hearing an "Oh yes its a
splinter!" would anyone have doubled? of course not. Or what if they
had inspected teh convention card and seen splinters clearly marked
(not reliable since many play that 1S-4H or 1H-4S are not splinters).
Would they have doubled? Did they not have some obligation to protect
themselves (relevant to the level of play usually)?
Would -300 offenders and +3 IMPS non-offenders have been reasonable?
Just wondering.
David W.
Raija D
<patri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:07bf3175-b688-4e2a...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
The bidding side did the right thing to call the TD. The initial TD ruling
was obviously wrong, the score should be either 4H down several or the table
result of 4SX making four.
The damage to the doubling side was not caused by the MI, it was caused by
the doubling side's irrational actions. If the law/regulations allow 4H
down a few for the bidders and 4SX making four for the doublers, that would
be justice served.
judyorcarl
wrote:
If either player has a side suit of 5+ length, a singleton is just
another 2nd round control.
Carl
patri...@gmail.com
Yes--but we were playing SA (sorry I didn't mention that earlier), and
playing SA it might be difficult to complete the description of my
hand when the auction proceeds 1S-2D-2NT. I agree with your general
assessment, but a 2D rebid doesn't get the "singleton heart" and "4-
card spade support" messages across quickly enough for my tastes.
Also, change your "one hand" to Kxxxx xxxx AQ Ax. Shouldn't opener get
excited after 1S-4H? Hey, there's no wastage in hearts. My partner and
I have the agreement that if opener's hand still would have opened if
you change all his (perhaps non-ace) honors in the splinter suit to
x's, then we respond positively to the splinter. Here, it seems
reasonable for opener to go straight to RKC: it's hard to imagine
responder's hand without the ace of spades and the minor suit kings,
and then we can decide to go to slam or not based on the presence of
the queen of trumps. (It would help if responder has some way to
indicate a heart void in the keycard responses.)
Andre Asbury
final pass, and if that does not restore equity, she can make an
adjusted score based on what would probably happen if the non-
offenders knew about the agreements. So, I agree that 4H down a few is
a fair result. Yes, the doubler probably should have been a little
suspicious about the bidding and checked the convention card but I
don't think he should have to live with the -590 since he surely would
have passed out 4H had he been informed.
Splintering with this hand is certainly reasonable. But I kind of
think partner is better placed for slam prospects if you bid 2D and
then 4S to get across the message that you have game values with
spades and diamonds. You need help in the diamond suit for slam to
have much chance and that just seems more important this time.
Stu G
No, +3 IMPs at matchpts is not at all reasonable!
Seriously though, there was MI due to the failure to alert 4H. Had
2nd seat be properly alerted he would surely have asked or at least
expected 4H was not to play and just passed. Since we did not see his
hand, it may have been feasible that he would double 4H knowing it was
a splinter and for the purpose of suggesting a sacrifice. But absent
that information and because there was MI, we must assume he would
pass.
I do not see how the NOS could possibly have protected themselves
without proper information, since some number of pairs do play 1S-4H
as natural. So 4H -6 for both sides.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
> Just wondering.
> David W.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
> Yes--but we were playing SA (sorry I didn't mention that earlier), and
> playing SA it might be difficult to complete the description of my
> hand when the auction proceeds 1S-2D-2NT. I agree with your general
> assessment, but a 2D rebid doesn't get the "singleton heart" and "4-
> card spade support" messages across quickly enough for my tastes.
Is 1S-2D-2NT-3S forcing in SA? Or is it needed to show a limit
raise? Sorry, it's been a while.
> Also, change your "one hand" to Kxxxx xxxx AQ Ax. Shouldn't opener get
> excited after 1S-4H? Hey, there's no wastage in hearts.
Nice of you to give him good diamonds also. The hands I'm worried
about are hands like K9xxx Axxx xx AQ where "no wastage in hearts"
isn't good enough. Even if you can ruff all three losing hearts in
dummy---no guarantee of that, especially on a trump lead, since your
hand is short of entries---you're still going to be hard-pressed to
avoid two losers in the other suits if you reach slam. And I was nice
enough to give declarer a doubleton diamond---if he has a singleton,
you probably won't have the option of setting up dummy's diamonds. I
think your example just helps me make my case that telling partner
about your diamonds is more useful information than telling him about
your singleton.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
>> ACBL-land. Matchpoints.
>>
>> The auction goes
>>
>> 1S P 4H# P
>> P X 4S P
>> P X AP
>>
>> # A splinter, marked on both convention cards. Not alerted.
>> A round or two later, the director informs us that she's rolling the
>> auction back to the first double, and allowing the doubler to take
>> that one back. So we get -300 for down 6 undoubled in 4H.
David Wheat:
> The question I have is whether or not the non-offenders deserved the
> windfall of the forgotten agreement. Certainly, the offenders should
> get the worst score that was at all probable (i.e. -300). But does
> that mean that the non-offending side get the best of it?
Why on earth not?
> Do the non-offenders not have some responsibility here? Certainly if
> the balancing doubler had _known_ that 4H was a splinter, s/he would
> never have doubled.
The non-alert *told* them that it wasn't -- under the Laws a missed
alert is equivalent to positive misinformation. They're entitled to
act on the assumption that 4H was natural, and guess that the other
side has no makeable game. Further, "protecting yourself" with a
redundant questions can leave your side subject to UI complaints --
ask "Was that natural?" and get a "Yes", and suddenly partner has a
hint that you have heart length, and maybe you lose your good score.
> Would -300 offenders and +3 IMPS non-offenders have been reasonable?
Not in a matchpoint game!
--
Mark Brader "We can get ideas even from a clever man." ...
Toronto "Yes, I think you can. Even ideas you should
m...@vex.net have had yourselves." -- John Dickson Carr
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Larry
but I do keep up with the Laws and Flader's rulings.
The auction period has ended after three passes and may NOT be rolled
back.
Since the auction has ended, the Director should speak with each non-
offender away from the table to ascertain if they would have made
different calls with the correct information. :<)
An Adjusted Score: It depends! If a club game then 12C1(c), below,
applies:
(c) I n order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority
forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the
probabilities of a number of potential results.*
* For ACBL sanctioned events, 12C1(c) does not apply and 12C1(e) does
apply (see Elections 1, p. 136).
If a Sanctioned Event, then comments on adjusted scores in the above
postings are basically correct.
Larry
Michael Angelo Ravera
Unless you can convince me that you have some special agreement about
your partner's first pass in this auction, the proper ruling is that
you are playing 4HX-5 to -10 (depending upon whether and how many of
the SAQJ and DKJ are going to score tricks in a 4H contract) for
-1400
to -2900 on the UI. You saw your partner pass 4H, unless you have
some
special and unusual agreement and you are required to assume that he
has some hand that would like to play 4H opposite your singleton or
void. You are not allowed even to contemplate that he forgot your
agreements.
I'm going to disallow the 4S bid. The question is whether your
partner
would have wised up after the double, but you didn't give him the
chance, so you are going to have to pay for your panic!
Procedurally, the doubler's partner would be allowed to take back his
pass, but I don't think that it's going to matter here. You are going
for a phone number.
dak...@aol.com
what basis for recourse exists?
Michael Angelo Ravera
> Am I incorrect that alerts are only required up to 3-level? If no
> what basis for recourse exists?
In the ACBL alerts of artificial bids that are not specifically
exempted are required on the first round of bidding regardless of
level. Calls requiring an alert that take place starting with the
opener's second call -AND- are above 3NT still require an alert, but
the alert is delayed.
Adam Beneschan
> How many Directors are posting? I have not directed for a few years,
> but I do keep up with the Laws and Flader's rulings.
>
> The auction period has ended after three passes and may NOT be rolled
> back.
Wrong. Read Law 22B. There's a difference between when the auction
ends and when the auction *period* ends. Law 21B1(a) says that a
player can change his last call, if it was based on misinformation,
until the end of the auction *period*, as long as his partner has not
yet called. This does mean that the last pass by the defending side
can be retracted and changed (not gonna happen on this hand), but the
auction cannot be rolled back far enough to change either double.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Sorry, but there is no such hand. The fact that opener opened 1S
indicates that his spades are at least as long as his
hearts---worst case, his spades might be one shorter. You are right
that there is UI but you cannot convince me that passing 4HX by
opener's partner is anywhere close to being a logical alternative---
even if partner alerted the splinter and explained it correctly, and
then passed, not pulling to 4S would be ridiculous. I agree that you
have to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of UI, but even
Olympic gymnasts can't bend over *that* far backwards.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
>> ACBL-land. Matchpoints.
>>
>> The auction goes
>>
>> 1S P 4H# P
>> P X 4S P
>> P X AP
>>
>> # A splinter, marked on both convention cards. Not alerted.
Michael Ravera:
> Unless you can convince me that you have some special agreement about
> your partner's first pass in this auction, the proper ruling is that
> you are playing 4HX-5 to -10 ... and you are required to assume that
> he has 5 spades and 8 hearts, not that he forgot your agreements!
Only if this is a logical alternative. I do not believe it is.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "The frencited scrivener, I, outspode."
m...@vex.net --Jonathan Buss
Michael Angelo Ravera
>
> - Show quoted text -
In that case, I was incorrectly given a -2000 recently on this
auction:
(2C[STR F ART])-2D[Majors]-(X)-P; P-2S ... (3NT+3)=-690 Adjusted to
2DX-8=-2000.
Derek Broughton
I think they can - but when did you last see anyone at a bridge game who
looked like they had been competitive gymnasts in even the last 30 years?
Even if there was such a hand, I thought the rule was that you had to assume
your partner had alerted as he should have done. So you're allowed to
"know" that he knows you splintered. imo, you got fortunately bailed out by
your opponents and given a second chance, and you're entitled to use it
(that is, you haven't acted on UI) - but the result you get in the end is
going to be for playing in 4H undoubled, as without the MI opponents would
have let the auction end there. The director was right.
--
derek
henry...@yahoo.com
I don't like a splinter with
AQJx
x
KJxxxx
xx
I would have bid 2d or, if playing very old fashioned SJS, 3d. As
little as
xxxxx
xxx
Ax
Axx
gives us play for 6s, after all.
While I don't know the laws well enough to comment on the actual
ruling, had I been West I would have examined a CC, confirmed that 4h
was agreed to be a splinter, and passed. Since W had a chance to
protect himself and didn't, I would not personally have adjusted the
score. We don't have the W hand, but I suspect that his double of 4s
is wildly irrational, enough to break any causal link between the MI
and the result.
I think (but am not certain, as I rarely play f2f bridge these days)
that the ACBL is putting a lot more emphasis on the 'had a chance to
protect himself' theory. If I am mistaken, I feel certain someone
will correct me.
Henrysun909
Derek Broughton
> In that case, I was incorrectly given a -2000 recently on this
> auction:
>
> (2C[STR F ART])-2D[Majors]-(X)-P; P-2S ... (3NT+3)=-690 Adjusted to
> 2DX-8=-2000.
You really need to tell us what the infraction was. Presuming opener failed
to alert 2D, and responder then chose his best major, it's not quite the
same as the above auction. Whether there was a failure to alert or not, 2D
was never intended as "to play", and the doubler knew he was doubling a
conventional bid (for whatever reasons - likely lead-directing - that their
partnership does that). Now you have a situation where responder has to
decide (on the premise that he _did_ "hear" partner alert his 2D), what sort
of hand partner would have to have to pass the double. In this case, we
know it's strong, and there's no ostensible reason that he can't have a
diamond stack, and it seems that opener's pass of 2DX _is_ a logical
alternative. It's particularly plausible if this is a partnership that
opens 2C on distributional hands with <22HCP. Responder's pass of 1S-4H-(X)
is _not_ a logical alternative. I don't see any gymnastics there!
--
derek
Rob Tamlyn
I believe you have the auction mixed up. ()'s are bids by the opponents.
I agree that this is different. And it is far more interesting that the
original post (where the rulings were OK and justice was served).
Does the pass of 2DX suggest playing there? Or does it ask the 2D bidder
to pick a major? Is it undiscussed?
What was the hand that justified a move to 2S?
Rob
Adam Beneschan
It's not the quite same thing (depending on your methods). If your
methods are, or *could* be (if there's a lack of agreement maybe),
that a pass of the 2D doubled shows diamond length, then the
adjustment was correct. If your methods are that passing simply shows
a lack of preference, then pass isn't a logical alternative and the
director got it wrong. The reason this is different is that on the
auction you cite here, partner *could* have long diamonds. (He hasn't
bid yet so nothing precludes it.) On Patrick's auction, opener cannot
have very long hearts (enough to play opposite a known singleton when
there's a known fit in spades) because of the 1S opener---unless the
pair plays canape' or has some other oddball methods that mandate a 1S
opening with 5=8=0=0. But that would be extremely unusual.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
Basically right. Actually, "allowed to know" isn't strong enough---
you're required to act as if he had. So here, you'd be required to
act as if partner had alerted your 4H as a splinter and then passed.
However, I don't believe that you have to take this to an extreme---
you don't have to assume that the impossible is true, and you aren't
required to assume that partner misbid or psyched the 1S opening.
Being required to pass 4Hx would be taking it to an extreme that isn't
required by the Laws.
-- Adam
Larry
True, I checked with our head director today and the auction can be
rolled back to the last pass by the non-offender.
Larry
Derek Broughton
So I did - too many levels of brackets of varying description.
>
> I agree that this is different. And it is far more interesting that the
> original post (where the rulings were OK and justice was served).
I agree. While I misread the auction, most of my comments still apply. In
the original auction, there is zero chance that opener had sufficient heart
strength to pass 4H. In this example, it's still plausible that 2DX is a
logical alternative.
> Does the pass of 2DX suggest playing there? Or does it ask the 2D bidder
> to pick a major? Is it undiscussed?
You would think that if they have an agreement that 2D over a strong 2C
means something, it would be wise to also have agreements as to what you do
over X, as there are long odds you're going to hear something! otoh, for
many 2C - (2D) - X would be negative by responder (which may well be
unchanged no matter what meaning you assign to 2D).
> What was the hand that justified a move to 2S?
Directors usually go to a lot of trouble not to know that...
--
derek
Frances
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, the auctions are completely different.
In the auction that started this post, partner has shown 5+ spades
then passed a bid showing 4+ spades and heart shortage. It is not
possible that 4Hx is going to be a better spot than 4S.
In your auction it is quite possible that the partner of the 2D bidder
has a weak hand with very long diamonds and that 2Dx is a better spot
than 2M. There is no known 9-card fit available in another suit.
Whether the TD's ruling was correct or not depends on your agreement
aboutt he pass of the double.
David Stevenson
>ACBL-land. Matchpoints.
>
>The auction goes
>
>1S P 4H# P
>P X 4S P
>P X AP
>
># A splinter, marked on both convention cards. Not alerted.
>
>After the auction is over, the 4H bidder (me) informs the doubler that
>there was a failure to alert, and that we should probably call the
>director. And so we do. She initially rules that the doubler can take
>back his second double only, which he does. We play 4S undoubled,
>making 4.
>
>A round or two later, the director informs us that she's rolling the
>auction back to the first double, and allowing the doubler to take
>that one back. So we get -300 for down 6 undoubled in 4H.
>
>Was the director's ruling correct?
The first one certainly was not. She cannot remove the first double.
Don't ACBL TDs ever open a Law book?
> Which Law applies here?
>
>I am not terribly fond of the doubler's actions, especially the second
>double with zero trump tricks. I never got a look at the doubler's
>hand, but presumably it contained four or five hearts to an honor or
>two. But I guess that if I had to bet, I'd bet that the director made
>the right ruling.
You may not be fond of the doubler's actions, but so what? *He* is
not the one who broke the rules. If you do not want a player to get an
adjustment, don't break the rules against him.
Anyway, legally, the TD's second ruling was ok, but whether it was
correct needs us to see the hands.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>> ACBL-land. Matchpoints.
>>
>> The auction goes
>>
>> 1S �P �4H# �P
>> P � X � 4S � P
>> P � X � AP
>>
>> # A splinter, marked on both convention cards. Not alerted.
>>
>> After the auction is over, the 4H bidder (me) informs the doubler that
>> there was a failure to alert, and that we should probably call the
>> director. And so we do. She initially rules that the doubler can take
>> back his second double only, which he does. We play 4S undoubled,
>> making 4.
>>
>> A round or two later, the director informs us that she's rolling the
>> auction back to the first double, and allowing the doubler to take
>> that one back. So we get -300 for down 6 undoubled in 4H.
>>
>>
>> I am not terribly fond of the doubler's actions, especially the second
>> double with zero trump tricks. I never got a look at the doubler's
>> hand, but presumably it contained four or five hearts to an honor or
>> two. But I guess that if I had to bet, I'd bet that the director made
>> the right ruling.
>>
>> AQJx
>> x
>> KJxxxx
>> xx.
>> Yes, a splinter might not be everyone's choice, but I think it's
>> reasonable.)
>
>post appears to concur with the relevant law:
Robin is a top class lawman. However, if I do ever disagree with him,
trust me, I shall say so!!!!!!!
[s]
>The question I have is whether or not the non-offenders deserved the
>windfall of the forgotten agreement. Certainly, the offenders should
>get the worst score that was at all probable (i.e. -300). But does
>that mean that the non-offending side get the best of it? This is not
>a case where misinformation was introduced in a competitive bidding
>scenario that caused a pair to misjudge. Do the non-offenders not
>have some responsibility here? Certainly if the balancing doubler had
>_known_ that 4H was a splinter, s/he would never have doubled. Could s/
>he have known? What if they had asked, thereby taking the chance that
>it awakens the opening bidder? Upon hearing an "Oh yes its a
>splinter!" would anyone have doubled? of course not. Or what if they
>had inspected teh convention card and seen splinters clearly marked
>(not reliable since many play that 1S-4H or 1H-4S are not splinters).
>Would they have doubled? Did they not have some obligation to protect
>themselves (relevant to the level of play usually)?
>
>Would -300 offenders and +3 IMPS non-offenders have been reasonable?
Where does this windfall idea come from?
Look, suppose you and your partner bid a grand slam by good bidding,
and get all the matchpoints. Now, suppose you were misinformed, and as
a result you fail to reach the grand slam, so you ask for a ruling. What
happens?
Outside the USA, they assess the likelihood of your reaching the grand
slam, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and adjust accordingly.
Inside the USA, they say "Why should you get a good score? It is a
*windfall* and you do not deserve it" and adjust accordingly. This
approach is ***not fair***. The failure to follow the rules took your
chance of bidding the grand slam away: why should an adjustment not give
it back?
If players do not want their opponents to get big adjustments, it is
easy: follow the rules. But why moan because they get a good score that
they might have got without the infraction?
David Stevenson
>In that case, I was incorrectly given a -2000 recently on this
>auction:
>
>(2C[STR F ART])-2D[Majors]-(X)-P; P-2S ... (3NT+3)=-690 Adjusted to
>2DX-8=-2000.
Partner's pass of 2Dx might easily be to play: partner's pass of a
doubled splinter is never to play. The cases are not comparable.