[Hanoi5]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South
Pass Pass 1♦ X
2♦ 2♥ 3♣ 3♥
Pass Pass 4♦ X
Pass 4♥ X Pass
Pass Pass


No bid was alerted during the auction. Screens were in use, North and East sharing the same side. After the lead of the ♣Q hits the table and declarer sees AK10 of clubs in dummy, she asks East what the 3♣ bid was. East, a beginner, explains that it was a cue-bid. Neither South nor North were alerted to this during the bidding, so they thought it was natural. (And so did West, East is in fact the only person at the table, or at the tournament, who thinks 3♣ is a cue-bid, for it is not among their agreements).

North claims that had she known that 3♣ was a cue-bid she would have passed 4♦X, which might go down if declarer plays sloppily. N/S are very good players (World class), E/W have been learning to play for a year.

How would you rule?

[hotShot]

Since North and East are screen-mates, we can forget about South.

If East thought that 3♣ is a cue-bid and that this is a partnership agreement, than East had to alert North.

If there was no agreement about this bid and East thought that from 'general bridge knowledge' it is logical that 3♣ is a cue-bid, than East had no reason to alert.

The rules require the TD to investigate, if there is an agreement.

Quote

(And so did West, East is in fact the only person at the table, or at the tournament, who thinks 3♣ is a cue-bid, for it is not among their agreements).

I understand that there is no agreement.
If there is no agreement, there was no misinformation so the result stands.
I might issue a formal warning to East for not knowing his system.

[hrothgar]

1. I think its reasonable to explain toEast - West that they have a responsibility to know their system, especially when pretty basic sequences are involved

2. I think that North - South deserve an adjustment, though not the one that they are hoping to get

Leave the East - West score remain unchanged
Adjust the North South score to 4DX =

If I am feeling charitable, I might consider assigning a 25% probability that EW would go down in 4DX (It will still score a hell of a lot better than 4HX -2)

[Hanoi5]

4♥X went three down. And I guess you're joking about giving N/S 4DX=, right?

N was very angry and told me I was being unfair, that I was covering for East(/West) and that nowhere in the world would that result stand (for I let the result stand).

They have appealed.

[hrothgar]

Hanoi5, on Jun 6 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

4♥X went three down. And I guess you're joking about giving N/S 4DX=, right?

N was very angry and told me I was being unfair, that I was covering for East(/West) and that nowhere in the world would that result stand (for I let the result stand).

They have appealed.

I have very little tolerance for folks who screw up (royally) at the table and then try to win it back in committee.

In this case, North made what I consider to be an appalling bid (2♥)
Their claim for an adjustment seems flawed on the merits.

Furthermore, their claim rests on a desperate prayer the East West takes a crappy line of play.

Well, they asked for an adjustment. I am happy to give them.

For what its worth, I'd never expect this adjustment to stand up in a committee. However, I am hoping that it might teach NS a lesson about wasting the Directors time with inane complaints.

[TimG]

Hanoi5, on Jun 6 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

And I guess you're joking about giving N/S 4DX=, right?

Doesn't this depend upon your definition of "sloppily"?

This sounds to me like a good (but not world class) player upset with the result and trying to bully his way to an unwarranted adjustment.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

For what its worth, I'd never expect this adjustment to stand up in a committee. However, I am hoping that it might teach NS a lesson about wasting the Directors time with inane complaints.

Maybe the committee will adjust to 4DX down a couple to teach the director a lesson about wasting the committee's time with adjustments that will not stand up in committee.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jun 6 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

For what its worth, I'd never expect this adjustment to stand up in a committee.  However, I am hoping that it might teach NS a lesson about wasting the Directors time with inane complaints.

Maybe the committee will adjust to 4DX down a couple to teach the director a lesson about wasting the committee's time with adjustments that will not stand up in committee.

That would punish East - West, not the director...

Its fine and dandy if you think that the director should be sanctioned, but do it in such a way that it actually impacts the director

[ArtK78]

Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for the director's adjusted score of 4♦x making.

North-South are wasting the TD's time. It is a very silly appeal, and, at the very least, North-South should be warned that the TD believes that the appeal is frivilous and may result in a penalty.

I don't know what East was trying to accomplish with his 3♣ bid, but I don't see how it affected the result.

[glen]

It seems to me that if E actually had ♣s and therefore short ♥s (E must have ♠s on the bidding), and W had Kxx of ♥s then the 4♥ contract would be even worse. Thus I believe NS got themselves in their very own mess, and are lucky that 3♣ turned out not to be a real suit.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

TimG, on Jun 6 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

For what its worth, I'd never expect this adjustment to stand up in a committee.  However, I am hoping that it might teach NS a lesson about wasting the Directors time with inane complaints.

Maybe the committee will adjust to 4DX down a couple to teach the director a lesson about wasting the committee's time with adjustments that will not stand up in committee.

That would punish East - West, not the director...

Its fine and dandy if you think that the director should be sanctioned, but do it in such a way that it actually impacts the director

If I were a director who handed out a "punishment" adjustment and the committee sided with the player I was trying to punish, I don't think I would be happy.

While we share the same opinion of North, I don't think directors should be making rulings as you suggest.

Back to the actual ruling. If it requires sloppy play for east to go down in 4DX, why would an adjustment to 4DX= be overturned by the committee?

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jun 6 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

TimG, on Jun 6 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 6 2008, 08:09 AM, said:

For what its worth, I'd never expect this adjustment to stand up in a committee.  However, I am hoping that it might teach NS a lesson about wasting the Directors time with inane complaints.

Maybe the committee will adjust to 4DX down a couple to teach the director a lesson about wasting the committee's time with adjustments that will not stand up in committee.

That would punish East - West, not the director...

Its fine and dandy if you think that the director should be sanctioned, but do it in such a way that it actually impacts the director

If I were a director who handed out a "punishment" adjustment and the committee sided with the player I was trying to punish, I don't think I would be happy.

While we share the same opinion of North, I don't think directors should be making rulings as you suggest.

Back to the actual ruling. If it requires sloppy play for east to go down in 4DX, why would an adjustment to 4DX= be overturned by the committee?

Score adjustments are for the purpose of redressing damage to non-offenders. They should not be used to punish anybody. If you want to penalize the offenders, issue a PP. If you want to penalize the TD, dock his pay, or fire him. Or both.

[jtfanclub]

officeglen, on Jun 6 2008, 08:36 AM, said:

It seems to me that if E actually had ♣s and therefore short ♥s (E must have ♠s on the bidding), and W had Kxx of ♥s then the 4♥ contract would be even worse.  Thus I believe NS got themselves in their very own mess, and are lucky that 3♣ turned out not to be a real suit.

That's what I was finding when I was making random hands. If clubs was a natural bid, then EW were probably making 4♦X, because West couldn't have any clubs (East promised 5, South promised 4, North actually has 4).

I mean, suppose the actual hands hand been:

---

North and South hands are the same. East now has his bid (as the others understood it), and West (I think) made a reasonable weak raise rather than introducing a new suit headed by the 8 with 3 points. With North's and South's cards locked in, it would be tough to set up East and West where they aren't making 4♦ and their bids come even close to their hands if 3♣ was natural.

4♦ still makes. Might make an overtrick if N-S don't get to leading trumps early enough.

To me, and maybe I'll try to find it in the rules, for there to be damage a bid has to have a meaning other than the expected one, and the alert (if given) should have helped the opponents come to the right decision. In this case, if clubs HAD been a real suit that should have set off all sorts of warning bells that we were looking at freaks, and you don't double freaks. Having clubs mean a cue bid would make it MORE likely that the majors were breaking nicely, and therefore more likely that the contract would go down. So if you'd double if the X was natural, surely you'd X if the suit were a cue.

I hope that made sense.

[655321]

Don't know anything about the laws, just wanted to comment on the bidding.

IMO South's double of 4♦ was atrocious. South has her initial double, and her raise to 3♥, but after that there is no more in the tank.

Sure, the 2♥ bid was less than ideal, but I disagree with the purists who throw their hands up in horror when they see it. Whatever 2♥ showed, it doesn't show a hand that lets South think she is even a favorite to beat 4♦, let alone enough of a favorite to double. Perhaps South only doubled because RHO was known to be a beginner.

[MFA]

I agree with the TD decision that the result stands. No misinformation.

I strongly disagree with the thought of adjusting to 4♦X=. Such punishment rulings are not bridge.

I disagree with giving a warning to EW. This should only be done in more serious cases; here EW just aren't any better. So what are we warning them about? Never to misinterpret a bidding sequence again?
One could say to east, however, that if he thought 3♣ was articial, then he should remember to alert.

I disagree with everybody having to be so agitated just because a TD ruling is needed.

[jtfanclub]

MFA, on Jun 6 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

One could say to east, however, that if he thought 3♣ was articial, then he should remember to alert.

This is offline. West would be the one alerting, and he thought it was natural.

[Hanoi5]

Both would have had to alert. Screens were being used.

[JoAnneM]

I think this is what is know as "the rub of the green". At least that is what was explained to me when something similar happened.

[NickRW]

I'm no expert on the laws, but simply speaking from the point of view of general ethics, if NS were a pair of quality, experienced players, EW were truly beginners and, per the other thread regarding this hand, many people think the 2♥ bid was distinctly on the cheeky side to say the least, then I think NS are making a truly frivolous appeal.

I can perhaps understand them calling the director in the first place, in the heat of the moment so to speak, but their appeal case is, to my mind, simply that they themselves messed up, quite possibly because they thought they could 'get one over' against weaker players and, regardless of whether that is what they thought that or not, now, when it went wrong, they are cryinig off to someone else to fix it for them.

My ruling would be something along the lines of "grow up".

Ordinary club players have to face this sort of misbidding from both partner and the opponents all the time - welcome to the real world.

Nick

[mikeh]

I agree that this is a 'rub of the green' scenario.... there is no basis for an adjustment and a real WC player would know that, altho even some real WC players can sometimes allow their anger to get the better of them at times like this.

The real culprit is South. He is doubling a partscore into game, expecting how big a set? Surely he has no reason to expect a 2 or 3 trick set if he listens to the bidding and trusts it.

No, it seems to me that S was doubling because he though EW were very bad and didn't have the values for the bidding. Well, he was right, sort of

S bid like a pig and got gored. Maybe next time, he won't make the same error.