[inquiry]

Please provide your answer to the following questions. IMP pairs tournment.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♣
 Dbl   1♠    Pass  2NT
 Pass  4♣    Pass

AT this point North ask for an undo. EW, assuming a misclick, agree as per usual

 Pass  3♠    Pass  4♣
 Pass  4♦    Pass  4NT
 Pass  5♦    Pass  6♣
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

When South bid 4♣ over 3♠, EW called the director through private chat to protect against the possibility South was taking advantage of UI.

On the auction without UI of 4♣ taken back, south has forced to slam in a ratty club suit 1) without clubs having ever been supported, 2) with apparent misfit in spades, 3) with "strong" opponent hand behind his, and 4) with his partner showing no real slam interest (if 4♦ is natural, and since no trump fit announced, it would be, right?

North had singleton diamond, four good clubs, heart king, and spade A, and the slam made. The director ruled that South "had a strong hand, and lots of clubs", so had his bid. Slam made. Questions for the forum.

1) Undo;s are allowed for misclicks, but norhts real bid should have been 4♣. Do you think this action alone deserves a sanction?
2) Do you think the takeback of 4♣ provides UI (not illegal per se, but which requires south to justifiy his bidding)?
3) While souoth had his 2NT bid, but do you think with a doubleton spade, and a ratty club suit (AQ-empty), do you think he had enough extra (2NT promised 18-20, he had 18) to make 4♣ the standout bid that everyone would make, and thus legal?
4) If you believe this 4♣ bid is barred because of UI, how do you redress what occurred at the table.

[Cascade]

Quote

1) Undo;s are allowed for misclicks, but norhts real bid should have been 4♣. Do you think this action alone deserves a sanction?

No. Unless there was evidence that North did this deliberately to communicate additional information to his partner. There is certainly some suspicion of that in this situation.

Quote

2) Do you think the takeback of 4♣ provides UI (not illegal per se, but which requires south to justifiy his bidding)?

Yes it might provide significant UI.

Quote

3) While souoth had his 2NT bid, but do you think with a doubleton spade, and a ratty club suit (AQ-empty), do you think he had enough extra (2NT promised 18-20, he had 18) to make 4♣ the standout bid that everyone would make, and thus legal?

Didn't South have 17 - or is this a ZAR thing.

I think the standout calls are 3NT (great stoppers in the side suits) or 4♠ if he thinks that 3♠ promises a six-card suit.

It is barely possible that 4♣ could be an advanced cue for spades. I would allow this too.

Quote

4) If you believe this 4♣ bid is barred because of UI, how do you redress what occurred at the table.

By adjusting to the least favourable result NS. It looks like if you guess badly you might fail in 3NT. I would start off with that adjustment. 3NT -1 (4♣s, 1♦, 2♥s and 1♠)

[inquiry]

I can't count... yes he had 17, one less hcp than he promised.

ben

[EricK]

I think the 4♣ bid was suspicious.

However, I don't think that a misclick provides UI. Do we really want honest players to have to adjust their bidding because partner has mis-clicked?

Making 6♣ seems even more suspicious. What evidence is there that would lead declarer to drop the singleton ♣K?

I would tend to watch this pair to see if any other strange goings-on occur.

Eric

[1eyedjack]

I should like to know more about their methods. What would 3C have meant (instead of 4C oops 3S)? What inferences can be drawn from the 3S bid?

I cannot think of any reason for South to bid 4C instead of 3N on what appears to be a misfit with minimum values.

Having bid 4C, the 4D sounds like a slam try cue bid agreeing Clubs. Effectively committing to 6C over 4D seems to be rather an overbid, as South has really bid everything in his hand already, although at this stage he is not overly concerned about the quality of the trump fit.

He ended up in an appalling slam that makes on an anti-percentage play. Personally I would encourage my opponents to bid like this, and accept the occasions when the slam makes.

[Rado]

Hi Ben and all,
Seems the case to be clear one:-)
My ruling will be 60%-20% for the non offenders (some fellow TD"S will rule even 60-0)
Regards
Rado

[mink]

Question 1: Yes undos are for misclicks only. A misclick might be that you click on 4 instead of 3 or on ♥ instead of ♠. But it is impossible to misclick both level and suit, especially if the suit symbols are so far from each other like ♠ and ♣. This means North's undo was not for a misclick, but he changed his mind. This way he made 2 bids instead of one which is totally illegal. Therefore this is an automatical 60/40, acompanied by a procedural penalty if that was possible with the bbo software.

Question 2: As undos are for misclicks only, the partner should asume that it was a real misclick, and so the original bid is totally meaningless. Hence there cannot be any UI. But this does not apply here as there was no misclick and the 60/40 should be given for North's bidding twice alone, regardless what South does subsequently.

Question 3: Of course 4♣ by South is more than strange here. But again that is not relevant for the adjustment. But it shows that not only North bid twice but also South regarded the first bid, which should have been a misclick, as a real bid. I would add some IMPs to the procedural penalty if I was able to give one.

Question 4: already answered above.

Karl

[1eyedjack]

mink, on Jul 25 2004, 03:32 PM, said:

But it is impossible to misclick both level and suit, especially if the suit symbols are so far from each other like ♠ and ♣.

It is possible that you may be right about this. I am not convinced but I can see that the argument is persuasive. But at the table, if my partner clicked on 4C and claimed misclick as meant 3S it would not occur to me that the 4C was anything other than a misclick. So, if partner intended to make 2 bids for the price of one I don't see the first bid affecting my decision even if partner meant it to.

[Cascade]

Rado, on Jul 26 2004, 07:12 AM, said:

Hi Ben and all,
Seems the case to be clear one:-)
My ruling will be 60%-20% for the non offenders (some fellow TD"S will rule even 60-0)
Regards
Rado

I think you may do the non-offenders an injustice by giving them only 60%.

Give them the most favourable result that was likely. That is what the law says they are entitled to.

And give the offenders an unfavourable result. I may also be appropriate to give them a penalty.

[Cascade]

1eyedjack, on Jul 26 2004, 08:51 AM, said:

mink, on Jul 25 2004, 03:32 PM, said:

But it is impossible to misclick both level and suit, especially if the suit symbols are so far from each other like ♠ and ♣.

It is possible that you may be right about this. I am not convinced but I can see that the argument is persuasive. But at the table, if my partner clicked on 4C and claimed misclick as meant 3S it would not occur to me that the 4C was anything other than a misclick. So, if partner intended to make 2 bids for the price of one I don't see the first bid affecting my decision even if partner meant it to.

And this is how the 'offenders' should have behaved in this situation. They need to convince the director that they did not take advantage of the 'mis-click' and that they were not intending to transmit additional information and that if inadvertently they did then they did not take advantage of that information.

I would give them a chance to convince me but they will need to be convincing.

[xx1943]

Cascade, on Jul 26 2004, 02:40 AM, said:

And give the offenders an unfavourable result. I may also be appropriate to give them a penalty.

Is there a possibility to do this in the BBO-software???????????

Did I miss something.

I would be happy getting this feature (nice little toy as Gweny would say)

Al

[Cascade]

You can give the offenders an unfavourable result.

But you have to give the non-offenders the same result. Just adjust to 3NW-1 or whatever.

You cannot assess a penalty.

IMO this is a necessary improvement to make our tournaments better. I am not sure where this is on Fred and Uday's list of priorities.

[McBruce]

Answering the questions posed:

1) Suspicious double misclick, 4C instead of 3S. I would rule that this is ample evidence that pause for thought has taken place. Offline, the 3S bid would be cancelled and North would be allowed to bid anything, with South forced to pass throughout, assuming that East refused to accept the corrected call (Law 25). Online, where the undo ethic is more lenient and people do accept call changes as a matter of courtesy, the application of the Laws is more murky...
2)... but it is certainly crystal-clear that South has UI. I don't see overwhelming evidence that North was deliberately giving the UI with the undo request, though, so no report.
3) South has his 2NT bid easily. He has 17 and a five card side suit, and his partner has spade values over the doubler. Should 3NT be reached on 24-25 HCP, most of the remaining 15-16 will be quickly placed. I have absolutely no problem with 2NT.
4) The 4C bid is not "barred" because of UI. It is demonstrably suggested by the UI. The question is whether South has logical alternatives. It is easy to see that 3NT and 4S are fairly reasonable ones, as are 4S over 4D, as are 5S and maybe 5N (maybe een pass, depending on the agreements) over 5D, and perhaps several others. With so many available and a requirement to balance scores in BBO adjustments, perhaps the best is 4S-2.