[VixTD]

---

Swiss Pairs, MPs -> VPs
4♥ was alerted (incorrectly) and explained on request as a splinter, agreeing spades.
Result: 5♦X(E)-2, NS+300
The regulations state that no bids (other than conventional opening bids) should be alerted above 3NT.

I was called at the end of play when it was found that the North hand did not match the description. I asked NS what their agreement was about the bid. North said that the explanation was correct and that he had misbid, but although there was plenty of evidence that they play splinters in other situations, there was none on the convention card for this situation specifically. South volunteered that he expected his partner to bid 3♥ then 4♥ with the hand he had, so he supposed a direct 4♥ was a splinter.

East said that had he been told that 4♥ might have been natural he would have passed. When asked why, he said it is more likely to be right for him to carry on bidding when the opponents have a known fit rather than a probable misfit.

Apart from telling South off for alerting, what would you do as TD?

[aguahombre]

And what would e/w like for an adjustment? Minus 650?

[barmar]

I think he's hoping to get an adjustment to the result that would have obtained if South bid on, thinking his partner had a good hand for spades.

That would be possible if there were misinformation, but this sounds more like a misbid, so I don't think you get rectification. The 5♣ bid saved them from their disaster.

It's called "rub of the green", sorry.

[aguahombre]

N/S seem to have adequately "damaged" themselves on the given auction.

Without the misbid by North, and according to East's and South's statements, the contract would have been 4H by North ---making only four on a diamond lead or clubs then a diamond lead, if declarer takes a pitch on the second spade early to avoid going down.

With South's big mouth, however, North apparently felt constrained against bidding five hearts. I understand passing the first time over 5D; but when South doubled 5D and it came around, 5H would seem to be ok (logic of not "cueing" 5H last time and the opponents not likely having 10 or 11 hearts).

So, either with no irregularity and East bidding again, or with the irregularity and getting to 5H eventually --- N/S would be forced to gamble and make five.

[iviehoff]

I don't think the illegal alert was damaging to the opposition; they need to ask anyway.

I would rule it is misinformation not misbid. The laws tell us to rule misinformation unless we are pretty sure it is misbid. I don't think this pair's agreements on what circumstances they play splinters in competitive situations were clear enough for them to be sure that this has to be a splinter: North thought it wasn't and South only "supposed" something to conclude that it was a splinter. No doubt they'll agree it is a splinter in future.

Did N abuse UI by failing to bid 5H? Probably, but there is probably no damage, we are only giving a fairly small percentage to 5H going off (NS will find a way to go off from time to time).

Therefore for me, the case that results in restitution is when E no longer chooses to bid 5C (misinformation - some weighted chance of this happening when E no longer knows that NS have a fit) and S bids 4S, as he will owing to his misperception, which still exists even when E is correctly informed. 4S will probably not be doubled, but is likely to go several off.

In weighting the score, what do we assume on that percentage of occasions we assume when E does still bid 5C? The table result only? Or should we include percentages for other things?

[billw55]

The thing that looks weird to me, is that south did not bid 5♠. He thinks his partner has shown a game force with a good spade fit, he has a substantially better hand than his 1♠ call showed, he has no heart wastage, and the vulnerability suggests that 5♠ making will outscore defending 5♦x.

So did anyone ask south why he did not bid 5♠?

Could the true answer possibly have been: partner has one heart and I have two; therefore ops have 10; so why haven't they bid them? Thereby south can "figure out" that the 4♥ call is not in fact a splinter, and withhold further bids in spades. If south figures this out, is he obligated to offer this information to EW? Or maybe even to bid 5♥?

[AlexJonson]

East seems to have switched his brain off at the important moment, rather than passing 4H.

Why not just leave the problem to South?

As for the rest, let's ask someone about forcing passes.

[VixTD]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-13, 05:37, said:

I would rule it is misinformation not misbid. The laws tell us to rule misinformation unless we are pretty sure it is misbid. I don't think this pair's agreements on what circumstances they play splinters in competitive situations were clear enough for them to be sure that this has to be a splinter: North thought it wasn't and South only "supposed" something to conclude that it was a splinter. No doubt they'll agree it is a splinter in future.

This was how I decided to rule. The problem was, I could not see that East had a convincing reason for passing with one explanation and bidding 5♣ with the other. I started to poll a few players, but East withdrew his request for a ruling before I came to a conclusion.

[Fluffy]

East is a poor player or a big liar. He has heart void, last time I checked there are 13 hearts in a deck. He made a bid based on partner having 7+ hearts (8+ if south would use michael's) wich apart from being extremelly unlikelly, it prodeces a big missfit for them. That strikes as wild, gambling or whatever, he deserves no adjustement. I supose a PP is not in order sadly.

[mgoetze]

VixTD, on 2011-May-12, 06:27, said:

East said that had he been told that 4♥ might have been natural he would have passed. When asked why, he said it is more likely to be right for him to carry on bidding when the opponents have a known fit rather than a probable misfit.

If East believed the explanation then he "knows" that his partner has at least 7, probably 8 or 9 hearts. Looks like a pretty blatant two-way shot to me.