[blackshoe]

---

It turns out that West did indeed have spades, not hearts. However, in the play, Declarer led a club from dummy, finessing South's King, and then tried another club, which North ruffed. Later South won ♠A. At this point, Dummy had ♦K, having already won the Ace, and declarer was known to have started with no diamonds. South then returned… a diamond! Result: 4♠ just made, as North never got a second ruff. This clearly seems a serious error. But how much does it affect the ruling? The hands are here (it's board 6). As it happens, the director watched the entire play, and at the end just shrugged her shoulders and let the result stand. She did explain to West the implications of the UI from East's failure to announce "transfer". Oh, and it was definitely a misunderstanding: West thought transfers were still on, East thought not.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-November-01, 08:58
Reason for edit: it was declarer who was void in diamonds!

[ggwhiz]

I don't think passing 4♥ is a logical alternative with the west cards unless they had Kxx and perhaps one less spade.

I'm declaring an "oops" but no damage to the non oops side that wasn't self-inflicted in the defence. An irregularity gives you protection but only if it causes the damage and especially in a club game, sometimes calls for the Scottish verdict. Not guilty but don't do it again.

[sailoranch]

I think the 4♥ call indicates East isn't on the same page. Does West have to assume East psyched and is competing to 4♥ unilaterally? If this auction is undiscussed and West is just guessing, then the non-announcement is UI, but doesn't really indicate anything that the 4♥ call doesn't.

East is able to pass 4♠ as long as West isn't showing off his discomfort and giving off UI. I'm more suspicious about this than West using UI from the lack of announcement.

As for MI, there shouldn't be any if East-West don't actually have an agreement, which seems to be the case. On the other hand, if transfers were actually agreed on this auction, maybe South can make the claim that he didn't know what was going on, and that not giving the ruff is only a serious error given the actual layout, not the one that's in his head based on the MI from the lack of announcement. Maybe he's just so confused about what's going on that he doesn't know what to do?

[aguahombre]

sailoranch, on 2012-October-31, 22:12, said:

East is able to pass 4♠ as long as West isn't showing off his discomfort and giving off UI. I'm more suspicious about this than West using UI from the lack of announcement.

Wouldn't worry about this aspect at all. If 2H was in-fact natural, it was to play at the two-level. 4S is not possible as a slam try in hearts. Everything leads to no adjustment, unless they have an agreement to open 1NT with 6 or seven hearts.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-31, 20:50, said:

It turns out that West did indeed have spades, not hearts. However, in the play, Declarer led a club from dummy, finessing South's King, and then tried another club, which North ruffed. Later South won ♠A. At this point, Dummy had ♦K, having already won the Ace, and was known to have started with no diamonds.

Well, just the three anyway!

Quote

South then returned… a diamond! Result: 4♠ just made, as North never got a second ruff. This clearly seems a serious error. But how much does it affect the ruling? The hands are here (it's board 6). As it happens, the director watched the entire play, and at the end just shrugged her shoulders and let the result stand. She did explain to West the implications of the UI from East's failure to announce "transfer". Oh, and it was definitely a misunderstanding: West thought transfers were still on, East thought not.

I am not sure about the ruling concerning the result, but West should have informed his opponents about the failure to announce before the opening lead. Unless he suddenly and conveniently remembered that East's opinion of what their methods were was in fact correct.

[gnasher]

I would shrug my shoulders and let the result stand. Or, more formally, I would say that West has no LA to 4♠, and East has no LA to pass, so there is no need to consider what UI there was or what it meant.

[gnasher]

Sorry, I didn't answer Blackshoe's question. If I were adjusting the score, I would treat the failure to give a ruff as a serious error, unrelated to the infraction. The result is easy to compute, isn't it? The error cost two (American) matchpoints, so assign an adjusted score, work out the matchpoints after that adjustment, then subtract the two matchpoints.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-01, 01:24, said:

Well, just the three anyway!

I am not sure about the ruling concerning the result, but West should have informed his opponents about the failure to announce before the opening lead. Unless he suddenly and conveniently remembered that East's opinion of what their methods were was in fact correct.

Sorry, it was declarer who was void in diamonds, of course. I don't know how that word escaped from the OP, but I've put it back.

She (West) apparently doesn't remember to announce much at all, and while I wouldn't be surprised to find that she should have known by experience to call the TD in that situation, I'm not at all surprised that she didn't do so. When the TD explained to West her obligations, West just sort of grunted.

Their card was marked "systems on". Well, at least West's version was. I don't remember whether anyone looked at East's. West commented that she would have doubled to indicate a transfer to hearts, which is the way most folks play "systems on" around here.

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 03:38, said:

I would shrug my shoulders and let the result stand. Or, more formally, I would say that West has no LA to 4♠, and East has no LA to pass, so there is no need to consider what UI there was or what it meant.

One thing I find interesting: the double dummy analysis suggests that EW can make 5♣ or 5NT, but clubs were never mentioned (not surprising), and I can't see them playing in 5NT unless East bids it. It also says the par contract is 6♦X-3 by NS for -500, presumably after 5NT by EW. Of course, as it happened nobody was in the par contract. There seems a tendency around here to let them play in game rather than risk a "negative" score.

gnasher, on 2012-November-01, 04:25, said:

Sorry, I didn't answer Blackshoe's question. If I were adjusting the score, I would treat the failure to give a ruff as a serious error, unrelated to the infraction. The result is easy to compute, isn't it? The error cost two (American) matchpoints, so assign an adjusted score, work out the matchpoints after that adjustment, then subtract the two matchpoints.

4♠-1 would have been +100 for NS, for the same 0.5 MPs as going down 3 in 6♦X, so I don't see where you get that the error cost 2 MPs. What'd I miss?

Do you assign 4♥-3? That gets us the same half a matchpoint we lost to the error. So no adjustment, I guess. I hadn't worked any of this part out when I posted, nor at the table — I just had a feeling the SEWoG was going to kill us whatever the adjustment might have been. I also have some sympathy for the "no LA to 4♠" position that someone mentioned. I think that if EW had been on the same wavelength, the auction might have gone: (1NT)-2♦-(2♥)-4♦-(4♠) or (1NT)-2♦-(2♥)-4♦-(P)-P-(4♠). It would never occur to my partner to double for penalties, even if he had an ideal hand for it. Nor would he be likely to bid 5♦, even after my jump to 4. If we had not competed, I could see 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♠-P/4♠, or 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♣-3♠-4♣-4♦-4/5♠, where 3♣ is FG, or 1NT-2♥-2♠-4♠-P, all of which seem plausible auctions to one degree or another given the EW pair.

I wasn't unhappy with the ruling, I just wondered how you all would see it. Frankly, even 2 extra MPs would have made no difference to the final standings. We came second, which frankly is a minor miracle.

[Sjoerds]

I would like to know if West corrected the meaning of 2♥ regarding law20F5b.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-01, 09:52, said:

4♠-1 would have been +100 for NS, for the same 0.5 MPs as going down 3 in 6♦X, so I don't see where you get that the error cost 2 MPs. What'd I miss?

Sorry, 1 matchpoint. I'd forgotten that one of the 620s on the card was the result at your table.

[Edit: Sorry, that's one English matchpoint. I'd also forgotten which country works in whole numbers and which one uses fractions.]

Quote

Do you assign 4♥-3?

I don't assign anything at all. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see any reason to adjust the score,

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-November-04, 08:40, said:

I don't assign anything at all. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see any reason to adjust the score,

The only thing you are missing is that Blackshoe asked about your post which said IF you were adjusting you would do such and such. It followed the one which said you wouldn't adjust the score.

[Bbradley62]

Sjoerds, on 2012-November-04, 02:30, said:

I would like to know if West corrected the meaning of 2♥ regarding law20F5b.

I nominate this for most obnoxious post of the year. Is everyone supposed to go independently to look this up?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-04, 09:42, said:

The only thing you are missing is the Blackshoe asked about your post which said IF you were adjusting you would do such and such. It followed the one which said you wouldn't adjust the score.

Yes.

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-04, 10:11, said:

I nominate this for most obnoxious post of the year. Is everyone supposed to go independently to look this up?

Clearly he's referring to the law requiring the partner of a player who failed to alert or otherwise provided an erroneous explanation to call the TD and so inform the opponents.

Quote

Law 20F5{b}: The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

Just for the record, when someone does drop a law number here without quoting the law, I do look it up unless I'm certain what it says.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-November-04, 09:42, said:

The only thing you are missing is that Blackshoe asked about your post which said IF you were adjusting you would do such and such. It followed the one which said you wouldn't adjust the score.

Yes, I know, but I still don't see why anyone would think I had a particular adjusted score in mind. I said that (a) I wouldn't adjust the score to anything, and (b) If I were adjusting the score, I would treat the misdefence as a serious error. The latter would apply regardless of whether I were adjusting to 4♥x-3 or 6NTxx+1.

[blackshoe]

Never mind, Andy, it's not important. FWIW, iirc I was trying to work out how you came up with 2 MPs, and you've explained that.

[Sjoerds]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-04, 10:11, said:

I nominate this for most obnoxious post of the year. Is everyone supposed to go independently to look this up?

Tx for the nomination.
Perhaps you should read Law 21B. After a face-down opening lead the Director can give opponents the opportunity to remove the last pass en continue the bidding.
Sometimes this rectification solves all problems.
And even more if the presumed leader or dummy doesn't rectify the explanation, after the face-down opening lead, I will take it in account when I have to rectify afterwards.