[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2014-September-24, 15:06, said:

Ah, but "I wish to withdraw my request for a ruling, because we lost by 65, and it's just going to be a waste of everybody's time" seems like a badly phrased 81C5 request to waive the rectification for cause, which the TD in this case would be willing to accept.

The ruling in this case would be "there was UI, there was LAs, there may or may not have been damage, but we're going to leave the table result because of reasons."

I don't know where this "down by 65" came from. The OP specified matchpoint pairs. Failing to make a proper ruling on the board likely affected other contestants' matchpoint results.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2014-September-24, 11:15, said:

East maintained afterwards that if he had known that 2♠ was weak he would not have doubled. I'm inclined to believe this <snip>

You would be inclined to believe that the Pope is not a Catholic. East is a passed hand with 5-5 in the reds and they have bid 1C-2S(weak) and you let East pull the wool over your eyes? He was happy to double when he thought 2S was natural and game-forcing!

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2014-September-24, 17:27, said:

You would be inclined to believe that the Pope is not a Catholic. East is a passed hand with 5-5 in the reds and they have bid 1C-2S(weak) and you let East pull the wool over your eyes? He was happy to double when he thought 2S was natural and game-forcing!

But East does not know that North is weak. He knows that NS 'have no partnership understanding'. This suggests leaving them to it.

[VixTD]

helene_t, on 2014-September-24, 11:39, said:

North's 3♠ bid is presumably stronger than 4♠ and even then South signed off in 4♠. I don't think the auction suggested the diamond suit to be an issue, the strength in the red suits is more likely to be with East who doubled 2♠. So I don't think we can force South to ask for aces over a 4♠ bid from North.

But maybe North should have bid 3♣ or 4♣ over 2NT after which South may get more excited.

Strong jump-shifts traditionally show one of three hand types: (i) a single-suited hand, (ii) a hand with the bid suit and good support for partner, or (iii) a balanced hand with the suit bid. I was thinking that South would be more inclined to bid a slam opposite a single-suited hand, as it would presumably have much better spades than a hand with spades and club support.

If North bids 4♠ then South has to decide whether to end the auction (pass) or continue bidding. A "sign-off" of 4♠ over 3♠ presumably says that he has nothing more to add, but will not necessarily end the auction, as North could still make another bid, so I don't think the situations are the same. Even so, I'm not suggesting South would always bid on over 4♠.

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2014-September-24, 07:52, said:

MP pairs, all are strong club players but not in well-established partnerships. NS play Acol with five-card majors, better minor, 11-15 NT.

---

What action would you take as North, and what other actions would you consider?

I think it's safe to say that the partnership discussion and experience has not yet reached this sort of situation, so it's no use asking me (or them) what specific agreements are in place.

I understand that there is a misunderstanding, but I am not willing to believe just yet that there is no agreement. Many (most?) pairs who play weak jump shifts play 2NT as an artificial enquiry, similar to a 2NT response to a weak two*. So, I would ask North:

• What he thought the range for his WJS was.
  
• What the range for his weak two is.
  
• And - after adjusting the hand by a a king or so for the difference in range - what his partnership would have bid after 2♠-Pass-2NT-Pass;??

(Probably South will say that they play strong twos. )

Rik

* Should NS play Multi (seems unwise if you can't agree on your JS) then I would ask North what they would have bid after 2♦-Pass-2♥-Pass; 2♠-Pass-2NT-Pass;??

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-24, 15:48, said:

Since we are in EBU land it would appear the best thing to do (when not clear what would happen) is to assign weighted scores in accordance with 12C1c.

Agreed.

weejonnie, on 2014-September-24, 15:48, said:

(East isn't allowed to know North is weak. He is allowed to know that there is no partnership understanding.) But we'll assume a pass.

No, I think if you decide that 2♠ does not require an alert, East won't know whether it has an agreed meaning that doesn't require an alert, or if there's no agreement. To find that out he has to ask, and he didn't.

weejonnie, on 2014-September-24, 15:48, said:

As for South - holding at least 2nd round control in all suits he is likely to get excited and when North jumps in a forcing situation with a strong spade suit (ostensibly in Acol promising a solid suit but here it could be 7 spades to AQJT) then I think that South HAS to launch a slam enquiry - 7 spades to the AQ and the red suit aces make 7S Icy unless North is 7-2-2-2.

So we get

1 Club : 2 Spades
2 NT ; 4 Spades (strong remember)
4 NT : 5 Clubs (oops! Isn't this 0 or 3 'Aces and how can it be '0' if North is strong)

So now South has to choose between 5 Spades (pessimistically assuming 0 and waiting for North to Correct and then bid 7) or just bid 7 Spades.
North will pass 5 Spades.

Since weightings should be slightly biased against offenders

75% 7SX -3
25% 5S -1

I was thinking more in terms of 75% of 5♠-1 and 25% of 4♠=. I don't think the South hand is a clear slam try, but I take your point that South might not believe North could have no key cards and just bid a (grand) slam. I'm not convinced that a strong jump-shift promises a one-loser suit, although I admit it's likely.

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-24, 11:34, said:

A bit hard on EW, but they should beat 4♠.

Really? The five scores on the board were:

3♠(N)+1, ♣K lead
4♠(N)=, ♦A lead
5♠(N)-1, ♦A lead
5♠X(N)=, ♦A lead
5♦X(W)-2, ♥Q lead

I'm not suggesting this is representative of the best bridge play in the country, but it didn't look obvious to me to lead or switch to ♣K. I was keen to take any defensive tricks in the red suits before declarer drew trumps and discarded them on clubs.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-25, 01:24, said:

But East does not know that North is weak. He knows that NS 'have no partnership understanding'. This suggests leaving them to it.

We are told: "East maintained afterwards that if he had known that 2♠ was weak he would not have doubled."

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-24, 11:34, said:

A bit hard on EW, but they should beat 4♠.

I agree with VixTD that it is normal to let through 4♠. A switch to the king of clubs could be ludicrous - if West has Qxx in spades instead for example, and it is far from clear for West to switch to a club. If North has Jxx of hearts and 6-3-2-2 shape, then continuing hearts is necessary. Good to see that you defend perfectly, however. We should have a game sometime.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2014-September-24, 17:27, said:

You would be inclined to believe that the Pope is not a Catholic. East is a passed hand with 5-5 in the reds and they have bid 1C-2S(weak) and you let East pull the wool over your eyes? He was happy to double when he thought 2S was natural and game-forcing!

I don't think it's a truism that our side should always bid more if the opponents are weak and less if they are strong. If East can come up with some argument as to why he wanted to interfere with their strong auction but let them play in a part-score, I don't have to agree with him, just believe he would do it. I don't feel I've been hoodwinked by East. (I'm not sure about this current pope, though.)

[VixTD]

jeffford76, on 2014-September-24, 12:28, said:

I think once you have been alerted to an irregularity, it is your job to make a ruling, regardless of any "withdrawal".

Law 10A reads "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative."

Law 81C3 says the director's duties include "[rectifying] an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner".

All true, but what I didn't tell you is that East was the director, he just deputised me to deal with an irregularity at his table, so in effect he had then asked me to stand down before I had given a ruling. Note that in any case law 81C5 states that the director has a right:

Quote

to waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side.

[jeffford76]

VixTD, on 2014-September-25, 08:19, said:

Note that in any case law 81C5 states that the director has a right "to waive rectification for cause...":

What exactly would be the cause here? I understand that you can accept any cause you want as the director, but I don't think it's good practice to do so.

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2014-September-25, 07:52, said:

Really? The five scores on the board were:

3♠(N)+1, ♣K lead
4♠(N)=, ♦A lead
5♠(N)-1, ♦A lead
5♠X(N)=, ♦A lead
5♦X(W)-2, ♥Q lead

I'm not suggesting this is representative of the best bridge play in the country, but it didn't look obvious to me to lead or switch to ♣K. I was keen to take any defensive tricks in the red suits before declarer drew trumps and discarded them on clubs.

IMPs I lead ♣K every time and would be very disappointed not to take 4 tricks with the layout as is.

MPs is more awkward, but even as the defence went, A♦, 3♥ to A (and I am taking the A, I trust pd to lead bigger from J9x, and declarer may well have a pitch coming on K♦), club switch should be obvious when the Q♥ drops from declarer, it appears partner has no more than 2 clubs, so you'd better hope he only has 1, there's no future in either red suit.