BBO Discussion Forums: unauthorized information - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

unauthorized information

#1 User is offline   jddons 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 2013-August-08

Posted 2016-October-30, 04:51



I would like advice on the correct ruling for this hand. I trust this is the correct forum.
EW were playing 12-14 NT, the 2D call was alerted as a transfer. After a mis-defence, 3NT made. NS called the director and questioned whether W could reasonably bid 3N and not 4H. They did not question why E removed the 2H call, if he was making a weak take out bid. W commented that he was entitled to bid 3N with good stops in the black suits even if he had a 5-4 heart fit. N commented that everyone at the table knew from the body language that E did not have a transfer. Director ruled the result stands. he commented that S should not have checked, at his turn, that E bidding really showed the reds; and that N was trying to "have his cake and eat it". NS did not ask for an appeal because "life is too short". I am not sure what EW have on their card for this auction but suspect that they did not specify actions over a double of 1N. My purpose in posing this question is to provide independent advice to the director should you disagree with his ruling.
0

#2 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,570
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-October-30, 09:50

Since this wasn't on BBO, then this is the wrong forum -- this is the "BBO Tournament Directors Forum", so it's about directing tournaments on BBO. I'm moving this to the more appropriate forum.

#3 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2016-October-30, 11:52

There are quite a few questions here, such as "What are the agreements about the 2 call?", "What level are these players?", "MP's or IMP's?" and "What about the body language?". To that last question none of us can give a answer based on facts. If the TD decided that there was no body language, that is it. You think that there is no agreement about the 2, but we can't check that either, but for argument's sake I will assume there was none. Which means that there was MI and W should have explained accordingly.
What is West's position? W thinks that E has 5, 4+ and that the situation is GF (a new suit a the 3-level). Would I have had his hand, I would probably have bid 3NT too, especially in MP's. But whether that is everybody's choice, remains to be seen; 4 is certainly a LA. A poll could shed some light and it's not unthinkable that the score for EW will be a weighed one between 3NTx made and 4x one off, if that's possible in the jurisdiction involved.
But for NS nothing changes. I don't see the connection between the infraction and the result. N decides to double based on his own hand, but there are no more that four tricks. So it's gamble whether S will make a trick or not. Well, he didn't and therefore NS will keep their result. The double was a shot in the dark that didn't work out and it's not the director's job to take away the lousy score that was the result of that gamble. Indeed, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Joost
0

#4 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2016-October-30, 15:25

View Postsanst, on 2016-October-30, 11:52, said:

There are quite a few questions here, such as "What are the agreements about the 2 call?", "What level are these players?", "MP's or IMP's?" and "What about the body language?". To that last question none of us can give a answer based on facts. If the TD decided that there was no body language, that is it. You think that there is no agreement about the 2, but we can't check that either, but for argument's sake I will assume there was none. Which means that there was MI and W should have explained accordingly.
What is West's position? W thinks that E has 5, 4+ and that the situation is GF (a new suit a the 3-level). Would I have had his hand, I would probably have bid 3NT too, especially in MP's. But whether that is everybody's choice, remains to be seen; 4 is certainly a LA. A poll could shed some light and it's not unthinkable that the score for EW will be a weighed one between 3NTx made and 4x one off, if that's possible in the jurisdiction involved.
But for NS nothing changes. I don't see the connection between the infraction and the result. N decides to double based on his own hand, but there are no more that four tricks. So it's gamble whether S will make a trick or not. Well, he didn't and therefore NS will keep their result. The double was a shot in the dark that didn't work out and it's not the director's job to take away the lousy score that was the result of that gamble. Indeed, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Well some of the decision depends on jurisdiction: the EBU are very lenient on defenders who make mistakes defending a contract that they should not have to - and I am giving my thoughts under EBU guidelines as I understand them.

First of all: If 2 is natural on the system card, then East should have called the director at the end of the auction to advise them that an incorrect explanation had been given. Note that both East and West can refer to their system cards during the clarification period to find this out. If the explanation (it was a transfer to ) was correct then East need not say anything. (The TD is to assume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call unless there is evidence to the contrary).

Secondly: North (or South) should have got agreement from EW that there was unauthorised information from table demeanour to West that their explanation of 2 was incorrect as soon as it appeared and if EW dispute that then they (EW) should call the director.

Thirdly: I cannot see how South could have protected himself any further. He has seen West alert 2 and been given an explanation. The laws state quite clearly that every player is entitled to know about the methods the opponents play and at his turn ask about the auction or a particular call(at the risk of giving UI). The only offence South MIGHT have committed would be to ask the question for the benefit of his partner - but no one has suggested that.

Now we'll look at the auction startiung with the UI that East has (that partner thinks that 2 is a transfer). Normally rebidding one's suit again is regarded in the EBU as 'unauthorised panic' and is frowned upon. However one can bid 3 if there is no logical alternative.

In this case, however, East has the AK of partner's presumed 5-card suit, which must surely count as tolerance and if (absent the UI) passing is a LA then it would have to be done. (It is very difficult to poll these since it is obvious from being asked that it is a natural vs transfer UI problem as they occur so often.)

So the initial supposition is that the contract should be rolled back to 2 (probably 1-off but I haven't worked that out). This could be affected if EW are playing any kind of super-accept methods over 2.

Now let us assume that the 3 call is allowable. West assumes that it is 5-4 or longer in the red suits. Absent any UI he can do what he wants - and it is up to the director to ascertain from North how 'everyone knew that East had not made a transfer'. (hence my second note above). If there is UI then polling would be required to see if 4 is a LA (since it would seem that 3NT is demonstrably suggested by the BIT). (If the director finds out that there WAS UI then despite West's protestations I might consider a PP for use of it.)

Even absent the UI, it looks as if West is fielding a misbid by East and that therefore maybe EW are playing that 2 means EITHER diamonds OR hearts. In the EBU (level 4) this is a permitted convention. As this is not disclosed then there is MI.

It is, of course, probable (absent any system cards) that EW are in fact playing "no partnership agreement", which is alertable - again there is UI and MI.

There should NOT be any split decision anyway because NS haven't committed a 'serious error' - a misdefence is not a serious error. So the question then is: is the double 'wild or gambling' - with 4 tricks off the top (16 HCP) and knowing that the diamonds aren't running, I would probably say no - but this is a judgement call. (If this is a gamble then a huge percentage of doubles involve gambling.)

BTW - if 4 is a LA then we cannot allow 3NT as part of a weighted decision as the player 'may not select' it. Doing so is known in the EBU as a 'Reveley ruling'.

Obiter - the Director should not make facetious comments like "North is trying to have his cake and eat it." EBU TDs are taught first and foremost to be polite to all and sundry when obtaining evidence and giving a ruling.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
1

#5 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2016-October-30, 16:59

View Postweejonnie, on 2016-October-30, 15:25, said:

.
So the question then is: is the double 'wild or gambling' - with 4 tricks off the top (16 HCP) and knowing that the diamonds aren't running, I would probably say no - but this is a judgement call.

If you have 16HCP and the opps bid game, what can you expect from your partner? And in what way is the double related to the infraction? As far as I can see, not in all, so the result of that double should stand.
Joost
0

#6 User is offline   jddons 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 2013-August-08

Posted 2016-November-03, 13:34

For info 3nt should go off on. A spade lead and continuation but south discouraged a spade continuation. Apologies for not having all the information about agreements. EW were not playing anything complicated. As far as I can judge you are both supportive of the TD decision. Thanks.
0

#7 User is offline   jddons 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 2013-August-08

Posted 2016-November-03, 13:42

Sorry weejonnie. Having reread your comment, it seems you are suggesting an adjusted score but with some caveats.
0

#8 User is offline   ggwhiz 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,952
  • Joined: 2008-June-23
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-November-03, 16:33

When was the Director called?

Some good points above on when that should have happened and I guess that is not the case. If the facts are as you stated (especially the body language tell) then west deserves a flogging for blatant use of UI but most players I know would avoid the whole mess if they were put on notice of the perceived (and easier to justify after the fact) existence of UI before they made their next bid.

Certainly a Director call immediately upon the appearance of the dummy would at least give the Director a chance to establish the facts before making a ruling or knowing a result, only tying one hand behind his back.
When a deaf person goes to court is it still called a hearing?
What is baby oil made of?
0

#9 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2016-November-04, 04:19

View Postjddons, on 2016-November-03, 13:42, said:

Sorry weejonnie. Having reread your comment, it seems you are suggesting an adjusted score but with some caveats.

Yes - to 2 -1 is probably what I would rule based on my interpretation of the White book regarding mis-bidding. (I am open to being corrected).

NB - 'Wild or Gambling' does not have to be either unrelated or related to the infraction. It just is. A serious error must be unrelated to the infraction. (Hence my first comment). -----------------
From EBU White Book

8.12.5.3 ‘Serious Error’
It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

a) Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).
b) Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.
c) An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’:

d Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.
e Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.
f Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.
g Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.
-----------------------------
[WBFLC minutes 2008-10-10#3]
What is commonly termed a ‘double shot’ is a gambling action within the meaning of Law 12C1 (b).
The standard for judging a ‘serious error’ must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant.
-------------------
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#10 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2016-November-04, 04:50

IMO the TD should rule probable use of UI, adjust to 4X down a lot, and impose a PP on EW. NS tried to protect themselves and aren't guilty of a SEWOG.
0

#11 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2016-November-04, 08:56

View Postnige1, on 2016-November-04, 04:50, said:

IMO the TD should rule probable use of UI, adjust to 4X down a lot, and impose a PP on EW. NS tried to protect themselves and are'nt guilty of a SEWOG.


I think whether the final contract is 4 doubled or 2 depends on the first breach of law 16 - this occurs when East bids 3. Since the laws say he can't select a call demonstrably suggested by the UI then we have to force him to pass 2. I don't think we can force the auction into the most unfavourable sequence.

And yes there are breaches of correct procedure.

East making an 'unauthorized panic' call based on West's explanation.
West bidding 3NT (instead of a pretty obvious 4 call) based on West's table demeanor.

Life gets a little bit more interesting if EW have an agreement NEVER to open 1NT with a 5-card major since then there is AI duplicating most of the UI - in that case I would be tempted to certainly let them off the PP - (but explain that it is possible for a member of a partnership to break an agreement).
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#12 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,694
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2016-November-04, 09:30

View Postweejonnie, on 2016-November-04, 08:56, said:

I think whether the final contract is 4 doubled or 2 depends on the first breach of law 16

Do you really believe it is possible to get around a UI irregularity by committing another and the second one will not count? This is not the way the laws work.
(-: Zel :-)
1

#13 User is offline   jddons 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 2013-August-08

Posted 2016-November-06, 15:40

Someone asked when the TD was called. - at the end of the play. In a small club competition we agreed that he should rule after the event finished so he could play the board. My comment re body language may have been a bit over the top. It was clear that north new what was going on and the bids of EW strongly suggest they did too. I will send the TD a link to the discussion which is helpful in ruling on ui.
0

#14 User is offline   akwoo 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,372
  • Joined: 2010-November-21

Posted 2016-November-06, 16:32

I don't understand a ruling of 2. I would've thought that, in the absence of UI, the usual agreement for 2 would be that it shows heart values (or in some locales heart shortage) and 4-card support for diamonds. In either case, the indicated bid for East without the UI looks like 3N, and the UI actually suggests passing.
0

#15 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2016-November-06, 16:57

In my world if i open a weak NT and they double and partner bids, I pass even if I have a 5cd major. I dont make constructive bids agreeing partner's suit so we can be doibled at the three level. In most partnerships where this sequence occurs, when 2D is intended as diamonds, 2H shows a lack of partnership agreement.
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
1

#16 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2016-November-08, 07:36

View Postweejonnie, on 2016-November-04, 08:56, said:

I think whether the final contract is 4 doubled or 2 depends on the first breach of law 16 - this occurs when East bids 3. Since the laws say he can't select a call demonstrably suggested by the UI then we have to force him to pass 2. I don't think we can force the auction into the most unfavourable sequence.

Although law 16B1(a) says that "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" if the partner does so the score is only adjusted under law 12 if the choice offender's partner made damaged the opponents. If it led them deeper into the mire and they recovered by committing a second offence, the adjustment is made only to correct that second offence. The first offence is not considered to have damaged the opponents, only the second one is.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users