[bluejak]

Another familiar hand!

Scoring: S Pairs {MP}

----------2♦--P
-2♠-2NT-3♠-4♣
-4♠-Dbl--P---P
--P

---

2♦ was alerted, asked, and showed a weak hand with the majors. After the 2NT bid, East was reaching for the pass card when South alerted. East asked, South said it showed the minors, and East bid 3♠.

The TD found that N/S had no agreement about 2NT. East, having originally agreed he was reaching for a pass card, later suggested he had actually passed but then changed his call.

Of the seven rulings this is the only one which went to appeal.

[helene_t]

It seems clear that E would have passed if given correct explanation. Not sure what would happen then. I think if S bid 3♣ intended as to play and North then answers 3♥ as a reply to Stayman, S may have the AI that North doesn't play 2NT as minors and they end up in 3NT. Alternatively, N may pass 3♣. Then E or W might decide to balance with 3♠.

Is it possible to declare the board fouled? Even if it is, it is somewhat unfair to give NS 40% as they would likely otherwise have gotten less because of their misunderstanding.

I think I would write 3NTx -2 which is the best likely result for EW. Maybe too harsh but I wouldn't know what else to do.

BTW North's dbl is a serious infraction and a PP may be warranted.

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Aug 15 2009, 09:01 PM, said:

It seems clear that E would have passed if given correct explanation. Not sure what would happen then. I think if S bid 3♣ intended as to play and North then answers 3♥ as a reply to Stayman, S may have the AI that North doesn't play 2NT as minors and they end up in 3NT. Alternatively, N may pass 3♣. Then E or W might decide to balance with 3♠.

Is it possible to declare the board fouled?

No, it is not. You have to adjust to a bridge result (or a weighting of more than one result).

Quote

Even if it is, it is somewhat unfair to give NS 40% as they would likely otherwise have gotten less because of their misunderstanding.

I think I would write 3NTx -2 which is the best likely result for EW. Maybe too harsh but I wouldn't know what else to do.

BTW North's dbl is a serious infraction and a PP may be warranted.

Why? He's got lots of defence and a partner who's competed to the 4-level. I don't even consider pass a LA.

[helene_t]

Harald, North already overbid his hand with 2NT. He has only two trumps, and while he already showed stoppers in the majors he only has two kings at least one of which is likely to be in a hook. His defense is a subminimum for what he already showed.

Maybe 5♣ is an alternative to pass, but dbl is not.

[aguahombre]

Whatever is done about North's double in committee, it would be painful to reward e/w's bidding. If E had a systemic 2D opener, W should have pictured what one should look like and bid 3S, not 2S for LAW effect opposite, say KJXXX QJXXX XX X. East, having bid 2D on that thing, has a pass at his second turn regardless of what North did, or what North's call meant.

Having said that, the only action by the "offending" side, as opposed to the offensive side, which was based on UI, was the double of 4S. Hence, I would vote for 4S undoubled down 2 as the table result --plus whatever you want to do to North --who was minimum at best for a natural 2NT and has no more calls.

[Fluffy]

NS did nothing wrong at all, having to deal with unnusual methods they have all the rights for missunderstanding, 3 spades (and 2 spades as well) is a pointless bid.

[OleBerg]

One thing I am quite sure about: I would never compensate EW. After the incorrect explanation, their combined efforts are very silly. (Maybe it is correct to get real technical, and award EW 60%, minus the difference between defending 4♣ making and the achieved score? I don't really think so, but would like comments.)

As for NS, things are a little more complicated, but I would probably declare fouled board, giving them 40%.

As for the PP; being somewhat paranoid, I have no problem envisioning North's double as an attempt to put partner back on track. This is far from certain however, so I probably wouldn't do it (depending a little on the level of the player). If I had the time, I would give North a friendly lecture.

[Cascade]

This is another potential fielding situation.

How does south know that north is strong and balanced and not strong and distributional consistent with the earlier explanation. From south's point of view NS have a 5=5 club fit and a nine-card diamond fit and north is saying I am very good for my bidding so far.

At the very least it seems very likely that south has not given a correct explanation of 2NT and that south knows that.

[aguahombre]

thanks, cascade. You explained why it was not just North, but both N/s. If South really believed his own explanation of 2NT he would have removed 4sX to 5C. that is why committees have more than one member.

[awm]

Lots of issues here. I think that east's 3♠ bid is really awful on this pile of junk without even a spade honor, and borders on "failure to play bridge." I don't even see why a 2NT bid showing minors makes this much more appealing than it would otherwise be (bad breaks anyone?). Obviously a poll of players might better establish this one way or the other, but I don't see the N/S misexplanation as really responsible for this terrible call.

North/South's actions are certainly questionable. Why did south bid only 4♣ opposite what seems like a huge double fit (then leave the "cards" double in)? Why did north double on a minimum with only two spades and a good club fit in an auction where his hand should have been already shown?

My ruling would be:

(1) Table result for E/W. Their bidding to 4♠ was atrocious and not influenced by the MI.

(2) 5♣-1 for N/S, a result that seems likely if north does not take advantage of the UI from partner's misexplanation to double (and south believes his partner's "minors" call and competes to 5♣).

(3) A procedural penalty for N/S for their actions on this hand, since south's explanation was both wrong and quite bizarre (what would double be?), and the subsequent double by north took blatant advantage, and the subsequent pass by south (and bidding only 4♣) indicated a lack of certainty in his own outlandish explanation of 2NT.

[Blue Uriah]

awm, on Aug 15 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

(3) A procedural penalty for N/S for their actions on this hand, since south's explanation was both wrong and quite bizarre (what would double be?), and the subsequent double by north took blatant advantage, and the subsequent pass by south (and bidding only 4♣) indicated a lack of certainty in his own outlandish explanation of 2NT.

That seems rather harsh. It's a fairly common mistake for weaker players to confuse a natural 2NT with an Unusual 2NT, at least in the UK. I think double from North is completely normal. He's got good defence, his opponents have already signed off twice and are clearly bidding like idiots, his partner has acted at the four level and he has no desire at all to encourage him to bid any higher.

South's pass also seems fine to me. His hand has its uses opposite both minors but it's hardly a thing of beauty and 4♣ was probably enough. Now partner has decided he wants to double the opposition and you don't have any major reason to overrule him.

As for the ruling, East/West's bidding is so abysmal (aka 'wild') that I'd let them keep whatever they got in 4♠X. However, it does seem clear that East was about to pass when he heard the alert and lost all his faculties, so we'd have to adjust North/South's score. The director should talk to them to see what they might have bid over a pass from East, poll some other players and see if he can figure out where they might have been heading.

[blackshoe]

Maybe it's just a nomenclature misunderstanding, but the term "fouled board" is defined by Law 87A. This is not a fouled board. Nor is it a board for which "no result can be obtained", which is the criterion for awarding an artificial adjusted score in Law 12C2. Well, there's 12C1{d}, regarding results "numerous or not obvious", but I would not apply that here.

[bluejak]

Quote

Is it possible to declare the board fouled? Even if it is, it is somewhat unfair to give NS 40% as they would likely otherwise have gotten less because of their misunderstanding.

The board was completed. Thus either you leave the final score, or you assign a score, possibly weighted or split. Nothing else is legal.

Quote

I think I would write 3NTx -2 which is the best likely result for EW. Maybe too harsh but I wouldn't know what else to do.

We do not use 'most likely' or the equivalent: that is Law 12C1E which does not apply here. We assign using Law 12C1C.

Quote

NS did nothing wrong at all, having to deal with unnusual methods they have all the rights for missunderstanding, 3 spades (and 2 spades as well) is a pointless bid.

Unusual methods do not mean that the MI and UI Laws are suspended. Players are expected to play bridge legally even against unusual methods.

Quote

One thing I am quite sure about: I would never compensate EW. After the incorrect explanation, their combined efforts are very silly. (Maybe it is correct to get real technical, and award EW 60%, minus the difference between defending 4♣ making and the achieved score? I don't really think so, but would like comments.)

As for NS, things are a little more complicated, but I would probably declare fouled board, giving them 40%.

Please let us follow the Laws. There was no fouled board, which is when it is changed between two tables, and all this 60/40 stuff was fine in the 1960s, but has been illegal and unnecessary over here for thirty plus years.

Quote

I think that east's 3♠ bid is really awful on this pile of junk without even a spade honor, and borders on "failure to play bridge."

Failure to play bridge is a North American standard, not used over here. We may deny redress for 'wild orgambling' action under Law 12C1B.

Quote

A procedural penalty for N/S for their actions on this hand, since south's explanation was both wrong and quite bizarre (what would double be?), ...

This all seems verey unsympathetic and makes me wonder what standard you assume these players to be.

[peachy]

awm, on Aug 15 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

Lots of issues here. I think that east's 3♠ bid is really awful on this pile of junk without even a spade honor, and borders on "failure to play bridge." I don't even see why a 2NT bid showing minors makes this much more appealing than it would otherwise be (bad breaks anyone?). Obviously a poll of players might better establish this one way or the other, but I don't see the N/S misexplanation as really responsible for this terrible call.

North/South's actions are certainly questionable. Why did south bid only 4♣ opposite what seems like a huge double fit (then leave the "cards" double in)? Why did north double on a minimum with only two spades and a good club fit in an auction where his hand should have been already shown?

My ruling would be:

(1) Table result for E/W. Their bidding to 4♠ was atrocious and not influenced by the MI.

(2) 5♣-1 for N/S, a result that seems likely if north does not take advantage of the UI from partner's misexplanation to double (and south believes his partner's "minors" call and competes to 5♣).

(3) A procedural penalty for N/S for their actions on this hand, since south's explanation was both wrong and quite bizarre (what would double be?), and the subsequent double by north took blatant advantage, and the subsequent pass by south (and bidding only 4♣) indicated a lack of certainty in his own outlandish explanation of 2NT.

You said it all. Particularly about South who acted in a way which reveals that he did not believe that his own explanation of the 2NT bid was correct.

[OleBerg]

bluejak, on Aug 16 2009, 03:54 AM, said:

Quote

One thing I am quite sure about: I would never compensate EW. After the incorrect explanation, their combined efforts are very silly. (Maybe it is correct to get real technical, and award EW 60%, minus the difference between defending 4♣ making and the achieved score? I don't really think so, but would like comments.)

As for NS, things are a little more complicated, but I would probably declare fouled board, giving them 40%.

Please let us follow the Laws. There was no fouled board, which is when it is changed between two tables, and all this 60/40 stuff was fine in the 1960s, but has been illegal and unnecessary over here for thirty plus years.

Not being native to English, I thought "fouled board" meant something like this: "Well, there's 12C1{d}, regarding results "numerous or not obvious ", but I would not apply that here. "

As far as I remember, giving 40% under that Law is allowed in DK.

Anyway, it might still be to lazy, so for NS it is 5♣ doubled or not, -1 or -2. I will settle for 5♣X-1

[OleBerg]

awm, on Aug 16 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

Lots of issues here. I think that east's 3♠ bid is really awful on this pile of junk without even a spade honor, and borders on "failure to play bridge." I don't even see why a 2NT bid showing minors makes this much more appealing than it would otherwise be (bad breaks anyone?).

Quite well put.

There is some merit to the argument, that 2NT=Minors, makes it more likely that partner has a real fit. However, the less unreasonable you make 3♠, the more silly you make 4♠. If East means he has any freedom to bid excessively (because of 2NT and the way of scoring), this freedom should be incorporated into Wests decision.

In my book, 3♠ alone is enough to not want to compensate EW.

4♠ is not completely crazy, facing a "real 3♠"-bid. Of course 3♠ shouldn't exist, but if partner bids it, you have to handle it. I would expect a 3♠ to look something like:

♠ QJ109xx
♥ KQ109
♦ xx
♣ x

[OleBerg]

Regarding a possible PP:

If the standard of the players is not quite high, I wouldn't even consider it.

You don't have to go lower than "advanced" level (whatever that is) to see players suppress fit and make penalty-doubles without much in thrumphs, as soon as they feel they can beat a contract.

There is a world of difference between making a bid illegal because of UI, and to give a PP. (Well, there should be IMHO.)


As for the "having already shown his hand" argument: If you can beat a contract, you are entitled to double it. True story (told before):

♠ xxx
♥ KQJ10
♦ Axx
♣ xxx

I opened a 10-12 NT, and the opponents sailed to 4♥. I doubled, even though I had already shown my hand, and had a minimum. (It made. My clueless partner, (because of his flat zero-count, mind you) led a black suit, and the diamond disappeared.)

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Aug 15 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

Harald, North already overbid his hand with 2NT. He has only two trumps, and while he already showed stoppers in the majors he only has two kings at least one of which is likely to be in a hook. His defense is a subminimum for what he already showed.

Maybe 5♣ is an alternative to pass, but dbl is not.

Come on, Helene. North has seen RHO taking a preference to 2♠ only, LHO competing to 3♠ over 2NT and LHO then being pushed to 4♠ over 4♣. Would you really expect opps to have any reliable chance of making 4♠ after this bidding with the north hand?

The only rationale for passing here is if you expect the double to show a good hand for the bidding this far (having the UI that south expects 5-5 in the minors), and being afraid south will take it out. If so, you're in fact obliged by law to double.

[helene_t]

skaeran, on Aug 16 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

Come on, Helene. North has seen RHO taking a preference to 2♠ only, LHO competing to 3♠ over 2NT and LHO then being pushed to 4♠ over 4♣. Would you really expect opps to have any reliable chance of making 4♠ after this bidding with the north hand?

Why not? Give East Axxxxx Axxxx - xx and West something beginning with ♠QJxx ♥QJ. They may be cold for 7♠.

North doesn't need to assume that opps are bidding sensibly, it is sufficient for him to assume that South will make a sensible decision. since South already heard the 2NT bid.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on Aug 16 2009, 04:40 AM, said:

North doesn't need to assume that opps are bidding sensibly, it is sufficient for him to assume that South will make a sensible decision. since South already heard the 2NT bid.

Great answer. With very little change, that paragraph could be plugged in to a whole bunch of UI situations, and a whole bunch of "assign the blame" situations--where one player has described his/her hand within narrow boundaries and makes another call which basically says, "didn't you see my previous bids?"