[relpar]

In a recent ACBL Club game the following bidding occurred. With everybody Vulnerable South was the dealer. 1♣ - 2♦ - Pass - 2♥, 3♣ - X - P - 3♥, 4♣, X - All Pass. West's first Double was explained(!) as a Support Double. No other explanations were requested or given. North, South and West are experienced players and East is a relative novice. Undoubtedly East was the ONLY player who believed West's Double was a Support Double!!! South's hand was ♠A743, ♥ ---, ♦ A6, ♣KQJ9432. The result of the contract was -1X.
After the completion of the play West called the Director and explained that an incorrect explanation had been given. The Director decided to give an adjusted score of E/W -200 (3♥ -2), on the basis that South possibly/probably would not bid 4C, if she had not received the explanation from West. Should the Director take into account that South was well experienced and almost certainly knew that the explanation was incorrect? Is there a direct link between the false explanation and the final result? Is there a case for any adjustment in this matter?

[awm]

What exactly is south supposed to do in this situation?

He's been given an explanation which is probably incorrect. But his options are sort of limited. He can:

(1) Bid as if the explanation given is correct. But then he will often receive a bad result, as here.
(2) Assume the explanation was garbage and bid accordingly. But then suppose the explanation was correct and it actually was a support double. South will not get much help from the director claiming he was "deceived" by the opponents (correct) explanation because it sounded like nonsense.
(3) Badger the opponents to try to get more explanation "Are you sure it's a support double? Nobody plays support doubles in this auction." This is a good way to get a zero tolerance violation.
(4) Summon the director "just because" -- likely to be viewed as an accusation of cheating. Again this might be a zero tolerance violation (I called the director because I think your explanation was a lie).

Given these options, it seems like south's best option is (1), assume that the explanation given is correct even though it seems unusual/illogical. With that given, I think south should get protection from the director when the explanation turns out to be wrong, even though he suspected the explanation was wrong in the first place.

[bluejak]

I think your approach to #4 unfortunate. The player summons the TD, accuses no-one of lying, but explains there may be a problem. A competent TD will send East away from the table and ask West whether they have an agreement, and if so what it is. Most times West's answer will be helpful.

As for cheating, only a very very suspicious player thinks a call for the TD is that, and such a player needs education, not pandering to.

[Trinidad]

I agree with Adam, also on no. 4, but not for the reason of a potential cheating accusation.

Imagine that you are sitting at the table and you get an explanation that you think is odd. Now you call the TD. What are you going to tell him? "I thought the explanation is odd."?

The least you will accomplish by that is to make the opponents uncomfortable, you will give a load of UI.

What is even worse: People who think that you should call the TD after an odd explanation are the people who reason in AC's: But South should have known that something... NO. South should not have known anything. South should be able to rely on the explanation by the opponents. And he should act as if the explanation is correct. And if the explanation is incorrect, he should be protected by the TD (since the laws say so).

The only exception that you see (and that I principally disagree with but have no problem with in practice) are the blatantly obvioous situations: The opponents cuebid a suit that your side has bid but forget to alert. A reasonably experienced player is supposed to protect himself by asking about the cuebid, even if it is not alerted.

Rik

[relpar]

"With that given, I think south should get protection from the director when the explanation turns out to be wrong, even though he suspected the explanation was wrong in the first place. "[Quote:AWM]
However this would assume that there is a causal link between the wrong information and South's poor result. If there is then I agree that protection should be given to South. However, was it the explanation that encouraged South to bid 4♣, or would South possibly/probably bid 4♣ anyway?

[blackshoe]

If I had been the table TD in this case, I would not have made assumptions about what the players might have done differently given a correct explanation, I would have asked them. If South then tells me he would not have bid 4♣, that's fine. If he tells me he would have done it anyway, I might consider that sufficient to break the link between the MI and the damage, but I would keep in mind that the benefit of the doubt should go to the NOS.

[JoAnneM]

Why was there an explanation of the double? If you "know" it is penalty and not "support" why ask for an explanation? Sometimes I think players are trying to imtimidate or distract opponents with queries, and in the process sometimes an opponent will sometimes get nervous or confused and blurt out the wrong thing, and voila you have protection.

[bluejak]

Trinidad: I only suggested #4 for the "blatantly obvious situations". I did not mean it should be normal.

JoAnneM: When you "know" something every so often you are wrong. If you do not ask, assume, and are wrong, from whom do you expect sympathy?

[mjj29]

I am very definitely of the opinion that "protect oneself" means "ask if it's not alerted but blatently should be" not "ask, be told something odd, and then ask again anyway". I should always be entitled to believe that opponents play something weird if I explicitly ask them and they have told me that. If I don't ask, that's my own lookout though if I should have known better that it's been mis-(un)alerted.

[Pig Trader]

relpar, on Sep 3 2009, 03:13 PM, said:

Should the Director take into account that South was well experienced and almost certainly knew that the explanation was incorrect?

If I had been South, I would have been very willing to believe the explanation of "Support Double". After all, the hearts must be somewhere because I haven't any!

If the correct explanation had been "penalties", then South would probably pass, but if the correct explanation were of any other take-out nature, I'd need convincing that South wouldn't still bid 4♣ anyway, even though I happen to think it's not a good bid as partner is very likely to have a fair number of hearts.

Barrie

Pig Trader in BBO, Senior Kibitzer in BCL

[Elianna]

JoAnneM, on Sep 3 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

Why was there an explanation of the double?  If you "know" it is penalty and not "support" why ask for an explanation?  Sometimes I think players are trying to imtimidate or distract opponents with queries, and in the process sometimes an opponent will sometimes get nervous or confused and blurt out the wrong thing, and voila you have protection.

It could be takeout and not penalty.

If it's takeout, someone might want to bid. If it's penalty, that person might not want to bid.

So you ask and are told something wierd. Wouldn't it THEN be considered intimidation to start questioning the person?

And where in the laws is it allowed to send one person away from the table so that someone can explain his bid? (Not really meant as an argument, meant as "is it legally allowed"?)

[blackshoe]

Elianna, on Sep 3 2009, 10:24 PM, said:

And where in the laws is it allowed to send one person away from the table so that someone can explain his bid? (Not really meant as an argument, meant as "is it legally allowed"?)

It isn't disallowed. If you want a law number, I'd suggest Law 81, which deals with the duties and powers of the TD.

[bluejak]

Elianna, on Sep 4 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

And where in the laws is it allowed to send one person away from the table so that someone can explain his bid?  (Not really meant as an argument, meant as "is it legally allowed"?)

It is considered good TD practice, so you could say it is "custom & practice". It is certainly not in the Laws. Of course it is only to be done by the TD. Players should not do it.

Of course I say that tongue in cheek. It happens at my table with no TD intervention a few times every year.

[Elianna]

bluejak, on Sep 4 2009, 04:46 AM, said:

Elianna, on Sep 4 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

And where in the laws is it allowed to send one person away from the table so that someone can explain his bid?  (Not really meant as an argument, meant as "is it legally allowed"?)

It is considered good TD practice, so you could say it is "custom & practice". It is certainly not in the Laws. Of course it is only to be done by the TD. Players should not do it.

This has come up before on the BBO forums:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=23651

The question was this:

Quote

You deal and open 1♦ and LHO overcalls 3♣ at which point RHO looks pained and slowly produces the alert card. Your partner asks and RHO responds that he's unsure, but he thinks its the majors, then he thinks a little more and eventually decides in all honesty he cant remember. At this point RHO leaves the table and his partner conveys that it is natural preemptive with clubs and that 3♦ would have been the majors.

RHO now returns to the table and believes that he was initially correct it is the majors. Partner now doubles 3♣, you don't alert and RHO now asks what the double was.