[Gerben42]

---

This one is from a regional tournament. EW are two older ladies and NS are tournament sharks.
East used the stop card before bidding 2♣. South pointed out that she shouldn't use the stop card as it wasn't a jump overcall, and East volunteered that she hadn't seen the opening bid. West then continued bidding as if partner had opened a strong 2♣.

Upon seeing dummy, NS call the director. Declarer made the obvious 11 tricks in 3NT.
NS call you again, what do you decide?

[RMB1]

Gerben42, on 2012-July-02, 10:20, said:

Upon seeing dummy, NS call the director. Declarer made the obvious 11 tricks in 3NT.
NS call you again, what do you decide?

There were a number of infractions arising from the use of the stop card for 2♣ and the subsequent conversation. In particular, the remark by East that she had not seen the opening bid.

If NS are experienced and EW are not experienced, I will first ask the table why I was not called earlier. If I had been called earlier, there would have been an opportunity to explain to West what their responsibilities were in avoiding using the information from the remark.

If it should have been obvious to NS that EW were a rather weak pair, and would not understand the lawful consequences of the remark, then I would like to rule that there was no infraction; but I guess I can't.

East does not have UI and whatever we make West do, East would probably bid 3NT (authorised panic?) and that would end the auction. So no damage?

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2012-July-02, 10:49, said:

There were a number of infractions arising from the use of the stop card for 2♣ and the subsequent conversation. In particular, the remark by East that she had not seen the opening bid.

If NS are experienced and EW are not experienced, I will first ask the table why I was not called earlier. If I had been called earlier, there would have been an opportunity to explain to West what their responsibilities were in avoiding using the information from the remark.

If it should have been obvious to NS that EW were a rather weak pair, and would not understand the lawful consequences of the remark, then I would like to rule that there was no infraction; but I guess I can't.

East does not have UI and whatever we make West do, East would probably bid 3NT (authorised panic?) and that would end the auction. So no damage?

Well East has some information, but I'm not sure how authorised it is. She bid a strong 2♣, the pointing out of the infraction tells her that partner has not taken it that way. Is that authorised ? If I'd opened that hand 2♣ and partner responded 2♥ I'd be looking for a slam if 2♥ was natural positive. Presumably W is going to be made to bid 2♠ or 3♣, and the same question arises as over 2♥, but E could easily bid 3♦ (nat taken as game try) over either at which point W bids 5♣ and anything could happen from there, 6♦ makes on J♠ lead for example (and I think on any lead except a small spade).

Isn't part of the ruling that not calling the director by the experienced pair (who should have known better) is part of the damage and has reduced their right to rectification.

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2012-July-02, 10:49, said:

There were a number of infractions arising from the use of the stop card for 2♣ and the subsequent conversation. In particular, the remark by East that she had not seen the opening bid.

If NS are experienced and EW are not experienced, I will first ask the table why I was not called earlier.

As a matter of course, do you expect players to call the TD whenever there has been an incorrect use of the 'stop' card?

RMB1, on 2012-July-02, 10:49, said:

East does not have UI and whatever we make West do, East would probably bid 3NT (authorised panic?) and that would end the auction. So no damage?

Well it's not quite that simple. West should either raise to 3♣ or cue bid 2♠ (though I have known some poorer players to pass 2-level overcalls on hands like West's). If East chooses to bid 3♦ next then West should envisage 4-6 in the minors opposite and should not want to play in 3NT. Perhaps West will jump to 5♣. East's options now might depend on whether West bid clubs or spades on the first round.

By the way, you state that "East has no UI", perhaps on the basis that South was the one who pointed out to East that 2♣ was not a jump. However, West presumably didn't alert 2♣. Isn't the failure to alert 2♣ UI to East?

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2012-July-02, 14:44, said:

As a matter of course, do you expect players to call the TD whenever there has been an incorrect use of the 'stop' card?

No. But I believe they should once players make clearly critical remarks - and I expect players realise that, even if they do not always do so.

jallerton, on 2012-July-02, 14:44, said:

Well it's not quite that simple. West should either raise to 3♣ or cue bid 2♠ (though I have known some poorer players to pass 2-level overcalls on hands like West's). If East chooses to bid 3♦ next then West should envisage 4-6 in the minors opposite and should not want to play in 3NT. Perhaps West will jump to 5♣. East's options now might depend on whether West bid clubs or spades on the first round.

I was wondering whether to adjust to 2♣ because some Wests would pass.

jallerton, on 2012-July-02, 14:44, said:

By the way, you state that "East has no UI", perhaps on the basis that South was the one who pointed out to East that 2♣ was not a jump. However, West presumably didn't alert 2♣. Isn't the failure to alert 2♣ UI to East?

Sounds right to me.

[RMB1]

jallerton, on 2012-July-02, 14:44, said:

As a matter of course, do you expect players to call the TD whenever there has been an incorrect use of the 'stop' card?

No. But I expect a pair that do not understand the consequences of the incorrect use of the stop card to call the TD and I would like a pair whose opponents appear not to understand those consequences to call the TD.

jallerton, on 2012-July-02, 14:44, said:

Well it's not quite that simple. West should either raise to 3♣ or cue bid 2♠ (though I have known some poorer players to pass 2-level overcalls on hands like West's). If East chooses to bid 3♦ next then West should envisage 4-6 in the minors opposite and should not want to play in 3NT. Perhaps West will jump to 5♣. East's options now might depend on whether West bid clubs or spades on the first round.

If East has no UI, I except that he will bid 3NT at the first opportunity.

jallerton, on 2012-July-02, 14:44, said:

By the way, you state that "East has no UI", perhaps on the basis that South was the one who pointed out to East that 2♣ was not a jump. However, West presumably didn't alert 2♣. Isn't the failure to alert 2♣ UI to East?

Yes, if 2♣ artificial opening is alertable in Germany. If East has UI then I fear we will either has to impose fantastic auctions to some silly contracts, or hide behind Law 12C1(d).

[Fluffy]

it is impossible to determine what would happen without infractions, I think 60-40 is the best that can be done

[ahydra]

I'm happy with "result stands" because my theory is that West (who should not be treating his partner's bid as a strong 2C opening, but just a normal 2C overcall) will bid 3C, then East (who thinks she's opened a strong 2C bid) bids the obvious 3D, West thinks this is a forward-going move and bids the obvious 3S asking for a stop, and East bids 3NT.

Perhaps we need to ask West what she would do over a standard 2C without all the mess. If she hints at passing it then we ought to include some weighting of 2C making however many tricks it makes.

ahydra

[bluejak]

ahydra, on 2012-July-03, 08:17, said:

Perhaps we need to ask West what she would do over a standard 2C without all the mess. If she hints at passing it then we ought to include some weighting of 2C making however many tricks it makes.

100% is the only allowed weighting: anything else is Reveley. If pass is an LA, then we cannot allow a bid based on a 3♣ response because 3♣ is suggested over pass by the UI.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-July-03, 08:27, said:

100% is the only allowed weighting: anything else is Reveley.

True, but this comment by itself might confuse readers. 100% is the only allowed weighting for a 2♣ contract; other results might lend themselves to weighting.

EDIT: Missing club symbol inserted.

[Gerben42]

Fluffy, on 2012-July-03, 04:00, said:

it is impossible to determine what would happen without infractions, I think 60-40 is the best that can be done

Gonzalo, that's not much difference from "score stands", as 11 tricks in NT are from the top and some better players will notice the auction and recognize the strip squeeze.

Furthermore, the 1♠ bid (a legal play, and pointed out by the opponents that it was in fact bid) is authorized information.
By the way, I think that assuming there is even a probability that West will pass a 2♣ overcall is too harsh. Assuming such an action would be insulting even for the "eternal novice".

[Fluffy]

What does Reveley mean? I think its the first time I see that word.



Gerben I think you mean that weighting a miriad of posibilities other than 3NT would always give NS more than 60%, I think you are right, 60% is not enough, some more study should be done, or if it is impossible do something like 75-25 or so.

[Lanor Fow]

A revely ruling is one that contains a part of something illigal.

In this case if passing 2c and bidding 3c are both LAs and bidding is suggested, it might be tempting to rule 70% passing and 30% bidding 3c, but as bidding 3c is deemed to be against the laws, the ruling cannot contain any part of this.

You can have rulings that contain part of the suggested contract, but only if it is got to via a non-suggested LA auction.

[Cyberyeti]

Also depends on overcall style, with me, pass is not an LA, 2♣ over 1♠ (2 level, not taking much space) I'd expect partner to have 13-19 or so, so pass is not in the frame. That's a question that should be asked.

[c_corgi]

jallerton, on 2012-July-02, 14:44, said:

By the way, you state that "East has no UI", perhaps on the basis that South was the one who pointed out to East that 2♣ was not a jump. However, West presumably didn't alert 2♣. Isn't the failure to alert 2♣ UI to East?

I agree with the principle that AI cannot be used to reach the conclusion suggested by the UI, but does it really apply in situations like this where (IMO) the player could not possibly have failed to notice the AI that she had misbid?

[ahydra]

bluejak, on 2012-July-03, 08:27, said:

100% is the only allowed weighting: anything else is Reveley. If pass is an LA, then we cannot allow a bid based on a 3♣ response because 3♣ is suggested over pass by the UI.

Good point - let's hope I remember things like this for my TD exam!

ahydra