szgyula

That is correct and that is how the TD ruled: only West received MI, which did affect his bid and he would have bid 2N. The question is the applicability of 12C1b, which was used to deny any adjustment. The argument goes like this: With double dummy, the 2S can be played for -2. The declarer went down 4, like all tables that played the same contract. The difference between the -2 and -4 is a "serious error" and it is not related to the infraction. The counter argument is that playing worse than the computer plays with double dummy is not a "serious error" and the bad result is somehow related to the infraction: Due to the infraction the declarer plays a contract with 6 trumps. Without the infraction his partner plays 2N. The former is a very unusual contract that one is not expected to play well at this level, while 2N is a quite normal contract (other tables went down one). Thus, the declarer (who got all the correct information) played a much harder contract than other declarers. So the 12C1b fails on two counts (not serious error and not unrelated). In my opinion. One mor addition: West (dummy) became aware of the infraction quite late, thus, the double barell accusation can not be made, either.

Just to clarify things a bit: The director explicitly refered 12C1b. His argument was that 1. Taking two tricks less than possible with double dummy is a "serious error". "Obviously". 2. The infraction only resulted in a different contract being played. The serious error (not playing the double dummy way) is not caused by the infraction. Just to clarify one more point: Due to MI the NOS players played different systems (one for strong NT, one for weak). Thus, the advantage of the OS is that they play the same system whil ethe NOS do not (screens in use).

It is Hungary (2007 laws). 1NT was alertable (if weak) and the director ruled MI. He also ruled no damage as 2S (with infraction; actual contract) can be played for -2, while 2N (without infraction) could be -3. In the actual tournament it was -4 and -2 for other players. The infraction was never questioned. The question is: If the NOS, due to the infraction plays a more complicated contract and fails to get the right play, is it an "unrelated major error" or not.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj98hkt732djt4ck4&w=sqhqj95da86caqt75&n=sat32ha4dkq3cj986&e=sk7654h86d9752c32&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(12-14%20to%20E%2C%20no%20alert%20to%20W)p2hpp2sppp]399|300[/hv] The bidding went as 1N-P-2H-P-P-2S-P-P-P. Screens were in use. N-S vul., dealer N. 1N was alerted to E (weak, 12-14) and was not alerted to W. E-W uses different defense against weak and strong 1NT openings. 2H was explained as natural, weak bid on both sides. W, as dummy, became aware of this during the play. After the play finished (down 4), W called the director. The director accepted the MI. W claimed that, according to the system, the 2S bid, against a pair playing strong NT shows a strong, long S (6-7 in length, some value in side suits) while over a weak 1NT it is a balancing bid with a 5 card suit. W claims that in the later case, he would have bid 2N with 15HCP and 1435 distribution with good stoppers in H (QJ9x). The director also accepted this claim. Now comes the funny part. The 2S contract, with double dummy, goes down 2. 2N, with double dummy, goes down 3. Thus, the director rules that 2S is a better contract for the NOS than the 2N, thus, no compensation. W argues that damage was done as the actual result was less favourable, compared to the expected result of 2N (we have a not very advanced pair as NOS). The director invokes 12C1b, saying that the NOS was in a better contract and the fact that they went down 4 is a major mistake, unrelated to the infraction. This goes back to the age old question: If due to an infraction the NOS plays a different contract and they do not play too well, is this an "unrelated major mistake"? For the record, the hands are Lead CK (South). W Q.QJ95.A86.AQT75, E K8754.86.9752.32 N AT32.A4.KQ3.J986, S J98.KT732.JT4.K4 Double dummy gives 6 tricks in S, 5 in NT. Actual results in the tournament were 2S-4, 2S-4, 2S-4, 3S-4 in Spades (all -200) and 2N-2 in NT (-100). Declarer (E) tried to get in his hand to draw trumps (trying to trump the 3rd club in spite of the likely Kx at South). W requests the acceptance of 2N as the contract and some weighted score considering the possible outcomes. The director refuses and lets the 2S-4 stand, since 2S is a better contract and thus, "no damage was" done. W does not accept claiming that 2S is a much harder contract than 2N.

Thanks, that is quite clear. On the first issue some more clarification: The 25.4.e says that the screenmate "shall not" draw attention. Does this apply only to the auction period (where calling the TD is UI in this case)? As mentioned in the original post, the player waited until the end of the auction and (they ended up as declarer) THEN called the TD. Thus, there was not UI in the TD call itself (in this case).

WBF General Conditions of Contest, 2011, no additional local rules (related to screens or slow play).

Screens are in use. A player takes a very long time to bid (2+ minutes). The complication is that it was his screen mate that called the TD (after the end of auction but before opening lead). The question: Did they automatically exclude any possible TD rectification (for UI) by calling the TD on the "wrong side of the screen"? One camp interpret the Condition of contest 25.4.e-g as an explicit exclusion, the other camp says that in this case the TD must examine very carefully if the delay was noticed on the other side of the screen, but there is no automatic exclusion only a higher barrier to establish UI. Who is right? Why?

In my mind canape bid the 4 card suit first, followed by the longer suit. In this system they show majors (if at least 4 card) first, no matter what they have in minors. The rest of the system is not known. As for the invitational strength: The explanation was different. First explanation was "invitational". When asked for more info, it was classified as "nearly strong enough to open". I asked if this means around 11 pts, the answer was yes. While I agree that with a 4H suit in partner's hand it is invitational but it is nowhere close to what I would call opening strength on its own. They 3C may be a very bad idea, but if 0 point overcalls are used by opponents, you have to take risks as you have no proper defense. You can not penalize, for example. Neither 1N - 2C - X is for penalty (Stayman), nor is 1N - 2C - P - P - X is for penalty (it shows a additional strength and is forcing). So is 1N - 2C - P - 2N - X. On the other hand, you do not want to let them play 2N non vul without a double, if the overcall is indeed 0 pts and the answer is 10-11. The 3C is a way to keep the auction alive. Yes, somebody is going to make a lot of points, but if you let them bid in a 20-20 HCP situation, you are not going to win. This was MP scoring.

OK, the legall background: This is in Hungary, which is mostly based on the 2007 WBF laws and the 1999 (?) rules of contest. Artifical systems must be submitted for classification. This did happen, the system was classified as red. This ruling (classification) also mandated that all subsequent bid sequences after a 0-16 pts. overcall must be revealed. The text of the ruling is not clear as to WHOM this must be revealed. Either the rules and ethics board (in which case the system is incompletely submitted for classification and can not be played) or to the opponents. The ruling also states that in contested situation, lacking this explanation, the director must rule misinformation. I just found this ruling and this makes it quite slam dunk to me. To answer the 3C question: Stupid as it sounds, I would have done so and I did state this to the director after calling the director right after the 3D bid, i.e. it was not invented after the 4H+1. Being stupid is my right :) This is not a canape overcall. It shows 4H *or* 5+ H with 4+ spades. The side suit was D. Going back to the case: IF you rule misinformation (which you may be forced, based on the new info), what would you rule as a result? Declarer can always take 11 tricks, but how likely is he to find this play? In the actual board, with some H being played by N, the leads were CA (1 table for 4H=) and C5 (1 table, 4H=). Mostly H was played by the other side and 9-11 tricks were taken (all H contracts were made at least, often with overtricks in 2-3H). I am not arguing, but I may become in a few decades a director and I do not know how to rule in a situation like this. Just to make an analogy: We use a 1S bid when non vul over a 1C precision opening. I could give the explanation of "a hand that we would pass with if vulnerable", the explanation of "below opening strength, semi balanced" or "a hand that does not fit any of the following hands: (long list of bids)". Which one would be most correct (we do the last)? Which one would be misinformation? Just to be on record: I would have liked a ruling that "incomplete explanation, in the actual hand fortunately no damage, but please do it right the next time".

To cut a long story short: Opponents play a red system, no CC is available at the table. I open 1NT, they overcall it with 2C. Alert, asking for explanation: "it shows exactly 4 hearts or 5+ hearts with 4+ spades, 0 to 15 points". As it turned out later, the player had a 6 card minor with exactly 4 hearts (1462 distribution). Director was called and they admitted that the system allows a much longer minor and they admitted that this was not disclosed. The director foound no infraction. The inspection of the CC (as submitted for the required classification) reveals that the pair has no bid available to show a long minor (and per regulations they can only use the system submitted). The fact that they can not show a long minor in the system is not revealed when asked for explanation. The information not available to me did affect the line of defense I chose (they played 4H in the end), which could have made the declarer play more complicated. Declarer took 11 tricks and looking at the actual board, 11 trick is always possible with perfect declarer play. Would you rule misleading explanation? Would you make any adjustment? The actual hands: N J.K542.AQT643.K6, E KQ63.87.9752.754, S 98752.AQJT.8.T83 W AT4.963.KJ.AQJ92. EWvul, dealer W. Auction: 1N - 2C (alert, see above) - P - 2N! - P - 3D! (director called) - 3H - P - 4H. The 2N was alerted and we asked for explanation. "invitational strength". When pressed, the explanation was "around 11 points, no further specifics". The answer structure after the 2C in not on the CC. The 3D bid was alerted and the explanation was "this is his side suit". Director was called and the opponents admitted that the 2C can contain a long side suit (minor) and this was not revealed to the opponents. I claimed that (when calling the director and right after the 3D bid) that I would have bid 3C instead of P. This does not prevent them from reaching 4H but the partner may support it. Further: being aware that 2N is not 11 points, I could have played differently. In the actual game I played CA, Cx (hoping for a ruff from a zero point partner). Before the opening lead I entertained the SA lead, which I would have followed with a small spade (to kill an entry and to cut declarer from the dummy). If partner bids 4C over the 3C, I definitly do not lead the CA. In the actual case it may not matter as there is a line of play that results in 11 tricks (as happened at the table after the CA lead). My argument for not bidding 3C: Being 33 in majors, I did not expect a 54 in the majors. That means exactly 4 hearts and maximum 4 spades. This smelled like a NT hand. With a pass from partner and E having 11 points, I expected a potential 3NT end contract with around 24 points and I did not want to announce the nice clubs in my hand. Were I aware of the potential distributional hand (potential hidden 6 card suit), I would have been afraid and would have bid 3C (this is certain as it was announced to the director right after the 3D bid and the explanation being given).

This is even more complicated. The tournament specific rules stated the following: "The intention to appeal must be indicated to the TD and the appeals fee must be submitted. The appeal can be submitted in writing within 30 minutes after the end of play or in an e-mail, before 23:00 the day after.". The appeal was submitted the day after in the morning. I also asked for instructions for submitting the appeals fee. The organizers ruled that even though the appeal was submitted, the fee was not paid in time. It is hair splitting that leads to nowhere, but yes, literally speaking there is no deadline to inform the TD and to pay the fee. The deadline only applies to the appeal itself. I think this is secondary to the core of the issue, but yes, looking back on it, the organizers probably rejected the appeal creatively, too. They did not specify how to submit the fee and as a result it was never paid. Clever.

To clarify: Laws of 2007 were in force. The contest specific rules add that artificial adjusted score can be awarded if players play slower than permitted. This was not the case in the closed room. The TD only announced "I am going to award +3IMP" without any justification. He did not even state what the facts were that he based his decision on. The TD took over an hour to reach this decision, which allowed the closed room to get to this board. The rule I refered to was indeed 86D, not 87D. The appeal was rejected on a technicality: I submitted the appeal properly and within the time frame allowed (next day), but I failed to pay to appeals fee (which was due by midnight in a national championship game that finished at 10:30PM). It was partly my fault as the rules were available in the room. Of course the TD could have also informed me about these rules, which he did not. The Law and Ethics Committee ruled that "Law 12 allows the actions of the TD". Even when approaching all three members personally, no further explanation was given. The "it" was never specified by the committee. One of them suggested that "if I want to continue playing bridge, I should drop the matter". A different member said that "they may not have ruled the same but the ruling was within the limits permitted by the Law" and he also invited me to become a TD and show how it should be done. A third member stated that my case reached them through a different committee and I have no rights whatsoever to the actual ruling and I have no right to inquire about the ruling. As for the detailed analysis of 86D: The closed room wanted to play 4S (our team). They can take 10 or 11 tricks. If in the closed room the opponents are awarded 4S+1 adjusted score, the end result is 0 or 1 IMP, depending on how they play. Thus, "appears favourable" in 86D does not apply since the result is neutral. Well, the case is over and it is good to know that my case had at least some merit.

This is an old story that I just want to understand. The issue reached the national Law and Ethics Committee which found everything normal. There were two issues raised, I start with the simple one: In a team event, in the open room, the TD is called after a board is completed. After a long deliberation, the TD awards adjusted artificial score (+/- 3 IMP). The intention to appeal is announced. The TD goes over to the closed room, where the teams are playing the exact same board. The auction phase is over, they are just preparing for the opening lead. There is no irregularity, they are not late, everything is normal. The TD aborts the play and takes away the board and does not allow them to finish it. Is this allowed? My interpretation of law 87D is that the TD can not do this, no matter what happens in the open room. If the party is started, they can finish it. The national Law and Ethics committee did not find this TD action problematic. I approached all three members personally but they simply recited the original ruling (every TD action was within the framework of the Laws) and refused to support their ruling. Is my interpretation of the Laws blatantly false? The other issue, which is more complicated: This happened in the open room, where screens were used. The auction was 1H-3C-3D-P-P-P. My partner alerted his 3C and described it as "weak, preemptive". I also alerted his bid, gave the same explanation, but added that it could be a Ghestem bid, which shows D and S. I explained that I did not think we agreed to play Ghestem and I also explained that I will treat the 3C bid as weak preempt in C (whcih it actually was). After the opponents played 3D+2, they called the TD. The TD ruled that they received incorrect information. I accepted this, as just mentioning the remote possibility of a Ghestem is confusing and damaged the opponents. When asked, the opponents claimed that they would have played 5D= normally. I also agreed to this. Later I reviewed the board (which the TD also did before the ruling) and there are 2 realistic outcomes: 5D= and 4S, either = or +1. I was expecting a ruling of 5D= on the spot and 4S+1 when reviewing the board at home. Instead, the TD awarded an artificial adjusted score (3IMP). The TD gave no explanation. The national Law and Ethics Committee ruled that Law 12 allows this. In my argument to them I pointed out that the party was complete (TD was called after the 3D was played with +2) and the outcomes were easy to determine (most teams played 4S= or +1, it is impossible to make a slam). Thus, in my opinion, rule 12 only allows an adjusted score, which the TD should have awarded. Am I missing something here? The story is over practically as the issue reached the highest forum (national Law and Ethics Committee) that has jurisdiction over it. It is also an old story, but it took over a year to at least figure out who the 3 members were. I just want to understand what happened here. Clearly the "Law 12 allows these two actions" is not enough for me. What am I missing?