How did I rule?

[luis]

I was in the AC and this happened:

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sjxxhaxxdxxcakqxx&w=sxxxht9xxdqjxxcxx&e=sqxhkqxdakxxxcxxx&s=saktxxhjxxdxxcjxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

No screens, MPs

 

North opened 1NT (12-14)

East Bid 2♦ alerted by west as "Both majors" (CC says Capp over NT)

South bid Dbl alerted by North as "penalty double of one or both majors" (prepared defense against Capp)

West bid 2♥ (no alert by East)

North passed

East now bid 3♦ alerted by west as "Must have diamonds, not majors"

TD was called facts were examined

South bid 3♠

All pass

 

Making 5 for about 40% of the MPs for NS and 60% for EW

 

TD ruled East used UI when he bid 3♦ but that the use of UI did not damage NS. Result stands.

 

Ruling appealed by NS claiming damage.

 

Ac ruled:

Result stands for NS, 30% for EW for using UI.

Dissenting opinion (me):

 

While it is almost clear that NS won't reach 4♠ after north opened a 12-14 NT the fact that the opponents bid 2♦ as majors certainly makes reaching 4♠ 100% impossible for NS. Without using UI East might raise 2♥ to 3♥ if pd has a heart suit,it is unclear if NS will double this.

I believe NS can not get 40% from a deal where a case of MI and UI usage occurred so my proposed ruling was:

Average+ for NS

-500 for EW in 3♥x (about 10%)

- Procedural penalty to EW of 1% of their session scoring for not knowing what they play over a weak NT. (It was a national tournament)

 

What do you think?

[inquiry]

I think 3♦ is not, but I am not sure why you scored EW as 3♥X instead if 2♥x which may or maynot be doubled in real life. Once south bid 3♠ over 3♦, you can't seriously propose that the contract be played in 3♥X'ed.

 

However, it is clear that EAST did in fact use UI, and he can not use the excuse that south's double announcing one or more of the majors make it clear that they don;t belong in ♥s'. So 3♦ is not allowed. The fact that the director allowed play to continue, means the appeal committee will need to make a judgement call here. I would roll the bidding back to 2♥ and have south double. The defense would be 2♠, 2♣ and 2♥ (one trump promotion) for down one and -200 or average minus (which ever is worse). NS who didn't get to play the hand (since we are overturning the play) will be given an average plus.

 

I am not so sure abouit a procedural penalty. They will have to have demonstrated similar failures to know what they are playing to inact those.

[Gerardo]

Don't like Ave+, use L12C3? Use 3♠+2, 4♠+1 and 3♥x? Like 60, 10 and 30?

 

If EW get 3♥x, think it is punish enough. No PP.

[kfgauss]

One isn't supposed to give artificial scores when the board is successfully played out.

 

3D is clearly using the UI. One doesn't "roll-back" the auction after calls that use UI -- one allows the board to be played instead of deciding mid-hand whether UI was used. Raising to 3H is certainly a logical alternative (and some might bid 4H!), and South will sometimes double this, so 3Hx-2 for both sides is my ruling.

 

Andy

[cherdano]

Ben, 3HX is not so silly. Why shouldn't East raise partner's freely bid suit with KQx support, and all honors working for a heart contract?

 

Luis, of course your ruling was terrible :P Seriously, I mostly agree, except there is no basis for either of "NS can't get 40% when there was both UI and MI" (of course they can, if there was no damage) and giving Ave+. I think scoring this as 3HX for both side, plus a procedural penalty for EW would not be so silly.

[mikeh]

I don't know enough about the laws, especially as they pertained to your actual tournament.

 

But lack of knowledge rarely stops me from expressing an opinion :P

 

It seems clear that E acted improperly in bidding 3♦ rather than bidding 3♥, but I wonder if the situation was that they actually had an agreement that they played something other than capp over a weak notrump, and that 2♦ was the correct systemic bid or whether E simply forgot their agreement. The mere fact that the cc said 'capp' is a useful guide to the answer, but not conclusive for me.

 

In either case, the alert either told E that he had forgotten or that partner had forgotten, whatever the agreement was, and so E was possessed of improper info.

 

The difference is that if E bid correctly and the alert was an error, then East should bid as if west had real ♥ with some values: clearly he should bid 3♥. If E had misbid and now 'remembers' that 2♦ showed the majors, he has to pass 2♥... he has no reason to raise, since 2♥ showed no game interest. I don't think he can bid at all... but this is an area on which I may well be mistaken.

 

As for the score adjustment: actually the given auction should have got North to bid game: probably the only real way to get there after a weak 1N opening bid. North knows that S bid 3♠ expecting to make, and he has a great hand in context.

 

I would let NS keep their score: I do not see how they were actually damaged. If EW play capp and if E bid to show a one-suiter (As presumably he would given that he bid a 'natural' 2♦ in error) I can see no convincing reason for NS to reach game: surely all S can do is bid a non-forcing 2♠?

 

If E's bid was correct: they do not actually play capp over weak nt, then once again, why would S bid any more than 2♠? West might or might not bid 3♦ and N might well bid 3♠ and I suppose S could breach discipline and bid game, but that is all very iffy.

 

But I would certainly penalize EW: I was intrigued by the percentage of session score: I would be inclined to award EW average minus or deduct 1/4 of a board: actually almost the same given the actual hand result.

[han]

I don't think that EW should get a procedural penalty for not knowing what they play either. Assuming that they have no history of messing up like this, a partnership should be allowed to have an occasional slip.

 

However, the use of UI was really awful, it rarely is as obvious as here. I would not have believed that this happened at the national level. I don't know exactly what level that is in your country Luis, but I am pretty sure that this shouldn't happen. I don't know if procedural penalties are ever given for such violations though.

[kfgauss]

South bid Dbl alerted by North as "penalty double of one or both majors" (prepared defense against Capp)

A question: what is East allowed to know about this explanation? Is East supposed to believe it's a double of a natural 2D bid? That doesn't really work, but knowing that the opps have doubled your natural 2D bid as "penalty for one or both majors" is certainly odd.

 

Andy

[jdonn]

I agree with 3♥X for 500 (I don't feel like analyzing the play, but if it might go down more then I would rule as such).

 

It was fine to want to give them a procedural penalty, but you were justifying it incorrectly. It's ok to forget what you are playing, but the pp is for blatantly taking advantage of unauthorized information (the 3♦ bid). In fact it was so blatant that (unless I judged East was a beginner or was simply ignorant of the laws) I would give them much larger than 1%, something like 5%. And without the slightest bit of remorse. If East really didn't know better then a kind hearted lecture would be enough, but if East is experienced then throw the book at him!

[jdonn]

South bid Dbl alerted by North as "penalty double of one or both majors" (prepared defense against Capp)

A question: what is East allowed to know about this explanation? Is East supposed to believe it's a double of a natural 2D bid? That doesn't really work, but knowing that the opps have doubled your natural 2D bid as "penalty for one or both majors" is certainly odd.

 

Andy

East is supposed to take the explanation as given. It's not as weird as it seems, it only comes across that way because of the word 'penalty' being used. If north had alerted the double as 'stayman' that would be essentially the same thing, but would sound a lot less strange.

[luis]

South bid Dbl alerted by North as "penalty double of one or both majors" (prepared defense against Capp)

A question: what is East allowed to know about this explanation? Is East supposed to believe it's a double of a natural 2D bid? That doesn't really work, but knowing that the opps have doubled your natural 2D bid as "penalty for one or both majors" is certainly odd.

 

Andy

Well Andy this is one of the things that made the ruling complicated.

 

2♦ was alerted to south as "majors" so south was now playing 2♥ and 2♠ as cuebids showing clubs and diamonds respectively, 3♣ and 3♦ as competitive and dbl to show a penalty double in one major or both.

 

It depends on what side of the screen South is!

If he is a screenmate of East 2♦ will be explained as "natural" and south will probably bid a nonforcing 2♠ bid.

On the other side of the screen West will explain 2♦ as majors and north will explain 2♠ as "forcing with diamonds", West may or may not compete to 3♥ and north will make some kind of move everything will be chaotic then.

 

If south is a screenmate of west when 2♦ cames on the tray it will be alerted as "majors" and south will dbl, West will bid 2♥ and then North will alert the double to East as "penalty double with diamonds". Again everything will become chaotic.

 

East is thinking they play Capp only against strong NT, West thinks they play Capp against all sorts of NT. This is why I proposed a procedural panelty, at a good level a pair can't have this kind of undertainty about what they play, they may have doubts in some sequences or uindiscussed parts but they should know what they play against strong and weak nts and properly disclose.

 

I asked NS about whether they could reach 4♠ or not and why and they were kind to tell "probably not" but it is very confusing, because if south can bid a non forcing 2♠ over a natural 2♦ North will probably raise with his maximum and support, that will be passed by South as he confesed. But if West bids 3♦ now north has a double as a "sound raise to 3♠" with 3♠ being just competitive, South said taht vulnerable he would then consider a 4♠ bid but can't tell for sure if he will bid it or not now that he knows the hand.

 

It was very complicated, and I'm enjoying the very informative opinions posted here.

[luis]

One problem is that 500 for NS will be a top and I don't think they can benefit with a top just because of EW irregularities.

So -500 for EW as the worst likely scenario for blatant use of UI was my idea, and AVE+ for NS because it is very unclear what might happen but in my view it is 100% clear they were damaged when the opponents miss alerted a natural 2♦ as majors and NS can make 4♠, if they can reach it or not is beyond the scope of the discussion I think there is damage.

[awm]

I think N/S should keep their score. On the actual auction, once east's holding diamonds is revealed and south has doubled and then freely bid 3♠, it seems somewhat illogical for north to pass with such a maximum. If 2♦ had been explained as diamonds right off, N/S would not have reached game either. If east had been ethical and raised 2♥ to 3♥, it is possible that N/S would double, but this is not really clear, and the committee's responsibility is to give N/S the best result probable and not the best result possible.

 

On the other hand, E/W here should be in pretty deep trouble. The 3♦ bid was a blatant abuse of UI. If the 2♦ bid was explained as natural, there is no way this bid would even be considered. Ethically east should bid 3♥ on this auction. So I'd give east/west 3♥X for -500, and possibly an additional procedural penalty for the blatant abuse of UI.

[luis]

I think N/S should keep their score. On the actual auction, once east's holding diamonds is revealed and south has doubled and then freely bid 3♠, it seems somewhat illogical for north to pass with such a maximum. If 2♦ had been explained as diamonds right off, N/S would not have reached game either. If east had been ethical and raised 2♥ to 3♥, it is possible that N/S would double, but this is not really clear, and the committee's responsibility is to give N/S the best result probable and not the best result possible.

 

On the other hand, E/W here should be in pretty deep trouble. The 3♦ bid was a blatant abuse of UI. If the 2♦ bid was explained as natural, there is no way this bid would even be considered. Ethically east should bid 3♥ on this auction. So I'd give east/west 3♥X for -500, and possibly an additional procedural penalty for the blatant abuse of UI.

Ok we agree about -500 for EW, the other members of the AC did not :-)

We disagree about NS, while reaching 4♠ might be impossible and the NS players recognized this they were damaged and we'll never know if they could reach 4♠ or not, since reaching 4♠ was probable I decided that constituted damage, since reaching 4♠ while probable is unlikely I decided you can't score +650 for NS and opted for AVE+ instead since you can't get AVE- when your chance for a top was eliminated by an infraction.

 

Am I wrong saying that as long as there is damage NS can't score 40% ?

[jdonn]

One problem is that 500 for NS will be a top and I don't think they can benefit with a top just because of EW irregularities.

That is wrong. However good or bad the N/S score would become is completely irrelevent to the adjustment and should be ignored by the committee. They need not even be aware of whether +500 would be a top or not. If E/W had been ethical, they would have bid 3♥, maybe been doubled, and (though you could debate this point) maybe gotten +500. So why should N/S potentially be punished just because their opponents took advantage?

 

As Michael Rosenberg often says, an innocent pair should never receive a worse score than they might have achieved against ethical opponents.

[joshs]

I haven't looked at the actual play but I think its clear to let NS x EW in 3H. East was blatently using UI by bidding 3D, and since 3H is more than reasonable with his hand opposite 5+ hearts (whether the 2H bid was forcing, or just forward going), so NS deserved a crack at 3H-x. While neither South's bidding 3S, no north's passing (to in fact reach a pretty normal contract) has anything to do with the issue. Has anyone discussed with there partner's what your bids should mean here??? East prevented NS from introducing spades at the 2 level by his misbid (not a crime) but then prevented them from having the upside of the misbid by cheating at his next turn. I think its clear to rule - whatever in 3H-x (for both sides) plus a procedural penalty to E-W.

 

As to the fact that south's x was penalty of a major, thats not the explanation that east would get behind screens since the x would be explained by north as whatever meaning x had of 2D over a natural overcall, so unless the x would have been negative, east would never know that south had anything in the majors, and thus wouldn't have any AI.

[LH2650]

...in my view it is 100% clear they were damaged when the opponents miss alerted a natural 2♦ as majors and NS can make 4♠, if they can reach it or not is beyond the scope of the discussion I think there is damage.

 

Absolutely not. It is far from clear that they were damaged by this, and whether they could have reached 4 spades is critical to the discussion. Their own comments and actions lead to the conclusion that they had no chance to get there, given a proper explanation. Their only possible claim of damage is that East should have raised hearts (and I don't support that), giving NS a chance to double and collect +500. This could only happen if East is not entitled to the information in the alerts and explanations, which is a murky area of law. The TD got it right, except for the procedural penalty. The irregularities actually helped NS, at least giving them a chance to bid game.

 

While procedural penalties are exceedingly rare, blatant use of UI has been known to attract one in ACBL national competition (Reno Case 10). One seems appropriate here.

[Impact]

It is still not clear to me just what the EW conventional agreement was.

 

If 2D showed Majors, absent any prior misbids or system problems, then the 3D bid by East must have been a gametry for H !!!! Now there is even less room for West with DQJxx and 4card H support to be negative about his hand (unless he thought he would beat 3S on repeated forces but contra that in such circumstances NS must be able to run a lot of C).

 

It also suggests that he (West) has taken UI from Easts's failure to alert 2H (preference).

 

I think that NS have been damaged by their own methods - but perhaps also by their failure to bid 4S by North given a partner who is willing to commit to 3S vul (rightly or wrongly) when he believes the suit will break badly, when North also has a source of tricks.

 

Opposite a weak NT the south hand really looks like a non-forcing bid in S (no shortage- and then information that strength sits over the NT bidder). If that was the rue meaning of the bid, S would have been reached at 2/3 level on North's testimony.

 

They have been deprived of that by the "psyche" of 2D (if indeed he had forgotten the meaning of the bid).

 

However the fact that West says that the reversion to 3D suggest natural -means a misdescription of the bid or use of UI by East...and an expectation of such by West (where H had not been doubles etc) and then the further UI when East failed to alert West's bid.

 

I think it is actually easier for NS to reach 4S on this auction than over a typical weak NT and natural interference - given that South has "risked" the 3S bid.

 

N/S should keep their score (for North's poor bid, and no I don't want to think about other permutations where South does not bid 3S!!), but E/W should not be allowed to profit form their version of "Wolfschmitz".

 

I would have been harsher on E/W giving them only 20%!!! or average minus with an additional procedural penalty (probably the better ruling).

[Limey_p]

An additional factor - Wests's explanations are inconsistent. If 2♦ followed by 3♦ shows diamonds, he should say so at once. This provides additional potential for damage, because the NS agreements may differ.

 

Did the AC establish what the E-W agreements really are?

 

I would like to see a blended score to restore equity to N-S, some combination of spade partial & spade game. For E-W, -620.

 

And no procedural penalty unless E-W have a history of UI offenses.

 

AP

[paulg]

As a layman interested in the Laws I find this a frustrating thread.

 

The posts so far have been interesting but unlawful suggestions are everywhere. But, personally, I am floundering too and have also been completely unable to resolve the misinformation and unauthorised information issues raised in what looks like an everyday TD situation. The question looks like something from a TD training course!

 

So I have cross posted this question to the bridgetalk forums (expertise on the Laws, rulings and appeals) for their opinion.

 

Paul

[Gerben42]

Agree with EW 3♥X -3. Instead of bidding 3♦ (blatant use of UI) he should raise ♥ which partner bid naturally.

 

NS keep their score as it's basically the 1NT opening that was responsible for missing game.

 

A score of 30% is not allowed, what your AC obviously did is to let EW keep their score and give a 30% penalty? I cannot like it and I will not like it.

[pigpenz]

clearly East had UI,

would rule that 3hx- whatever would be the final contract.

I would also give PP to E/W for using the UI.

[paulg]

David Stevenson, from the bridgetalk forum, has given permission to cross post his thoughts here.

 

First his original reaction which is more about how to apply the laws ...

 

Let's forget the MI and concentrate on the UI. You are East, you bid 2♦ natural, partner bids 2♥, you hold ♥KQx and a doubleton. what do you do? Raise, of course. This is doubled, what do you do? Pass with a satisfied smile.

 

Why did East not do this? Because of blatant use of UI! This is yet another totally extreme case, extreme enough to warrant an additional penalty if East is experienced.

 

Should we give this score to North-South? Well, why not? Why do you want to split the score? The only reasons for doing so are these two:

 

    * N/S took irrational, wild or gambling action so do not deserve redress, or

    * the different bases for adjustments for the two sides given in Law 12C2 come to different adjustments

 

Well, there certainly is no irrational, wild or gambling action by N/S, so we can discard that approach.

 

So let us look at the basic approach.

 

Was there UI? Yes.

Could N/S have been damaged? Yes.

Was there an LA to 3♦ ? Of course, 3♥ [and pass, I suppose].

Did the UI suggest 3♦ over 3♥? Of course.

 

Any more snags? Yes, the biggy! B)

 

When we adjust, are we allowed to adjust for UI and ignore the MI? Because if we do not, and we decide that South would always bid 2♠, it means 3♥ is not reached.

 

When a TD is asked to consider a hand, if he decides there was an infraction but no damage, then he does not adjust. That is an accepted principle of directing. So, after you have considered the UI and come up with an adjustment of 3♥ doubled minus whatever, you then consider the MI - and there was no damage from the MI since N/S would not get a better score if correctly informed.

 

Why do we take the UI first? The Law book does not tell us what to do, and it is accepted strategy for TDs and ACs to consider infractions in any order they please, effectively any order that helps the non-offending side.

 

How about the different criteria in Law 12C2 for the two sides? There is nothing there: it is a routine clear adjustment, not even close.

 

So I consider it an easy adjustment: 3♥ doubled minus whatever, plus a PP for East if he is experienced.

 

I should appreciate it if this article could be posted unedited and credited [ie, including my sig below] to the relevant BBO forum.

 

 

--

David Stevenson <bridge2@blakjak.com>

Liverpool, England, UK

Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

 

And then a subsequent quote more specifically about this hand

 

It is true that I looked more at the legalities in my previous post than at the actual hand. Yes, I suppose East would pass 2♥ generally once 2♦ was doubled, though a raise is possible. Would South double 2♥? Possibly.

 

I am assuming the correct explanation was both majors. I think South would normally double 2♥ with that hand.

 

I do not know whether Law 12C3 applies in Argentina. So, having re-considered, I think one of the following is correct:

 

Adjust for both sides using Law 12C3:

 

.. 15% of 3♥ doubled minus 3, NS +500

+ 60% of 2♥ doubled minus 2, NS +300

+ 25% of 2♥ minus 2, NS +100

 

Adjust using Law 12C2:

 

N/S get

2♥ doubled minus 2, NS +300

E/W get

3♥ doubled minus 3, NS +500

 

The Law 12C3 weightings involve a "benefit of doubt" bias, as is normal. So I believe that 3♥ doubled will be reached about 10% of the time, which is not high enough to be considered "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" but is high enough to be considered "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" for Law 12C2 purposes.

 

Again, I would be happy if someone posts this to BBO, unedited and credited

 

--

David Stevenson <bridge2@blakjak.com>

Liverpool, England, UK

Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

 

Naturally a debate still rages on the other board :)

[hrothgar]

This is a great example why I regualrly suggest that TDs post these hands on David's forums. I don't always agree with David, but I very much respect his opinions.