Two Questionable Rulings

[quantumed]

In a regional event I played in my hometown in China there were two questionable (I think) rulings that greatly affected our result. My team is very unhappy about it. We had an discussion on how it should be but could not be definite. I hope some epxerts here could help me justify our thoughts.

 

It was a 32 boards KO quater-final. It happened on my teammates table in the open room. It was their first board.[hv=n=sqxxxh109xxxdakxcx&w=s10xxxhdqjxxxca109x&e=sajxxhkjd10xxckqxx&s=skhaqxxxxdxxcjxxx]399|300|Dealer E

Both Vul[/hv]

East opened a precision 1NT (13-15), pass pass until north balanced 2♣(!). It was alerted as both major to east, who was on the same side of the screen as north. Pass by east. South bid 3♣, but neither 2♣ or 3♣ was alerted to west, who assumed the bidding was natural. Followed by 3♥ by north then 4♥ by south. My teammate in west liked his club points and heart void (which implied bad trump break) so he pulled out the double. The play was straight forward, 4♥X+1, 990. Director was called of course at the end of the board. But to their surprise the director asked them to play on without giving any ruling!

 

Firstly I want to know what should be the proper ruling of such a situation. Secondly, there are a few pieces of background information that need to be taken note of: The player in south has a reputation for playing "immorally", if that is the word. He frequently takes advantage of players who are not familiar with conventions by not properly disclosing full meaning of his bidding (I know this from my own experience). Therefore, I suspect the 3♣ bid together with his failure to alert was intentional. Clearly he knew what 2♣ meant and he knew he would bid 4♥ anyway, but he wanted to shut out the 5♣ save by making the club bids looking "natural". At the same time he knew 3♣ cannot be passed. Everything was under his control. Now I want to know what you think the ruling should be.

 

Another ruling was on board 3. Over east's precision 1♣ opening, south overcalled 1NT (!), explained to west as different level different colour two-suiter. West passed with a 7 count because any other bid shows 8+. Then followed by 3♣ by north, who explained 1NT to east as SAME level two suiter. With long clubs east doubled. When south saw the bidding he interpreted 3♣ as "a strong hand, looking for suit" so he bid 3♦. So it appeared clear to west that south has ♦+♠. West liked his ♠KJX and 5 card heart so he bid 3♥ then 3NT by east. During the play, east who was convinced that south has the minors necessarily followed a wrong line and went -3 vul where 3NT is makable if proper information is given. Director was summoned again. This time the director blamed west for his 3♥ bid because a follow up double on 3♦ would result in 800. Again no immediate penalty.

 

My teammates were very unhappy about opponents' way of playing bridge and felt more upset at the lack of ruling. Their emotion got very badly affected (which i suspect is the opponents' purpose) and messed up the remaining boards. Remember this was only board 3 of a 16 board set. At the end we lost an unbelievable 66imp in 16 boards whereas my team is a very stable team and deemed slightly stronger than our opponents.

 

The most rediculous knowledge comes to me the second day when I got to know that the director was from exactly the same organization that the opposing team was representing. I wish to know your opinion on this too.

[kfgauss]

East opened a precision 1NT (13-15), pass pass until north balanced 2♣(!). It was alerted as both major to east, who was on the same side of the screen as north. Pass by east. South bid 3♣, but neither 2♣ or 3♣ was alerted to west, who assumed the bidding was natural. Followed by 3♥ by north then 4♥ by south. My teammate in west liked his club points and heart void (which implied bad trump break) so he pulled out the double. The play was straight forward, 4♥X+1, 990. Director was called of course at the end of the board. But to their surprise the director asked them to play on without giving any ruling!

 

Firstly I want to know what should be the proper ruling of such a situation. Secondly, there are a few pieces of background information that need to be taken note of: The player in south has a reputation for playing "immorally", if that is the word. He frequently takes advantage of players who are not familiar with conventions by not properly disclosing full meaning of his bidding (I know this from my own experience). Therefore, I suspect the 3♣ bid together with his failure to alert was intentional. Clearly he knew what 2♣ meant and he knew he would bid 4♥ anyway, but he wanted to shut out the 5♣ save by making the club bids looking "natural". At the same time he knew 3♣ cannot be passed. Everything was under his control. Now I want to know what you think the ruling should be.

 

From the information you give, it seems clear the score should be adjusted to 4♥+1 for 650 as with the correct explanation, West would not double (but everything else would be the same).

 

I'm hesitant to believe that South bid 3♣ while knowing partner had the majors. This seems rather dangerous and it seems unlikely the opponents will sacrifice in 5♣ over 4♥. (Also, if partner doesn't bid hearts, a 4♥ bid later could be misinterpreted.)

 

Another ruling was on board 3. Over east's precision 1♣ opening, south overcalled 1NT (!), explained to west as different level different colour two-suiter. West passed with a 7 count because any other bid shows 8+. Then followed by 3♣ by north, who explained 1NT to east as SAME level two suiter. With long clubs east doubled. When south saw the bidding he interpreted 3♣ as "a strong hand, looking for suit" so he bid 3♦. So it appeared clear to west that south has ♦+♠. West liked his ♠KJX and 5 card heart so he bid 3♥ then 3NT by east. During the play, east who was convinced that south has the minors necessarily followed a wrong line and went -3 vul where 3NT is makable if proper information is given. Director was summoned again. This time the director blamed west for his 3♥ bid because a follow up double on 3♦ would result in 800. Again no immediate penalty.

 

My teammates were very unhappy about opponents' way of playing bridge and felt more upset at the lack of ruling. Their emotion got very badly affected (which i suspect is the opponents' purpose) and messed up the remaining boards. Remember this was only board 3 of a 16 board set. At the end we lost an unbelievable 66imp in 16 boards whereas my team is a very stable team and deemed slightly stronger than our opponents.

 

The most rediculous knowledge comes to me the second day when I got to know that the director was from exactly the same organization that the opposing team was representing. I wish to know your opinion on this too.

 

Just because a double of 3♦ would give a better score than 3NT is no reason not to adjust to 3NT=. The standard here is that you need to "continue to play bridge" or some such, but inferior actions are certainly allowed. I'd need to see the hand to be confident in my opinion here, but my guess is that it would have been correct to adjust to 3NT=.

[quantumed]

I'm hesitant to believe that South bid 3♣ while knowing partner had the majors. This seems rather dangerous and it seems unlikely the opponents will sacrifice in 5♣ over 4♥. (Also, if partner doesn't bid hearts, a 4♥ bid later could be misinterpreted.)

 

I also have problem interpreting the 3♣ bid. If 2♣ is ever misunderstood by south it must be thought of as Astro showing H+m as this pair plays Astro at second seat and Landy fourth. So there's no way he doesn't know the heart fit. What more, if 2♣ is natural, don't you think 2♥ by south showing heart + club tolerance is more logical?

 

In fact, the "shut out 5♣ save" explaination was given by the director.