How would you rule....

[rwylee]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s8765hkj6da9832ck&w=sk92hq98743d7cq96&e=saqj1043h2dkjcj754&s=sha105dq10654ca10832]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]

 

West 2♥

North Pass

East 2♠

South 2 NT (No alert)

West Pass, and North bid 4♦ without hesitation.

East 4♠

South 5♦ and Doubled by East

 

Final result is 5DX+1

East called TD right after Dummy is shown.

TD adjusted it to 5DX=

which imho I can never agree with him.

 

How would you rule?

Thanks in advance!

 

Rex

[helene_t]

I don't see the damage. Would East not have doubled if he knew that 2NT was unusual? I don't see the logic. Besides, if he'd bid 5♠, it might go for -500. Finally: who knows if NS have any agreement about this 2NT call? Maybe S just improvised an unusual 2NT hoping that North would understand.

 

Result stands.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

As soon as misinformation is revealed, the director can be called, and it may result in an adjusted score. But seeing dummy is not revealing misinformation: the dummy has just the hand that a 4D call would show (can't be a transfer). So I think East's case is weakened - how can you wait for the sight of dummy and only then say you would have taken a different action?

 

Now, there may yet be damage, but just seeing dummy can't be the reason for misinformation. What is East thinking the dummy revealed that was unusual? East should instead wait to see opener's hand before calling the director.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[Finch]

Whatever is going on, an adjustment to 5Dx making 11 tricks cannot possibly be right. 5D makes 12 tricks on any defence.

 

In order to give any ruling at all, we need to ask two questions

 

- What is it that EW have a problem with (in this case, MI or UI)?

- How have EW been damaged?

 

So we would need to know

- are NS a regular partnership? Do they have an agreement about the 2NT bid? If this was f2f bridge with no screens, what did North think 2NT meant? If this was online or with screens, why did South not alert 2NT?

 

( If this is an online event, there is no UI from North to South over the lack of alert of 2NT. If it's face to face, we'll have to consider it. )

 

- If the TD decides that NS did have an agreement about 2NT, and that it showed the minors, this is probably alertable (depends on jurisdiction). In that case, EW have been given misinformation. In any other case, the result stands.

 

- let's assume there was MI for the time being. So next question, how have EW been damaged? What does East say he would have done differently had 2NT been alerted?

 

My instinct is that the result stands. If 2NT was natural then North has shown a slam try in diamonds. If 2NT was unusual then North has shown a game try in diamonds. Why would East not double after a game try auction when he doubles after a slam try auction? If he thinks that NS have had a screw up, he should ask some more questions about the auction before he doubles (e.g. ask what 4D meant).

[Codo]

If 2 Nt was not alerted, this had shown a strong hand. So East doubled allthough he must believe, that his values are in front of the strong hand? He looks at one trick for the defence opposite a weak two opening. How should double work well?

 

So I think result stands is clear. I believe, but cannot proofe, that East tried a double shot. The X works or the TD will give him a better result. Not from me.

 

To rule 5 D X= is crazy. There is NO way to adjust to this score.

[Elianna]

Hi all,

As soon as misinformation is revealed, the director can be called, and it may result in an adjusted score. But seeing dummy is not revealing misinformation: the dummy has just the hand that a 4D call would show (can't be a transfer). So I think East's case is weakened - how can you wait for the sight of dummy and only then say you would have taken a different action?

 

Now, there may yet be damage, but just seeing dummy can't be the reason for misinformation. What is East thinking the dummy revealed that was unusual? East should instead wait to see opener's hand before calling the director.

 

Thanks,

Dan

Usually, the person that bids the suit first is declarer (especially in online bridge). So in this case, North (the 4d bidder) is declarer, and south (the 2NTer) is dummy.

[DJNeill]

Hi Elianna,

Thanks :-) What was I thinking??

 

Later,

Dan

[blackshoe]

I agree with Frances, although I would add one thing: the juridiction in this case is the person or organization who set up this private club. They are the sponsoring organization and can make any regulations they like regarding disclosure of methods. So it's important to know what regulations they made. If they made no regulation (I include in making regulations referring to someone else's regulation, e.g., "ACBL alert regulations apply") the fault is theirs, not the players'.

 

It looks to me like EW play undisciplined weak twos. So East can count on West for exactly zero defensive tricks, and has only two himself (and maybe only one). The double makes no sense. :wacko:

[McBruce]

Perhaps I'm in a lazy mood, but I don't really want to give this one (or any similar one) a lot of thought until I get complete details:

 

--what was the nature of the complaint?

--what reasons did the TD give for adjusting?

 

Without these questions answered, all is speculation, but it sounds like the N-S pair got railroaded by a TD who took a complaint privately and adjusted without giving a reason. It also seems that N-S didn't do much to elicit an explanation for the adjustment. However, I don't want to conclude anything without all the details. Tell us!

[luis]

Result stands, seems to be easy.

I doubt this is a MI case but even If there was missinformation then the damage wasn't caused by the MI.

 

Luis

[rwylee]

some clarifications:

 

1. E-W is pick-up partnership, N-S is regular one.

2. nature of complaint: any UI during the auction?

3. No reason was given by the TDs (there were three TDs btw).

4. East complained again after the adjustment. If there were UI and damage, the adjusted contract should not be doubled. Otherwise, the result 5DX+1 should stand and no adjustment needed. 5DX= was unjust.

[blackshoe]

The complaint shows a lack of understanding of the law. The existence of UI is not illegal.

 

The ruling also shows a lack of understanding of the law. :( Among other things, when you give a ruling, you should always give a reason for it.

 

East was correct in that last bit.

[jillybean]

I think online tournament players have come to expect an adjustment when something is amiss in the auction, regardless of actual damage or not. Running large pairs tournaments can be chaotic, players want instant results and instant TD decisions forcing these carte blanche adjustments and setting a bad precedence for players and TD’s.

 

I don’t think this is a case of the TD getting the ruling "wrong" but more a case of the TD having little understanding of the laws.

 

jb

[barmar]

2. nature of complaint: any UI during the auction?

UI or MI? The only possible UI was the non-alert of 2NT. The implication of this is that North doesn't know that South is showing minors, but his next bid indicates that he understood the bid correctly, he just didn't alert for some reason (I'm not even sure that this Unusual 2NT would be alertable in ACBL, the only jurisdiction whose alert rules I'm familiar with).

 

4. East complained again after the adjustment. If there were UI and damage, the adjusted contract should not be doubled. Otherwise, the result 5DX+1 should stand and no adjustment needed. 5DX= was unjust.

 

How does UI affect whether East doubles? Again, this sounds more like a MI complaint, not a UI complaint.