Who is right?

[zasanya]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa10xxxhajxxdxcaq10&w=sxxxhxxxdqjxxxxcx&e=skxhqxxdaxxckjxxx&s=sqjxhk10xdkxxcxxxx]399|300|Scoring: Chicago[/hv]

 

East the dealer,playing precision opened 1 NT.South passed.West who could have transferred to ♦ by bidding 2NT elected to passand North bid 2♣ intending it as Landy showing both majors.However North had forgotten that he had himself earlier suggested to his P that 2♣ was to be natural and 2♦ was the call for both majors.East Passed.South paused for a long time and then passed.West stupidly asked for the meaning of 2♣ and South loudly answered that it was natural.Now West bid 2♦ and North who had heard his Partners explanation of 2♣ bid 3♦.East passd.South again paused considerably and then bid 3♥ which North converted to 4♥.

West lead a ♣ dummy played low and East won with ♣ J.East placed West with 5-3-3-2 shape as West had neither transferred nor bid a garbage Sayman Played ♦ A.West played 2 discouraging ♦ continuation.Now East banged down ♠ K and contract was made after ♥ Q was picked up.

East accused N/S of unethical behaviour.North South maintained that "they simply had a misunderstanding and West stupidly gave them a second chance even then they landed into an inferior game contract which was a lucky make but South stupidly gave defence a chance by not going up with A and contract was made only after a gross blunder by East.So East shouldnt complain"

 

Do you think East has a case?Do you think N/S can be accused of unethical behaviour making use of UI?

[jillybean]

 

LAW 16 - UNAUTHORISED INFORMATION

Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls

and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other

extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

General Laws Covering Irregularities

 

A. Extraneous Information from Partner

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may

suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a

question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis,

tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose

from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have

been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

Isn't this a clear cut Law16 case? North is not permited to use the UI from his partners explanation

[inquiry]

First question, was the explaination of the alert correct that the agreement was that 2♣ was "natural". It seems that according to your explaination, 2♣ was "agreed upon" as natural, so the explaination was "correct". This is supported by the fact that south (who you called north) passed 2♣.

 

So there was no MI, south "loudly" stated their agreement correctly when asked. Not sure what loudly has to do with it, but this was exactly what he was to do. If the agreement was that 2♣ WAS indeed landy, then I would have rolled the contract back to 2♣ were the size of teh "x"'s in clubs determines if 2♣ makes or is down one.

 

Since the alert was correct, the next question is was 3♦ a legal bid. North (hand with hearts and spades) is not allowed to wakeup after the explaination by his partner. However, if 2♣ was landy and if his partner choose to play 2♣ instead of show a major, then NORTH's hand is golden for possible club game. So it seems to me at least reasonable north would take another call. 3♦ seems at the very least a possible bid. Having said that, wiggling into 4♥ after this start does seem taking advantage of the desciption. How could South have four or even 3♥'s on this auction if south was playing 2♣ as LANDY. Answer is he could not. So I would not allow 4♥ making to score, because I can't see north thinking south is long in clubs and short in the major (perhaps 3♥ was a singleton game try response, or perhaps singleton or doubleton King). So 4♥ as a final contract is not possible. North will simply have to place the contract in some number of clubs at this point, or perhaps 3NT by south after north bids 3♠ again looking for a ♦ stopper, and counting on a lot of ♣ tricks given his partners long clubs....

 

Now 3NT has a play. Assume ♦Q lead, ducked. ♦ to ACE and ♦ out. Lose ♠ hook and win 4♠, 1♦, 3♥ and a ♣. So this is a difficult hand to judge. On line, I guess I would give Average minus to NS and average plus to EW.

[Tola18]

Isnt a split score possible?

 

It is clear NS used UI. Which clearly isnt allowed. And of all possible actions they are therefore doomed to "take" the possible action which is lest favourable to them as their result.

 

Ie probably some club contract.

 

EW´s bad result is partly because of their own misdefending. Perhaps even misdefending on purpose, they probably understanding there was a UI. "Right guess I win, wrong guess they loose". or "Ate the cake but still have it left." But this isnt no bridge. This behavior isnt correct and thus they should stand their own fate.

 

Ie I think NS should get a normal result from a club contract + the TD/jury/Law Commision should say some formal words of truths to them (notification? in english), whereas EW should get the result from this misdefended heart-game.

[zasanya]

Ty Ben I have edited the original clarifying the North South typos.Hope it is correct now.I was East.My emphasis on the world loudly was because if North had not heard Souths explanation he would have presumed South had long ♣ and looked for ♣ contract.

Since this was Chicago there was no TD.I just wanted to be reassured that I had a case.

Ty jillybean and Tola for your replies.

[jillybean]

So this is a difficult hand to judge. On line, I guess I would give Average minus to NS and average plus to EW.

If this was online then North would not receive any UI, no matter how "loudly" South answered the query. :(

If this was the case then North is allowed to wake up, realise he misbid and try to correct the auction, result stands?

[Double !]

I am very poorly educated in these rules issues, so I would like to ask a question. Or 2, or maybe 3.

 

Am I not correct in assuming that, once any explanations have been given, that all of South's bids must be consistent with his/her initial explanation of the two club bid? Assuming that the answer to the above is yes, what explanation (if any) was given regarding the meaning of North's 3 diamond bid? And, what would a reopening bid of 3 clubs have meant for the N/S partnership? Like I said, I know little about what the rules say about these issues, but I understand the issue of not letting any comments or information from alerts/ announcements made by partner influence one's bidding or decision-making.

 

I see these as being crucial issues because the third question I have is whether or not South had any other logical alternatives to bidding 3H? North's bidding sounds almost impossible if the initial 2C bid theoretically showed clubs and was passable by South. How can North now suddenly have a hand worth a cue bid at the 3-level. And, what does it show or ask for?

 

eagerly await explanations from y'all (please don't just cite a rule). I have a hidden agenda here. One agenda is whether or not specific partnership agreements can supercede or prevail when there has been a theoretical UI and when the norm doesn't play or agree with the specific agreement and, therefore, deems another action as being a logical/ reasonable alternative (or whatever the term is)? It's like being judged against an alternative standard....

 

TIA,

DHL

[Fluffy]

The correct thing to do would be to ban north from wherever you paly, but then nobody does that kinds of things when they know the person. I have no clue about rulings btw, I just feel he is cheating (maybe not voluntarilly though)

[mr1303]

Did I read it correct that East led the K of spades after playing the A of diamonds? If so, that sounds wild and gambling to me, in which case a split score does sound legitimate.

[zasanya]

Did I read it correct that East led the K of spades after playing the A of diamonds? If so, that sounds wild and gambling to me, in which case a split score does sound legitimate.

I did bang down ♠ K.My P has denied ♦ K and even ♦ QJ.I am reading him for some points and doubleton ♣.So what else?Anyway I guess I was wrong.My only reason for asking this question was to reassure myself that I had a case especially because North is an old man with him I had excellent relations but after this deal I told him that I would never again play bridge with him.

[blackshoe]

I hate it when my computer crashes and loses all my work. Let me try again.

 

If this was online, it probably wouldn't have been posted in the "offline bridge" forum. :rolleyes:

 

I would not assume there were any alerts, nor that any were required.

 

Jillybean is right - this is clearly a case for Law 16. South's explanation gave North the UI that he had misbid. He's not allowed to use that information. When West asks and hears that 2♣ is natural, and then bids 2♦, it seems to me he's just thinking of competing for the part score. Foolish, perhaps, given the opponents have most of the points, but players do foolish things sometmes. I wouldn't call the question about 2♣ "stupid", either, even if there was no alert. If there's no requirement to alert, how else is he gonna know what it means? Okay, he gave NS a chance to recover, but they can't legally do that by using UI. So did they? Maybe.

 

East may have a case for a score adjustment, but he has no business accusing North of "unethical behavior". That's just adding fuel to the fire. Dig out the law book, show North why he shouldn't have done what he did, but don't call him unethical, or a cheat. As my mother used to say "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

"Cheat" carries a connotation of deliberate action. If a player doesn't know he's violating the rules, is he still cheating? Even if he is, the laws of bridge aren't designed to call people cheats, they're designed to provide redress for damage, whether there was cheating or not. Same for "unethical". The laws of the game define its ethics - "unethical behavior" also carries a connotation of deliberate violation of the rules, which is hardly possible if you don't know what you're doing is illegal. No, leave that whole can of worms alone (in a tournament environment, when you have clear evidence of cheating, it's a different story. Then you should report it - privately).

 

The question was raised whether the NOS should be entitled to redress, given their poor defense in the play. Did they "fail to play bridge"? Were their actions "irrational, wild or gambling?" Doesn't seem so to me, so I wouldn't deny them redress on that score.

 

There is no obligation on South, who has no UI, to bid in accordance with her explanation of North's bid. There might arise, in some jurisdictions, a question of fielding a misbid, I suppose, but it seems unlikely in this case.

 

It isn't South's 3♥ bid which should be called into question here, but North's 3♦ and subsequent 4♥ bids. North has UI, so he must avoid using that in choosing his calls. If the UI may have influenced him, (and if the opps were damaged thereby) then we should adjust the score. If he didn't use UI in making those calls (maybe there was no LA, or the UI didn't suggest those calls. Please note that I said maybe; I haven't analyzed that question) then no score adjustment is warranted.

 

If, in a given situation, a partnership's agreeement mean there was no logical alternative to a call made by a recipient of UI, then he has done nothing wrong, and there should be no score adjustment or other penalty.

[jillybean]

If this was online, it probably wouldn't have been posted in the "offline bridge" forum.  :rolleyes:

This was meant as a hypothetical question

 

I was wanting to clarify that IF this was online so North would not receive the UI then if he wakes up and realises he misbid he IS allowed to try and correct the auction.

[Gerben42]

Sorry Ben, online or offline you cannot just give Ave+ / Ave-. This is a situation that should be avoided. Either you let the score as it is, or you run it back to 2♣.

 

Although I normally try to rule in favour of the NOS (non-offending side) this one goes too far for me. Let's see:

 

* The actual agreement was that 2♣ showed ♣, North forgot.

* South didn't forget and passed 2♣.

* West, normally, bid 2♦ (why ask in the first place? You have 6♦!)

* North, with a very strong hand that might make 5♣ or 4 of a major opposite a hand that might pass 2♣, cuebid.

* South bid 3♥

* North bid 4♥, a bad contract.

 

West led a Club to the Jack, cashed ♦A which can be understood, but then, knowing partner is weak, played ♠K which cannot be understood.

 

Sorry guys, score stands. The appeal committee is that way, thank you.

[helene_t]

[....] what explanation (if any) was given regarding the meaning of North's 3 diamond bid?

This 3♦ is an unusual bid in an unusual situation. Few pairs will have agreements about its meaning, and a pair that just agreed not to play Landy (replacing it with a clearly inferior home-brewed method) and then one of the partners forgets, certainly has no agreement.

 

I think Ben is right although Gerben certainly has a point.

[Gerben42]

I did bang down ♠ K.My P has denied ♦ K and even ♦ QJ.I am reading him for some points and doubleton ♣.So what else?Anyway I guess I was wrong.My only reason for asking this question was to reassure myself that I had a case especially because North is an old man with him I had excellent relations but after this deal I told him that I would never again play bridge with him.

 

♠K is only correct if partner has the ♠A (since the Q is on the table). If he has it, it won't go away. And why did you play partner for "some points"? After all he didn't double 4♥ when you have a strong NT.

 

I just feel he is cheating (maybe not voluntarilly though)

 

How can you cheat involuntarily?! I admit the 4♥ bid was dubious but when he gets away with it rather than going at least two down... Probably hasn't learned much.

 

By the way it seems to me people very quickly accuse others of cheating!

[LH2650]

At the point that North must call over 2 diamonds, he has an excellent hand in an unusual auction. Both a conservative 3 clubs and an aggressive 3 diamonds seem to be logical alternatives. However, one is clearly suggested by the UI, so I would disallow that, setting the contract at 3 clubs by North. The Laws are carefully written so that the Director does not have to address issues of unethical behavior in situations like this in order to make a ruling, and I would not.

 

Once the contract is imposed, the subsequent bidding and play that actually occurred at the table is relevant only if the defenders did something irrational, and I don't see that.

 

More information on the club spots may be necessary in order to determine whether 3 clubs makes.

[inquiry]

I did bang down ♠ K.My P has denied ♦ K and even ♦ QJ.I am reading him for some points and doubleton ♣.So what else?Anyway I guess I was wrong.My only reason for asking this question was to reassure myself that I had a case especially because North is an old man with him I had excellent relations but after this deal I told him that I would never again play bridge with him.

 

♠K is only correct if partner has the ♠A (since the Q is on the table). If he has it, it won't go away. And why did you play partner for "some points"? After all he didn't double 4♥ when you have a strong NT.

Well the SPADE ACE is visisble in dummy (south is declarer in 4♥). This defense is less than sterling. EAST can see that NS had a biddign misundertandng and what NORTH really held for his 2♣ bid. The fact that partner balanced, rules out that partner has a lot of clubs... in fact, it almost surely must be a singleton (spots would be important).

 

I just feel he is cheating (maybe not voluntarilly though)

 

How can you cheat involuntarily?! I admit the 4♥ bid was dubious but when he gets away with it rather than going at least two down... Probably hasn't learned much.

 

By the way it seems to me people very quickly accuse others of cheating!

 

Well, I think north intentionally or unintentionally took advantage of the bid description by his partner, so despite the fact that the defense could and should have done better, NS will not be allowed to score 4♥ making. Rather EW have to live with 4♥ making on their side of the ledger is up to someone else to decide. I think barring a 3♦ cue-bid, is at least a reasonable approach.

[blackshoe]

If this was online, it probably wouldn't have been posted in the "offline bridge" forum.  :rolleyes:

This was meant as a hypothetical question

 

I was wanting to clarify that IF this was online so North would not receive the UI then if he wakes up and realises he misbid he IS allowed to try and correct the auction.

Fair enough. :(

[jmc]

I think something important is being missed here.

 

South had a hesitation (long pause) over 2C and then chose to pass. This is the first possible source of UI. After the 2D call is pass a logical alternative for North? Clearly his partners hesitation pass hass indicated he has some values. Without the pass North may reason, " I have 15, opener has 13-15. E has some values. My partner could be broke." Based on this the 3D might not be allowed BUT IF IT IS, I don't think North can move over 3H. North more than bid his hand. South should be going to game on his own if he has more than his pass promised. 4H seems bid on the hesitation.

 

I think the hesitation pass is way more important here than the UI of the alert.

 

jmc

[Guest Jlall]

Unethical seems very mild for what north did.

 

As many posters have said, this is not an MI case it's a UI case. South's explanation woke north up to what was happening. Had he thought he showed the majors and his partner passed he surely would want to play in clubs at some level. 3D is actually fine, when later followed by a club bid showing a huge hand for clubs. Partner must have short majors and very long clubs to pass 2C majors, so north has a huge hand. Over 3H (which would show preference there over spades, not length since 2C for the majors was passed south can't have heart length). North has a 4C bid now. South, thinking partner has bid a natural 2C and then cuebid 3D opposite a possible 0 count will certainly bid 5C. And east will double. So I would adjust this to 5C X -4. I would also give north a stern lecture.

[Guest Jlall]

* North, with a very strong hand that might make 5♣ or 4 of a major opposite a hand that might pass 2♣, cuebid.

* South bid 3♥

* North bid 4♥, a bad contract.

How can 4 of a major make? If south had any kind of major suit support he would not pass 2C which is in general a very risky gamble. South must have short majors and long clubs to pass 2C. The 4H bid is definitely an issue here. North has only 4 hearts. His partner has at most 2 hearts. South must bid a major over 3D, partner can be 6-6 in the majors for this bidding.

xx

Kx

xx

Jxxxxxx might well bid this way.

 

How can north then bid 4H? Only because he knows that partners pass of 2C was in context of not knowing that north had the majors. 4H is a GROSS use of the UI north had available to him.

[bid_em_up]

Do you think East has a case? Do you think N/S can be accused of unethical behaviour making use of UI?

In a word, No.

 

N/S can be accused of not knowing what they are doing, and thats about it. I really wouldn't sweat "ethical" issues of this nature against an "old man" with whom I had good relations prior to this, as you later state. You are also playing chicago, which sounds as if you are playing against a pair of friends (or aquaintances) in a social game (maybe even a home game). For all we know, this pair has been playing like this for years in social games where things such as this are the norm.

 

While their behaviour could certainly be described as coffeehousing, or simply "lack of experience", to accuse someone of being unethical as a result of this in what appears to be a friendly game is taking things a little bit too far, imo.

 

They ended in a bad game, you misdefended, it made. Tough cookies. It's chicago, they will be likely to stretch for a vul game of any kind. 4S is cold on the lie of the cards though, they could have easily been in it instead (losing 1S, 1C, 1D or 2S and 1D).

 

You might explain to them that taking advantage of (mis)explanations is considered to be unethical and why. But by no means should you accuse them of actually being unethical....at least not until they do it a second time after having the reasons why it is considered to be unethical explained to them. :)

[cherdano]

I didn't follow this thread much because I thought the issue was 100% clear-cut. Of course North was misusing UI. Please don't tell me that there are no logical alternatives to bidding 4♥, opposite a hand that passes 2♣, Landy.

 

I am really surprised that one poster who is both an occasional director and a decent player can come to a different conclusion here. Apparently he missed that even if partner's explanation is correct, it has to be treated as UI if you obviously forgot this agreement.

 

Arend

[han]

Obvious UI abuse.