Trouble at the table

[42]

Hi all,

yesterday someone told me this story which I now tell you because I felt doubts about the ruling. I was not involved in any way and I don't know the exact hands, I'm just interested in your opinions about this case in general ;)

 

The situation in general: club tourney, teams. Better group of 2 (the playing strength varies from "expert" to "intermediate --"),

occasional partnership meets experienced partnership, 4 ladies (or not :) at the table, 2 of the ladies are known to - let's say - never hide personal opinions and the truth is not always relevant).

The bidding (ep white, op red):

ep: 1♥ (op: 2NT*) ep: 4♥ (op: 4♠)

all pass

 

* not alerted, occasional partnership. Before she bid, the 4♥-bidress asked what 2NT meant and received the answer "strong".

 

4♠ was down 2 for -200, 4♥ makes.

TD is called.

ep: "Had we known that 2NT was for minors and weak we would have doubled 4♠ for -500"

op: "We play for the 1. time and didn't discuss this 2NT. The 4♠-bidress normally doesn't play in the highest group."

 

TD sets the score to 4♠ dbl -2 for -500.

 

op wants to call the arbitration committee. TD says: "When you do this you must pay a deposit of 30,- Euro" (this was never done and never discussed before in the club).

 

The committee decides very quickly that the score stands (reasoning: "it is standard that 2NT is for minors and weak. Who plays in the highest group must know this")

 

In the meantime 1 lady of the ep calls a lady of the op to be a liar (and we don't know what else). op will call another committee to punish the ep ("zero tolerance").

 

 

Do you think that the decisions are all ok?

Is the protest frivolous?

Which committee should decide what?

 

[Do you want to play there? I prefer to stay at home.... *this is my personal frustration-statement*]

 

The edited passages are written in red :) Sorry that I missed it before!

Edited June 21, 2007 by 42

[helene_t]

I can understand why one of the ep ladies called the op lady a liar - she pretended to have an agreement while she should have admitted not to have, didn't she?

 

Then again, we could call the ep ladies "fishers" since the reason they didn't double was that they calculated that the TD would double for them if necesary.

 

No, the protest was not frivolous. I might assign a split-score, -500 for op and +200 for ep.

 

If I wanted to play there? Depends. If my partner and/or I don't have internet connections, and if there's no other club in town, we might have to play there. Depends how many of these kinds of ladies are around. If it's more than ten percent, there's always the option of playing solitaire.

[Gerben42]

First point: There was no agreement but someone normally playing in the normal group does not know other than to explain what she always plays. In principle the ruling 4♠x -2 is correct from a Laws point of view. The question is if the ruling should be like this against the new player...

 

About the arbitration committee: There is NO fee for this unless one is set in the official rules of the club. The committee used a ridiculous reasoning, I think this also falls under zero tolerance because it says "you are stupid" to the new guest to the higher group.

 

If the club has a committee that deals with these kinds of cases like someone calling someone else a liar, that's for them. My minimum penalty would be an apology to the poor lady in front of the whole club.

 

The protest is frivolous for good players, but not if it was made by the pair you described.

 

I would rather stay home then play there!

 

My suggestion how to treat the ep: Don't get mad, get even!

[Quantumcat]

I sounds to me like the experienced partnership are just looking for extra points by taking advantage of the newer players. It's not the op's fault! In such rulings they should always take the benefit of the doubt for newer players ... they are unlikely to know how do benefit from cheating, it's so much more likely to be a simple mistake! If I were the director I would say score stands.

[hotShot]

The op(2NT) bidder had to correct partners explanation at the end of the bidding phase.

EP's would be allowed to change the last bid made, so the correct score for OP is most likely 4♠X-2 => -500.

Now we have to decide what 4♠ could be, if 2NT would have been taken as weak with minors, because OP(2NT) bidder has UI from the missing alert that her partner did not get the true meaning of the 2NT bid. If 4♠ could be a splinter or cue bid as a slam try in a minor maybe we need to consider 5m or 6m as contract.

I don't think that EP's behavior qualifies to be irrational wild or gambling so there is not enough reason for a split score.

[badderzboy]

Hmmm

 

Was there a misinformation here? I guess no CCs so the right answer to the lack of alert if there was no agreement NOT strong so everyone knows its 5/5 minors is absolute bobbins by the commitee.

 

The other pair asked to protect themselves so no issue there they were checking to see if it was Minors.

 

If the ptrship agreement is strong then no adjustment misbid rather than MI.

 

The one thing about the 2NT bidder pair is they believed it was strong with 4Ss so it may be what they agreed but with no CC u have to assume MI....

 

The 4♥ bidder is the only one with a clue what is going on ptr opens and N bids 2NT strong 18+say and he has values (he bid 4Hs) and South bids 4Ss sounds like a 50 point pack!

 

The other pair asked to protect themselves so no issue there they were checking to see if it was Minors.

 

Now did the MI influence the outcome in two ways no potential DBL and also opps not in 5 minor Dbld...

 

I would double is self serving and theres a sniff of a double shot here but I would adjust to 4H making as the most favourable result without the MI.

 

The next fun bit is did the NT bidder use UI he knows ptr thinks he is strong with a balanced hand was passing 4S a logical alternative...

 

Steve

 

 

 

Steve

[blackshoe]

"Ladies." Feh. Not all of these "ladies" are ladies.

 

"Strong" is not adequate disclosure, even if that partly described their agreement. If they didn't have an agreement, "strong" is misinformation. But were NOS damaged by MI? They say they would have doubled given the explanation "weak, both minors" (which apparently fit the bidder's hand), but if the OS didn't have any agreement, they should not have gotten that explanation. Note, however, that if the OS pair are aware that "most people" in the group play it as weak with minors, and there's any chance the NOS pair are not aware of it, that too needs to be disclosed - so it's possible that a correct explanation, even with no formal agreement, would have resulted in a double. So I don't see a problem with the TD's ruling.

 

For the TD to arbitrarily and on his own initiative institute a deposit for an appeal is not within the laws, unless he is also the SO (which would mean he owns the club, which I infer is not the case here).

 

The committee's reasoning is specious. Whatever somebody "must know", the NOS were given a different explanation. They are entitled to believe what they're told is the agreement.

 

Seems to me a disciplinary committee hearing on the "liar" accusation is appropriate.

[Echognome]

I don't understand a lot of the rulings thus far. Adjust to 4♥ making??? How are you basing that in the laws?

 

If I were asked to come to the table, I would first need a little further information.

 

When did the 4♥ bidder ask the meaning of 2NT?

 

If it was before her final pass, then North should have corrected the explanation and then the TD should be called and then we could have given East her final pass back and we wouldn't be in this situation. (Note: we still have UI from the failure to alert 2NT and possible MI problems for West if she would have taken another action given the bidding.)

 

If it was after dummy came down and given that North didn't correct the explanation, I would rule MI (and also check if there was any damage from UI) and see if I felt there was any damage and also whether there was a double shot. (The term double shot is actually not in the laws, but I use it because the laws differ by region whether the action needs to be "wild and gambling", or a "failure to play bridge" or an "egregious error", etc.)

 

As far as UI is concerned, I would have to see the hands, but I don't imagine that an ordinary minimum unusual 2NT would take action in this auction.

 

As far as how I'd rule with the MI, again it's impossible to rule without seeing the hands.

 

Finally, I would want to ascertain what their actual agreement is. However, given that they do not seem to know and there was a mistaken explanation given, I would likely rule misinformation. Then it's just a matter of judgment how I think the East and West players would act different if given the proper the explanation, with doubt going to the side of the non offenders. But, I CANNOT rule that the contract would be 4♥ as South had no UI in the auction.

[badderzboy]

Matt

21B3

40C

12C2

 

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a

result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a nonoffending

side, the most favourable result that was likely had the

irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable

result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides

need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by

altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

 

If we decide that the MI is agreed then 4S is never going to be bid.

Now if some number of ♣/♦s X -2 is likely or 4♥ if not

 

If I'm wrong pls correct me and I better revise my TD notes lol

 

Steve

[helene_t]

Agree with Matt. You cannot adjust to 4♥ since the 4♠ bid was legal.

 

The offense was the wrong explanation of 2NT. The ep ladies might have doubled, or bid 5♥, with correct explanation. So those are the TD's options.

[Echognome]

If we decide that the MI is agreed then 4S is never going to be bid.

I guess this is where I think you might want to rethink.

 

The non offending side is entitled to the correct information. The offending side is not. Thus imagine we had screens (or were playing online) and EW had the correct information, but South did not. What would happen then?

 

Clearly, South is still going to bid 4♠, because from her point of view, nothing is different.

 

The only way I can see you getting to 4♥ is if you argue that East will bid something different given the correct explanation and that South will not bid 4♠ because of it. For this to happen, you'd have to convince me of something like East will double and South will bid 3♠, West will bid 4♥ and South will now double. But, you can see how this will be a difficult story to tell.

[Finch]

what helene_t said.

 

This is just the type of ruling I hate. Anyone explaning the 2NT overcall as 'strong' is, to be honest, almost certainly a near beginner. This sort of behavious is just what stops people playing. If the ep had just taken their obvious 500 we'd have been fine.

 

What an experienced player who knows the laws well might do, particularly if the 2NT bidder is looking uncomfortable, is say - nicely - to the 2NT bidder before the opening lead is faced "was that right - is your agreement that 2NT is strong?" which is a polite way of checking that they know their obligations to correct a misexplanation before the opening lead. Then we could have had the TD at the right time, and they could have doubled or not as they fancied and have had no further recourse.

 

Of course the ep aren't obliged to do this. Of course if they do it against stronger players they will get rude remarks. But when inexperienced people start playing club duplicates it's our aim to educate them, not to extract every last matchpoint from the rulebook.

 

What I want to play there? Quite possibly. There is one very unpleasant pair at my local club, but in general the atmosphere is very pleasant. I just try and sit the same way as them.

[mycroft]

...or the 2NT bidder, who was woken up by the lack of alert, would treat 4S as "something", and bid 5m - or would be willing to sit for 4S, but not 4Sx and pull to 5m.

 

90% of the time there is MI - especially face-to-face - there is also UI that you have to look at as well. Of course if both players on the 2NT side are weak, then the lack of Alert and wrong explanation probably isn't going to pass any useful information.

 

Having said that, 4H was weak? If not, why would the experienced pair settle for 4S? The Laws have recourse for "protect yourself", the requirement for which varies from SO to SO (in the ACBL, it's "after the infraction, you must continue to play bridge" not necessarily your best game, but if you would be embarrassed to tell your mates in the bar afterward what you did (barring the infraction), then sorry for you; in other places, the bar is set much lower - "irrational, wild or gambling action" being a common level).

 

I agree, of course, that 4H is an impossible contract, as 4S was bid perfectly legally. Just saying that 4S, or 4Sx, may not be the right contract either.

 

Having said that

Michael.

[Echognome]

I would find it hard to believe that the UI affecting North (and that is the only UI) would lead to a different contract. I can't say for certain without seeing the hands, but, e.g. having a void would make little difference to me. The reason I say this is that there's nothing above that would make me believe that 4♠ wasn't natural. If that's the case, then why is North moving over it?

 

Finally, I forgot to add all of this mention of 2NT is minors and weak. Why was this assumed anywhere?

[Fluffy]

4♠ bidder explained and bid acordingly to what he though. 2NT bidder didn't take advantage of the UI and accepted 4♠ even when he knew it was a dreadful contract.

 

If you wanna apply the law I think OP have a 3 IMP penalty for not having an agreement. Other than that they are responsible of nothing.

 

 

 

And EP deserved to lose 30€ by appealing, but director made the wrong decision at the start. Whatever 2NT was it is obvious either 4♥ was stupid bid, or one of them had a clear penalty double of 4♠

[blackshoe]

Finally, I forgot to add all of this mention of 2NT is minors and weak. Why was this assumed anywhere?

Because that's what the committee said was the common local meaning of that bid.

[42]

Thx so far for your answers!

 

I slightly edited the post (written in red):

 

a.) the lady asked BEFORE she bid 4♥ (as far as I know).

Interesting is also if and how it changes the decisions when the 4♥-bidress just bids without asking and her partner asks before passing :P

 

b.) TD set the score to 4♠ dbl for -500

 

 

 

OT: hi fluffy, thx for your words yesterday :)

[cherdano]

Caren, it's impossible to say what the correct ruling is without seeing the hands. If one of them had a penalty double either way, their loss was not caused by the misinformation.

I definitely dislike the actions by the eps, and as TD would try to go out of my way to avoid helping them.

[Echognome]

I definitely dislike the actions by the eps, and as TD would try to go out of my way to avoid helping them.

Arend - I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I just want to clarify.

 

Can I presume that you do not mean that you would apply the law any differently just because you do not like a pair? As a TD you should be fair with the law, even if you do not like the people involved. Beginners get some leniency when it comes to procedural penalties (they often get warnings instead), but they should get a fair ruling. You can always warn (or PP) a pair for behavior separately.

 

Again, perhaps you didn't mean it as it sounded to me when I read it, so just wanted you to make it clear.

[cherdano]

I definitely dislike the actions by the eps, and as TD would try to go out of my way to avoid helping them.

Arend - I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I just want to clarify.

 

Can I presume that you do not mean that you would apply the law any differently just because you do not like a pair? As a TD you should be fair with the law, even if you do not like the people involved. Beginners get some leniency when it comes to procedural penalties (they often get warnings instead), but they should get a fair ruling. You can always warn (or PP) a pair for behavior separately.

 

Again, perhaps you didn't mean it as it sounded to me when I read it, so just wanted you to make it clear.

You put words in my mouth when you said I didn't like the pair, I said I didn't like their actions in this story.

 

Anwyay, I would apply the law differently, not because I don't like the pair, but because I believe the actions of the eps are bad for bridge, are against the spirit of the law, bad for my club if I let them get through with it, etc. Of course I am just speculating since I don't know the persons involved, but Caren's story suggests that the eps knew very well that 2N was for the minors (note that the 2N bidder was more experienced than her partner), and were just trying to take advantage of the fact that they knew better than their opponent.

[Codo]

Sorry, I still don´t get it. All of you share more or less one opinion, so I must be wrong, but here are my thoughts:

 

Yes we all play 2 NT for the minors. But we all alert 2 NT don´t we?

 

So why on earth shall a not alerted 2 NT bid show the minors?

The op did obviously not discuss this issue, so they have no agreement, they aren´t even on the same wavelength. Even if the 2 NT bidder had been asked, the correct and in my view only explanation was: No agreement.

And if I have no agreement about a jump to 2 NT, what is it? Obviously stronger then 1 NT, bridge is easy.

 

The lady with the minors tried a convention, hoping that her pd will understand. She did not. This happens and normally creates a bad score for the pair that misunderstood. This time it was a bad score for their opponents. Bad luck for their opponents, but no need to rule against the op.

There simply is no rule against misunderstandings.

 

And they are an occasional partnership or first time partners, so there are many aspects where they had not discussed their bidding system in all details.

 

So in my opinion, the ruling: Score stand 4 Spade -2 = 200 is clear cut and it is not even close.

 

To invite a fee in this special moment is ...I miss the english words for it... so I will try bullsh*t, which is the closest translation.

 

As all of you had set the score to 4 Spade X -2 (or worse), I won´t find harsh words for the committee. But in my opinion, they have no idea what they are talking about. If they decide about something a player did, they must decide it according to her experience and her level. So a ruling like: "In this group, you must know" is simply wrong. They must ask themselves, what players of the class of this lady would do, they must not ask, how they want it do be.

 

To call someone a liar could be taken to a normal court, it is never allowed. It should not happen in a bridge club anywhere and be punished by the club.

 

I would call this bridge club: The once and never club, because I would visit it once and never again.

 

In my view, they have no ideas about the spirit of the game. I could stand one or two pairs like the ep, but a TD and a committee behaving in this way is a reason to stop playing in the club.

 

Okay, all of you had decided like the TD, so I must be wrong, but I still don´t see where.

[Free]

These op's should learn to say they don't have an agreement instead of guessing. But I'm not sure what the best way is...

The attitude of the ep's is unacceptable and should be punished heavily.

[42]

Codo, I am with you (please reserve a dance for me in the Gewölbekeller!!! :) ).

 

But to leave the score 4♠ -2 is hard (I would like to, of course) because the 2NT-bidder did not call the TD at the right time, she lost her rights imo. The probability is near 100% that the ep pair would have changed the bid to 4♠ dbl after the clarification that 2NT was intended to show minors, weak.

 

The partner of the 2NT-bidder was convinced that she gave the correct explanation and that 2NT is -when not explicitely discussed and therefore not alerted- strong. Why should she be punished that she gave a "wrong" explanation? When a situation is not discussed or documentated there is no wrong or right, or? When all the world plays 2NT in this situation as minors + weak, why must the bid be alerted?

 

Not every bidding misunderstanding creates necessarily a zero :)

[Fluffy]

because the 2NT-bidder did not call the TD at the right time

I am not sure on this, but I think you cannot lose your rights for not calling director at the proper time, just some of your credibility (director will tend to think you only asked him afer you saw a bad result for your side).

 

 

To Codo: I think most of the posters disagreed with TD, -500 was not the correct score.

[Codo]

Codo, I am with you (please reserve a dance for me in the Gewölbekeller!!! :D ).

 

But to leave the score 4♠ -2 is hard (I would like to, of course) because the 2NT-bidder did not call the TD at the right time, she lost her rights imo. The probability is near 100% that the ep pair would have changed the bid to 4♠ dbl after the clarification that 2NT was intended to show minors, weak.

 

The partner of the 2NT-bidder was convinced that she gave the correct explanation and that 2NT is -when not explicitely discussed and therefore not alerted- strong. Why should she be punished that she gave a "wrong" explanation? When a situation is not discussed or documentated there is no wrong or right, or? When all the world plays 2NT in this situation as minors + weak, why must the bid be alerted?

 

Not every bidding misunderstanding creates necessarily a zero :)

Hi Caren,

 

meeting you in the Gewölbe will be a highlight.. just 5 more weeks.

 

I don´t understand why the 2 NT bidder should call the TD.

We agree that she intended to bid 2 NT for the minors.

But she must not share her intentions with her opponents.

She must correct wrong explanations. But there had be none.

Yes the explanation 2 NT= strong did not fit to her hand but if you have no agreement, what will 2NT be? Stronger then 1 NT, so the explanation was not wrong in that sense at all.

 

But I will ask our golden boys about this.