Director descision

[Free]

Hi all,

 

A problem hand that came up yesterday. The bidding goes:

 

2♠ - 3♦ - Dbl - Pass

Pass - 3♥ - Dbl - All pass

 

I was South.

2♠ was explained as "5♠, 4+m, less than an opening".

 

After "Dbl - p - p", my RHO asks what the Dbl means, and my partner explains it as "penalty".

 

Result was 3♥*-1 (by bad play), so 200 for us. The director was called at the table, because I had no ♦s (they had 11 ♦s together) and my Dbl was meant as optional Dbl. 3♦ would be just made and they thought they were set up, but they were still playing in a 4-4 ♥ fit.

 

This was the hand (small cards may be wrong):

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=saj543h32d32ca543&w=s96ht654dat654c62&e=sk72hq987dkqj987c&s=sqt8hakjdckqjt987]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

What would you descide???

 

Result (hidden):

The director said it's not written in our system notes or our convention card that the double is penalty, so the explanation was wrong. Then, according to some article he stated that 3D* should be the end contract, so my opps got a 690. But imo, it doesn't make any difference what my double means. If it's optional and my partner passes, it becomes a penalty, so if they run somewhere else, it's their own fault... no?

 

 

Was he right?

[McBruce]

This is a very clear case of the need BBO TDs have, to be able to make non-balancing adjustments. East's pull, even with the misinformation, seems crazy to me, and it seems that going down in 3♥ is very poor play.

 

However, this is online bridge and there is no harm in explaining your own calls in private chat when the opponents inquire. By allowing North's explanation of penalty to stand, South has committed a serious infraction and damage has resulted.

 

I would make East-West eat their score but I would give North-South minus 670 (3♦ doubled making).

[Free]

It was in a f2f match, sorry, forgot to mention that...

[Gerardo]

By allowing North's explanation of penalty to stand, South has committed a serious infraction and damage has resulted.

Problem is, South may not know what the explanation is (assuming online)

 

Agree on different scores for North-South and East-West, though

[McBruce]

In f2f I think it is a slightly different story.

 

If your agreement is that the double is for penalty, there is no infraction. If you have no clear agreement, or an agreement that the double is something else, then your partner's explanation is mistaken. In that case, you were correct in letting the play begin without explaining that there had been misinformation, since this would give partner unautorized information.

 

I'm having a hard time believing that the double is for penalty when you have a known 8-card fit and a void in the opponent's suit. It seems clear to me that there has been misinformation by North here.

 

Since it led to the opponents being damaged, the North-South score should be -670. In the ACBL there would be no question that East-West, although damaged, made so many low-percentage bids and plays after the infraction that they do not deserve an adjustment. I understand that the standards in the rest of the world are a little higher than the ACBL's take, but it seems to me that East-West (actually, just West) made enough egregious errors to lose the right to adjustment. So, -670 to N/S, -200 to E/W.

 

If this were in a team match, such a result might lead to both teams losing the match! Suppose the result at the other table is 110 to E-W. Now your side loses 11 IMPs (-670 and +110) and the other team loses 7 IMPs (-200 and -110), all on the same board! If both teams "lose" the match, or a definitive, balancing victory point margin is required, I think the Laws say that you take the two different IMP results and average them. So your side would lose 9 IMPs on the board (assuming my ruliing is correct).

 

The difference in online play is that if the question about the double was asked in public, South should inform East privately that the explanation is wrong. But normally online, the player who doubled would give the explanation. It's a very different atmosphere, and occasionally I have asked both opponents separately what they understand a bid to mean.

[the hog]

Great result seeing that N-S are in the refrigerator for 6C.

 

EW keep their score- they got -200 due to bad play. NS get -670, due to the mis explanation and a warning that they better know their system in future.

[Azzkikr]

Here is my opinion on this matter... (take it as you will)...

 

online bridge is alot different from RL bridge(unless your playing behind screnes) So as such, the contract should be alterted to 3D* for all concerned not just N/S. Its simply someone has made an infraction. it doesnt matter how badly they played this hand in 3H they should be playing in 3D*. They might have been thinking we should be playing in 3D* and got distracted at the play.

 

The reason this is is that 1) when you want to know about a bid you can click on the call you want clarification on 2) you can send a message to the opponents and get the clarification. The thing is, is that the person making the bid should be explaining and since that online you can do that and not give your partner any unauthorised information, this is the way it should be done and then there will be less missleading explanations and a better enviroment from which players can base there bids and directors can make their rulings.

 

Just my 2 cents on the topic.

[luis]

It's hard to rule when neither side is playing bridge.

NS have an ice-cold 6c, south makes a completely insane double or 3d and yet another crazy double of 3h then north assuming the double was "optional" makes an irrational pass of 3dx.

EW bids are also very strange and the play in 3hx should have been extremely poor.

 

There was missinformation because north said the double was penalty when it was "optional". There was damage, east chanced to pull 3dx because north said that south had a penalty pass.

 

I'd rule the following:

3dx -690 for NS as the director ruled

-200 for EW for not playing bridge in 3hx

A procedural penalty on NS

 

And I'd take something for my stomach. Argh!

[helium]

HI ALL:)

is that possible luis?

can u give e/w-200 for poor play in 3 ♥?

i think the should ceep there lusy score too but what do the laws say in this case?

 

kenneth

[mr1303]

Did you have a specific agreement as to whether the double was optional, or was it an undiscussed situation, whereby you assumed that double in this situation was optional, and your partner assumed it was 100% penalty?

 

It seems to me like just poor bridge to me, and I'd leave the score as it stands, UNLESS there is prior agreement that double is optional in this situation.

 

However, having said all that, the director made a ruling, so the director is 100% right :)

[luis]

Did you have a specific agreement as to whether the double was optional, or was it an undiscussed situation, whereby you assumed that double in this situation was optional, and your partner assumed it was 100% penalty?

 

It seems to me like just poor bridge to me, and I'd leave the score as it stands, UNLESS there is prior agreement that double is optional in this situation.

 

However, having said all that, the director made a ruling, so the director is 100% right :)

Well I'm sure that dbl was optional even if south swears by his life that it's not.

I agree that an optional double is one of the worst bids of the century but a penalty double would be just inpossible with that hand.

[Free]

It's hard to rule when neither side is playing bridge.

NS have an ice-cold 6c, south makes a completely insane double or 3d and yet another crazy double of 3h then north assuming the double was "optional" makes an irrational pass of 3dx.

EW bids are also very strange and the play in 3hx should have been extremely poor.

 

~snip~

 

And I'd take something for my stomach. Argh!

Hi Luis,

 

I think you misread some things... North passes because he thinks it's a penalty double, while South thinks his dbl is optional. So imo NS is still playing some kind of bridge, but they misunderstood their agreements.

 

And I can asure you, if my partner considers my Dbl as optional, we'll find 6♣ or 6♠ without much troubles. To bad he was tired after 80 games (marathon of 100 deals)...

[McBruce]

Am I missing something? 3♦ vulnerable making is 670, not 690:

 

20 x 3 for tricks, another 60 because it is doubled = 120

50 for making a doubled contract

500 for a vulnerable game

 

The consensus here seems to be that EW eat their score, NS get -670 (sometimes misquoted as 690). My opinion is that an additional procedural penalty to N/S is quite harsh. PPs should be for failure to follow correct procedure, not for a simple case of forgetting your agreements. (Don't forget, South followed correct procedure when his bid was misexplained, he said nothing, played the hand, then called the Director.) We've already rolled back +980 or +920 to -670, that's 17 IMPs difference. Adding a PP is what is known in American football as "piling on." :)

[inquiry]

Dbl is insanity, do you really want to play in 3♦ doubled when you partner has 4♦ and 5♠'s? The answer is no. What is forcing, 4♣? 4♦? Bid that. As far as EW complaint about mis-information, running can't be right. This looks like an attempt to win in committee, 3♥ on 4 to the Q is indeed. I think justice was served when EW went down, and when NS missed a laydown 6♣'s. I don't see any dramatic need to for anything else... especially a procedural penatly. Bad bridge is punishment enough.. :)

[the hog]

"And I can asure you, if my partner considers my Dbl as optional, we'll find 6♣ or 6♠ without much troubles. To bad he was tired after 80 games (marathon of 100 deals)... "

 

Absolute nonsense! If North thinks you have an optional X, then he has a 100% clear cut pass. What do you want him to bid with a 5224 shape and two bullets? Perhaps what you mean is that North is expected to pass with Ds. In this case this is not an "optional" double. Even if North has Ds, why on earth would you make a x with the south hand?

[helium]

Am I missing something? 3♦ vulnerable making is 670, not 690:

 

20 x 3 for tricks, another 60 because it is doubled = 120

50 for making a doubled contract

500 for a vulnerable game

 

The consensus here seems to be that EW eat their score, NS get -670 (sometimes misquoted as 690). My opinion is that an additional procedural penalty to N/S is quite harsh. PPs should be for failure to follow correct procedure, not for a simple case of forgetting your agreements. (Don't forget, South followed correct procedure when his bid was misexplained, he said nothing, played the hand, then called the Director.) We've already rolled back +980 or +920 to -670, that's 17 IMPs difference. Adding a PP is what is known in American football as "piling on." :)

sometimes misquoeted?

only see 1 time and that was in luis post. and i think u know that he can the score for most contract and im sure its a typeerror.

[inquiry]

only see 1 time and that was in luis post. and i think u know that he can the score for most contract and im sure its a typeerror.

Actually, just to make sure you can see it... go to the first post in this thread by FREE. At the bottom of his post, is a section header that says: Resuts (hidden), followed by a big blank space. This really isn't blank, but contains a long paragraph, also with the 690 number in it. To read that section, take your mouse, push the left button, and drag it over the blank space... magically the hidden text appears.

 

Ben

[helium]

ohhhh sry dint know this thx ben

[Frosty]

Call me simple, but I understood that in online bridge, (where we often play with a partner with whom we are only vaguely acquainted), that bid inquiries were best directed to and answered by the bidder.

 

Free doesn't say if his partnership is a familiar one, but E/W certainly had the opportunity to ask both N and S for an explanation of the double. N/S are obviously not on the same wavelength - not an uncommon situation in online bridge - and have likely missed a slam.

 

I think there may be a tendency to adjust for adjustment sake ..... to flex one's bridge-knowledge muscles without any real need. E/W screwed up and N/S screwed up - neither pair benefited and both pair had ample opportunity to bid and/or ask questions more effectively. I think they all should live with the results as they played out rather than manufacturing an artificial result via adjustment.

 

Frosty/Jan

[the hog]

Free specifically said this is face to face bridge.

[luis]

It's hard to rule when neither side is playing bridge.

NS have an ice-cold 6c, south makes a completely insane double or 3d and yet another crazy double of 3h then north assuming the double was "optional" makes an irrational pass of 3dx.

EW bids are also very strange and the play in 3hx should have been extremely poor.

 

~snip~

 

And I'd take something for my stomach. Argh!

Hi Luis,

 

I think you misread some things... North passes because he thinks it's a penalty double, while South thinks his dbl is optional. So imo NS is still playing some kind of bridge, but they misunderstood their agreements.

 

And I can asure you, if my partner considers my Dbl as optional, we'll find 6♣ or 6♠ without much troubles. To bad he was tired after 80 games (marathon of 100 deals)...

I really doubt NS are playing any form of bridge.

Your double is terrible no matter if it is optional, penalty, takeout, support for spades, or whatever.

[Frosty]

Ok - Sorry, I didn't know what F2F was .... LOL .... now you know why I am a novice poster!

 

Frosty/Jan

[Trpltrbl]

I would never ever X, everrrrrrrr. That being said, I really don't think that adjusting the result is going to make a lot of difference for N/S , a zero is a zero. And for the 3♦ bidder to run away, is bad bridge too. I would personally let the result stand. 2 Bad things even eachother out, don't they hehehe

 

Mike ;)

 

It's kinda that nowadays when people don't know what to do, they'll go for the "optional" X. It means something like this, I don't know what to do, pd, maybe you can do something and if not I can blame you for not getting the optional X. :)

[Shrike]

Folks, it doesn't matter whether you like South's double. Whether you would double or not, or whether any sensible player would double or not, is irrelevant to any TD decision.

 

Reading carefully, North explained the double as penalty. Double was meant as optional, and the agreement was. . . we are not told. My guess is that a few more questions reveal that N/S do not have a clear meaning about this sequence. (Note: if you read the hidden portion of Fred's post you see that the TD actually made an inquiry into this, but it's not clear how carefully; that it is not written on the convention card does not establish incontrovertibly that there was no such agreement. Still, as we'll see this is not critical.)

 

Now, there has been misinformation. The correct answer to a FtoF query to North was not "optional," it was "no agreement." The answer given was "penalty." I don't believe that pulling to an anemic four-card suit is any more likely after a penalty double of your very nice lower six-card suit than after a pass by a weak two (-ish) bidder of an undiscussed but almost certainly penalty-oriented double of that suit. (Looking at East's hand, he can tell that the penalty character must be based on honors in a couple of suits, specifically the reds, if South is bidding sensibly -- South cannot be doubling on a diamond stack whatever the call's meaning.) Hence, the MI did not cause any damage that might have occured.

 

I'm not applying the ACBL's draconian failure-to-play-bridge standard for NOS (draconian in practice -- sometimes I read appeals writeups and wonder whether at the table I would always "play bridge"), because it's irrelevant. That standard is used to deny relief to a NOS when there was an infraction and consequent damage, but later decisions by the NOS also caused damage that is deemed more important. (Outside the ACBL, this is essentially a rule denying NOSs relief if it appears they took a double shot, clearly irrelevant here.) Here, there was never any damage at all, because the action that damaged E/W was not caused by (made more likely by) the MI. Infractions are not subject to adjustment per se -- they are only matters for TD's intervention if they cause damage or if they are eggregious enough to brook penalties (not here).

 

If we believe that Free had an agreement that the double was optional, then the MI was different, but I judge the result the same -- pulling on the East hand, on this auction, is no more likely after a penalty pass of an optional double than after a penalty double. Regardless which meaning is correct, hearts is more likely to lose control than diamonds, as the penalty double is marked with cards IN HEARTS behind East. (A penalty double based on nothing but a diamond stack is pretty much impossible here, given East's hand.) No damage, so no adjustment.

 

Those of you you who are intent on splitting the scores, put your knees down.

[McBruce]

Review: East, holding ♠ K72 ♥ Q987 ♦ KQJ987 ♣ void, hears 2♠ from RHO as dealer and overcalls 3♦ at unfavourable. This is doubled and passed back to him and he asks RHO what LHO's double means (not online bridge here). The answer is "penalty." He pulls to 3♥ and goes down one doubled on poor play with 3♦ a lock. The South player has a 3-3-0-7 16 count and we find no evidence of any agreement on this double on the convention card.

 

Let me get this straight: you think that East, hearing "it's a penalty double" from North, has no right to pull because you think that according to his cards the explanation can't be right?

 

Sorry, you're wrong. Of course the explanation can be right, on the information East has. Exchange West and South's seven minor suit cards and you have a penalty double (especially at favourable vulnerability) of 3♦:

 

South (alternate possible hand): ♠ QT8 ♥ AKJ ♦ AT654 ♣ 62

 

You say "I don't believe that pulling to an anemic four-card suit is any more likely after a penalty double of your very nice lower six-card suit than after a pass by a weak two (-ish) bidder of an undiscussed but almost certainly penalty-oriented double of that suit."

 

This is a complex sentence, but what it seems to mean is this: you think East might have pulled to 3♥ anyway if the double were properly explained as "undiscussed." You later say that if there was an agreement of "optional" you still believe that South might still have pulled given a correct explanation. Ergo, because the non-offending side MIGHT have done the same thing they did without the damage, no damage? (By 'might' I mean that your claim is that the chance of South pulling did not change based on the explanation.)

 

As John McEnroe used to say, "you cannot be serious!"

 

The double was explained wrong, and this makes E-W the non-offenders. You don't get to make wild assumptions like "East might have pulled anyhow if the explanation was accurate" when judging the NON-offenders. They get the benefit of the doubt in all unclear situations. You may be clear in your mind that East was always going to run whatever the answer he got from North. But let me ask you one thing: if he was always going to pull, why did he ask the question in the first place?

 

I just cannot believe that the probability of East pulling did not go up at all when he heard the explanation "penalty," over any other explanation he might have gotten. I'll keep my knees up, thanks very much.