Bad, badder, badest

[jillybean]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj93h2djt6cajt872&w=st8765h843dq3c543&e=skq42haqj7d84ck96&s=sahkt965dak9752cq]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     1♣

 Pass  1♦    Dbl   1♥

 2♠    Pass  3♠    4♦

 Pass  Pass  Dbl   Pass

 Pass  Pass  

 

Comments on the auction please; no alerts were given.

 

The aftermath;

TD was called after the opening lead re failure to alert.

Without comment, board was adjusted 4♦X+1, TD#1 leaves.

TD#2 called who adjusted A== the rationale being A= is a bad result as 4♦X+1 makes.

[han]

North-South failed to alert and should be awarded an average minus and given a stern lecture.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

South should self alert 1C, what ever it showed.

 

The problem is, did the failure to alert 1C, had

an impact?

Or did E/W have an misunderstanding about the

meaning of 2S?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Oh also, west grosly overbid with 2S, unless west knew that the opponents were playing precision.

[ASkolnick]

I actually go with a split ruling.

 

NS should get a procedural penalty for failure to disclose information.

EW should have their score stand.

 

West overbid slightly. Probably trying to preempt with a big fit.

East has nothing to duble with. No spades are cashing, maybe 1H and where are the rest of his values. Let's assume west held more points, most would be in spades and would be a singleton.

[jtfanclub]

Oh also, west grosly overbid with 2S, unless west knew that the opponents were playing precision.

I suspect West knew they were playing Precision and East didn't. Probably have an agreement that a jump in this auction shows a weak hand vs. Precision but not vs. Standard. If so, the auction fits: West thought he was showing a pre-emptive hand (vs. Precision) and East thought West was showing an invitational strength hand with 4 spades (vs. SAYC or 2/1).

 

If that's true, I'd remove the X. 4♦+1.

[Echognome]

Oh also, west grosly overbid with 2S, unless west knew that the opponents were playing precision.

I suspect West knew they were playing Precision and East didn't. Probably have an agreement that a jump in this auction shows a weak hand vs. Precision but not vs. Standard. If so, the auction fits: West thought he was showing a pre-emptive hand (vs. Precision) and East thought West was showing an invitational strength hand with 4 spades (vs. SAYC or 2/1).

 

If that's true, I'd remove the X. 4♦+1.

I agree.

[blackshoe]

An awful lot of assumptions in this thread. :D

 

Some questions: what regulations are in force? What was NS's actual agreement? Who called the TD, and why?

 

That'll do for starters.

 

Under the 1997 laws, an artificial adjusted score is illegal when a result was obtained at the table. Under the 2007 laws, still illegal, except when there are too many possiblities or the correct adjustment is "not obvious". So we may also need to know which laws are in effect.

[LH2650]

I suspect West knew they were playing Precision and East didn't.  Probably have an agreement that a jump in this auction shows a weak hand vs. Precision but not vs. Standard.  If so, the auction fits:  West thought he was showing a pre-emptive hand (vs. Precision) and East thought West was showing an invitational strength hand with 4 spades (vs.  SAYC or 2/1).

 

West is going to have to make that argument - I'm not going to coach him, and if East thought that West's bid was invitational, why didn't he bid game?

 

The NS cards could be rearranged so that the auction makes sense in SAYC, and that leaves East with 1 sure trick, so I think his very bad double is the root cause of the disaster. No adjustment, but a PP for NS failures to alert.

[Echognome]

West is going to have to make that argument - I'm not going to coach him, and if East thought that West's bid was invitational, why didn't he bid game?

 

The NS cards could be rearranged so that the auction makes sense in SAYC, and that leaves East with 1 sure trick, so I think his very bad double is the root cause of the disaster. No adjustment, but a PP for NS failures to alert.

EW are non-offenders. So unless you think his double is wild or gambling (or irrational in certain jurisdictions), why would you not adjust? Even if you deem East's action to be wild or gambling, then you should still adjust the NS score if you deem there was damage. You should use the MI laws on the basis of your ruling.

 

Blackshoe - although I understand there are a lot of open-ended questions that would need to be resolved, I think it's reasonable enough to speculate as to how you would rule (putting in whatever caveats or contingencies that you deem necessary). I understand on the IBLF we would expect more detail, but on BBF, the usual instance is a free online tournament without hard and fast specified rules. As JB is posting it, my guess is that WBF rules were in effect (but of course await her correction).

[jtfanclub]

West is going to have to make that argument - I'm not going to coach him, and if East thought that West's bid was invitational, why didn't he bid game?

 

West can't have 5 spades...if he had an invitational hand with 5 spades, then he'd have bid over 1♣. While West has 9-10 hcp which should be sufficient for game, East's points look very poorly positioned- both the heart and club finesses should be off, and any diamonds West has may be under North's only honors. I don't fault 3♠ here.

 

The NS cards could be rearranged so that the auction makes sense in SAYC

 

Not to hard to figure out the shapes here. South has 1-4-4-4 distribution. North only has one bid, so it seems likely that his distribution is 4-x-5-x.

 

Yes, I know, I'm making a hand again. [hv=n=sj965h32dqj952c43&w=sat87h864da3cjt52&e=skq42haqj7d84ck96&s=s3hkt95dkt76caq87]399|300|[/hv]

 

This is from East's persective. West is minimum for an invite, and 4♦ still goes down. Every bid is what I would expect except the 4♦ call, which is bad but not impossible. Meanwhile, 4♠ goes down at least 2: move stuff around a little, and it only goes down 1, but 4♠ is still hopeless: the auction has told you that everything is going to fail.

[blackshoe]

If there are no specified rules, then there was no infraction. No infraction, no adjustment.

 

There's too many holes in this one for me. You guys have fun. :D

[jillybean]

Oh the rules, err only general rules were specified. 'You must state every round your system and carding, if you play Polish♣ you must explain your bids fully in English or you will be penalized - I dont know if this rule extends to other systems

 

I realise its an impossible question to answer under these conditions as the TD is going to do what they think is best for their tournament. But for the sake of anyone wanting to know how it would be dealt with under WBF or ACBL rules can we just adopt one of these for your answer.

 

Agreements; NS I dont know; EW 2/1

West called the director to look at the failure to alert 1♣ and to be excused from

the tournament as his partner was an overbidding lunatic. :D

[blackshoe]

It looks like the TD adjusted the score before the board was played. Why did he do that?

 

TD error. 4♦ by S making six for NS, making 5 for EW (considering both sides as non offending).

[Cascade]

Clearly there are missing alerts (or some very strange psyches).

 

However I doubt there is damage.

 

I seldom have sympathy for someone who doubles with very few defensive tricks.

[mike777]

What are the facts? What questions were asked? If none fire the Td's

[jillybean]

Those are the facts, no questions asked

[blackshoe]

Like I said, TD error.

[Echognome]

Clearly there are missing alerts (or some very strange psyches).

 

However I doubt there is damage.

 

I seldom have sympathy for someone who doubles with very few defensive tricks.

So do you believe if East was given the correct information he would double? If so, then there is damage. Regardless of whether you believe that East's double is wild or gambling, shouldn't NS's score be adjusted?

[jillybean]

Like I said, TD error.

I think I can quote you as saying #1 Dont argue with the TD #2. If the TD is wrong, see rule #1 B)

[Echognome]

Part of the problem TDing online, of course, is that there is no possibility for a split score. So what should a TD do? Give Avg+/Avg-? It certainly makes it difficult to determine what the "right" thing to do is when the "right" thing is impossible to implement. So I guess I would answer that I would assign a split score if ruling at the table (under the assumptions given above) and online would probably rule Avg+/Avg- given the circumstances. It's not very satisfactory make an illegal ruling (such as giving averages when there is a table result), but it's not very satisfactory assigning a score when you can't assign the appropriate one.

[LH2650]

EW are non-offenders.  So unless you think his double is wild or gambling (or irrational in certain jurisdictions), why would you not adjust?

As I suggested in my original post, I think that doubling off a 4-level contract with one sure trick is irrational.

[blackshoe]

Like I said, TD error.

I think I can quote you as saying #1 Dont argue with the TD #2. If the TD is wrong, see rule #1 B)

Absolutely, but who's arguing? I'm just saying they were wrong. B)

 

It does occur to me that if East had been aware on the first round that NS were playing Precision, he would probably not have doubled. So that's where the damage may have occurred. Or at least part of it. If the auction starts 1♣-(P)-1♦-(P)-1♥ will West now jump to 2♠? If not, I suspect it will continue 2♣-2♦-P (EW being silent). So the result, absent the MI, would have been 2♦ making 5 or 6. It does not look to me like any less favorable result is at all probable (OS) nor likely (NOS). So it looks to me like absent the TD error the adjustment should be 2♦ making five for both sides. With[ the TD error, both sides get treated as non-offending, hence the split score. As for a PP, I'm not sure it's appropriate to let a PP stand when TD error is involved. One would be appropriate, seems to me, absent TD error.

 

If the software won't allow split scores, then I think making 5 for both sides is the best you can do.

[jillybean]

I was East and had no idea NS were playing Precision, neither did my partner.

 

Anyway I think the most useful thing Im taking from all this is..

 

I seldom have sympathy for someone who doubles with very few defensive tricks.

[han]

I was East and had no idea NS were playing Precision, neither did my partner.

I have more understanding for your double than for partner's jump to 2S. What kind of bid is that? Maybe your partner was confused and thought 2S was preemptive, like it would be if third hand had redoubled. But not now, now it shows a much better hand. I think that you are worth a 4S bid over 2S.