is 4C valid bid ?

[shanbari]

we organized one BBO competition tournament, and there's a lot of teams joined.

however one of players keep doing weird things in bidding.

 

one case:

he opened 2N (22-24) announced in bidding box.

2N - 3N (3N is signoff, no alert)

4C! - 6N

 

6N Made !

 

the opener had 4243 shape, only 23hcp. he "luckily" caught partner 8hcp with balanced hand. and all the cards lay friendly.

 

would anyone help me to judge whether we need rule this 4C bid ?

 

a lot of other players are complaining, and i feel it would hurt the tournament sooner or later.

 

thank you.

[jdonn]

No rule was broken, what makes the bid illegal? A bid being unusual, or even 'impossible' does not make it illegal.

 

I have long ago learned you can't assume cheating, even with a bid like that. If they were both in on it responder wouldn't bid 3NT. And even if only opener was somehow getting info about responder's hand, why would he bid 4♣ on 4243 shape instead of 6NT or 4NT? He is probably just bad at bridge, saw he had a really good hand, got excited and wanted to bid gerber. Then he got lucky when his partner had a little extra. Nothing illegal about that!

 

Inexperienced players who complain about that are just ignorant. Experienced players who complain about that are idiots.

[barmar]

You say this player keeps doing weird things. Do they always work out well, or do some of his weird things backfire? If he seems exceptionally lucky at this, it might be appropriate to investigate. But you need lots of examples, not just one or two lucky guesses.

[hrothgar]

Silly question:

 

Did you bother to ask the player in question why he bid 4♣?

 

The reason that I ask is that there are plenty of pairs who treat 2N - 3N as an artificial bid of some kind.

 

You seem to be immediately jumping to the conclusion that the 2NT opener had a wire. However, its entirely possible that the 3NT bidder failed to alert. (If I had a balanced 8 count opposite a 2NT opening that showed a minimum of 22 HCPs, I'd give serious consideration to looking for slam)

 

Regardless, I have no idea what the pair in question is playing. However, I'm curious whether you bothered to speak to the pair in question before dragging this out in public.

[peachy]

Nothing to rule on this 4C bid. It was probably just bad bridge. Did you ask the player why he bid 4C?

 

As to "always do weird things", I would want to find many other hands where weird things were done by them/him/her. Were all the weird things successful operations?

[jillybean]

This may not be as easy as it seems to all of you, it sounds like a one off game organized by volunteers.

 

First, you are called to the table, you ask about the 4♣ bid and discover the pair did not alert a conventional bid. Next you must check for damage, ask the opps how they have been damaged by the failure to alert. How would they have bid or played the hand any differently with the correct information, would they have made a different lead? If the answer is yes there was damage then you must adjust the board. If the answer is no, they would play the same way even with the information then no damage, no adjustment.

 

Or you discover there was no agreement, he hoped 4♣ was gerber, his partner didnt know what it was and punted 6nt - the pair have no more information about the bidding than their opps do. No damage, no adjustment.

 

Despite what may be happening in some BBO games, weird bidding doesnt mean an adjustment, there must have been a failure to alert or misinformation and damage before an adjustment can be made.

 

If you are lucky you may get a better explanation from a couple of posters who are best qualified to comment on these things.

[csdenmark]

I have no idea what the bid means here. Playing Belladonna-Garozzo unusual bids of 4♣, if a club contract then 4♦, will be control ask.

 

If the players were italians they might have been inspired by Blue Team handling.

[JoAnneM]

Jillybean, your process is good up to a point. For the opps to say they would have done something different, and that there is damage is not always sufficient for an adjustment. It's possible that the non-offending side "should" have been able to proceed in the bidding or make a decent lead even with infraction.

 

At the last director call I made at a ftf Regional for a blatant non-alert and bidding infraction we were not given an adjustment after I watched three directors huddle over the hand record and discuss the entire auction. We were told that in spite of the damage we should have recovered - no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

Without knowing all the facts, Joanne, it's impossible to be sure, but it sounds like you got a bad ruling. When there has been misinformation, and the NOS are damaged thereby, the law tells the TD to adjust the score. If some part of the damage was caused by what the ACBL calls "failure to play bridge", then the NOS does not get compensation for that part of the damage. Nonetheless, the OS get the full adjustment required by law 12C1{e}{ii}, which is

the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.

 

That a non-offending pair might have been able to recover from an opponent's irregularity does not change the fact (assuming it is a fact) that an irregularity was committed, nor the fact that the OS should not benefit from that irregularity.

[JoAnneM]

It may be that the offending side was penalized in some way that we were not informed about, but we were told "there was an infraction, you were damaged, you should have figured it out".

 

The point I was trying to make is that adjustments are not automatic. And who actually defines "damage"?

[blackshoe]

It may be that the offending side was penalized in some way that we were not informed about,

Then you did not get a competent ruling, because the TD should always inform both contestants who were involved two things: the actual ruling, and the legal basis for that ruling. Not to mention informing both pairs of their right to appeal, particularly in judgement cases.

 

but we were told "there was an infraction, you were damaged, you should have figured it out".

 

This is very poor directing.

 

The point I was trying to make is that adjustments are not automatic.

 

Fair enough.

 

And who actually defines "damage"?

 

The laws define damage. This is new in the 2007 laws, previously it was up to the SO, precedent, and TD education and experience.

 

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

[shanbari]

sorry, i missed to reply in couple days.

 

i asked everyone at table. the 4c bidder claims no agreement, he knew 3N is natural, not conventional bid. and he just bid 4C to bid sort of "waiting" bid.. weird, huh? then i continue to ask what he understand this 3N. he reply as 3N is certainly not signoff !

 

i then turn to his partner to quesiton, his partner reply as no agreement, 3n is just to play.

 

and both of this pair play together quite long and familiar each other. i don't think they would have any misunderstanding on such simple auction.

 

more importantly, this pair perform outstanding in our bbo league (a couple of weeks).

 

case 2.

they play precision.

 

1C (strong) 1N (balanced 8-10)

3N (to play) 4C !! magic 4C bid again with 10 hcp.

4H (actually opner had 5H, never try to introduce it in the beginning !?)

- 4N RKC

5X - 6H

 

finally they found 5-4 fit heart suit, and very maginal 6H contract with 30hcp.

magically produce 12 tricks.

 

case 3.

again,

1C - 1N

3N - PASS, with 10hcp with 5 card minor suit in hand.

 

this time 30HCP doesn't produce 12 tricks, actually only 10 tricks.

successfully pass.

 

 

case 4.

a lot of marginal games wer bid, and 2 way finness for Q never be a problem to find.

 

a few vul games would be stop at 3 level, when no play at all, or finesse won't work.

 

when partner was declear, game won't be reached, since the normal play line won't make it.

.

 

case 5,

magic play

 

dummy:

9XX

vs

KJ10XX

 

opponent didn't bid, he didn't have entry problem.

he would play low from dummy, when A show up. next time he would play J from hand, LHO QXX would be in guess, finally LHO ducked.. 5Cx contract would be made.

 

dummy:

Q43

 

vs

 

K1092

no entries issues, he play 2 to the Q, next time he play 3 toward the K to drop the J behind, again, no opponent bidding and no any clue as far a i can see.

 

magic !

 

there's still a lot of cases i can continue to list, but so tired, sorry.

 

all of them are just obvervation by a lot of players, including me. but all of these cannot be proof. and none of them can be ruled..

 

.

we are just stucked and frustrated.

 

how do we deal it now ?

 

shan

[Codo]

There are people who cheat and when you have so many examples, these particular players MAY be cheaters- or still extremly lucky.

 

Please write to abuse@bridgebase.com. They can and will handle this case.

 

And don't let these people frustrate you. When someone cheats to win a hand/toruney on BBO, he is a very poor soul. Have compassion with them. I mean, how weak must their self-convidenc be, that they need to make it up by cheating at online bridge?

[peachy]

sorry, i missed to reply in couple days.

 

i asked everyone at table. the 4c bidder claims no agreement, he knew 3N is natural, not conventional bid. and he just bid 4C to bid sort of "waiting" bid.. weird, huh? then i continue to ask what he understand this 3N. he reply as 3N is certainly not signoff !

 

i then turn to his partner to quesiton, his partner reply as no agreement, 3n is just to play.

 

and both of this pair play together quite long and familiar each other. i don't think they would have any misunderstanding on such simple auction.

 

more importantly, this pair perform outstanding in our bbo league (a couple of weeks).

 

case 2.

they play precision.

 

1C (strong) 1N (balanced 8-10)

3N (to play) 4C !! magic 4C bid again with 10 hcp.

4H (actually opner had 5H, never try to introduce it in the beginning !?)

- 4N RKC

5X - 6H

 

finally they found 5-4 fit heart suit, and very maginal 6H contract with 30hcp.

magically produce 12 tricks.

 

case 3.

again,

1C - 1N

3N - PASS, with 10hcp with 5 card minor suit in hand.

 

this time 30HCP doesn't produce 12 tricks, actually only 10 tricks.

successfully pass.

 

 

case 4.

a lot of marginal games wer bid, and 2 way finness for Q never be a problem to find.

 

a few vul games would be stop at 3 level, when no play at all, or finesse won't work.

 

when partner was declear, game won't be reached, since the normal play line won't make it.

.

 

case 5,

magic play

 

dummy:

9XX

vs

KJ10XX

 

opponent didn't bid, he didn't have entry problem.

he would play low from dummy, when A show up. next time he would play J from hand, LHO QXX would be in guess, finally LHO ducked.. 5Cx contract would be made.

 

dummy:

Q43

 

vs

 

K1092

no entries issues, he play 2 to the Q, next time he play 3 toward the K to drop the J behind, again, no opponent bidding and no any clue as far a i can see.

 

magic !

 

there's still a lot of cases i can continue to list, but so tired, sorry.

 

all of them are just obvervation by a lot of players, including me. but all of these cannot be proof. and none of them can be ruled..

 

.

we are just stucked and frustrated.

 

how do we deal it now ?

 

shan

Don't attempt to deal with it on the forums or in public. E-mail abuse@bbo and in the email provide the information about suspicious hands.

 

The cases where similar hands were bid differently could be indicative of cheating if the bid or play decision to underbid, overbid, or weird-bid of this pair always turn out a success.

[bluejak]

It may be that the offending side was penalized in some way that we were not informed about, but we were told "there was an infraction, you were damaged, you should have figured it out".

 

The point I was trying to make is that adjustments are not automatic.  And who actually defines "damage"?

If the offending side received some other adjustment or penalty, then it is poor directing if you were not told. It is a requirement of directing that TDs tell all the relevant players the full ruling.

 

Unfortunately, there is a strange bias in North American agaisnt non-offenders. You are quite likely to get ruled against when you would get a ruling in your favour anywhere else in the world.

 

TDs and ACs have as part of their job to work out bridge judgement matters: whether someone is damaged is very much part of that judgement.

 

However, if you really should have known there is always the feeling that if you carried on anyway that you were trying for a double shot. Goodness knows why this is not perfectly legal, as it is in most sports and mindsports, but it is disliked. Even so, if you "fail to play bridge" in North America, your opponents should get an adjustment against them even if you do not benefit.