How many tricks?

[jeremy69]

Opinions wanted. The auction goes

 

 

W N E S

1D x 1H 2H(1)

No 2S(2) No 2NT

No 3H ALL Pass

2H was meant as natural and was systemically natural showing at least five. North alerted and pulled out the 2S card and then had second thoughts. The director ruled that the 2S bid was made (correct under EBU bidding box regulations), warned that there was some UI and the auction continued as shown. Declarer went one down in 3H by some (agreed) very poor play. EW contended that the auction at the 3H stage would normally be forcing and that the UI had been used to stop. The director after consulting with some of his colleagues agreed with this contention and thought that a very likely contract would be 4Hx without the use of the UI. 4H is laydown on sensible play unless the opener finds a very unlikely lead and gets a ruff. The director decided not to change the result because he would have ruled 4Hx to be making so much of the time that EW would have lost heavily. They thought that this declarer would have made it because "the double would have woken him up"

Do people think that if someone plays a contract very badly that if the contract is adjusted to a higher one in the same denomination because of the UI they should be deemed to make two more tricks? In truth ten tricks was likely.

In the end the ruling was not appealed as it made little practical difference to the EW result.

[iviehoff]

In general it is uncontroversial that playing 4H is not the same as playing 3H. So in general it is possible that declarer might make a different number of tricks playing in a different level contract in the same denomination, or at least there might be some probability of that outcome. But I'd want to look at exactly what it was that declarer did so badly and why, and know what sort of a player declarer is.

 

I can understand that some players just don't think that trumps might be breaking badly and fail to cater for it unless forewarned in some way, but once forewarned have no difficulty in making the required safety play. But why does double wake declarer up? Surely he was still awake after the first round call of 1H. Unless there was more than just that.

 

But I can also understand that some players, landing in a lower contract than they should be in, do not even think that their contract could be in danger despite the known bad trump break, and play lazily. But that laziness might depart when their contract is at a higher level so that they realise that some care is needed.

 

So I don't think the ruling is obviously wrong. Possibly we can say that if S is good enough to know 3H is forcing, he could be good enough to make 4H some of the time.

 

EW must be very "competitive" players if, after the opponents' bad bidding and bad play gives them 3H-1 when 4H is normally easily making, feel the need to seek a ruling to say the opponents should have bid 4H, been doubled in it, and go off.

[JoAnneM]

Just a little bit off topic but I am concerned about the bidding box incident. UI was given by this action of pulling out the 2S card and then wanting to change it. I assume these were players familiar with using bidding boxes. Suppose all had gone smoothly with the rest of the hand. Isn't there some sort of penalty to pay for this infraction? Frankly, I see it all too often. The hand hovering over the bidding cards, should I pass, should I bid - it's disgusting. And I usually say something, and I make announcements at the beginning of games but it still continues.

[Finch]

Just a little bit off topic but I am concerned about the bidding box incident. UI was given by this action of pulling out the 2S card and then wanting to change it. I assume these were players familiar with using bidding boxes. Suppose all had gone smoothly with the rest of the hand. Isn't there some sort of penalty to pay for this infraction? Frankly, I see it all too often. The hand hovering over the bidding cards, should I pass, should I bid - it's disgusting. And I usually say something, and I make announcements at the beginning of games but it still continues.

I don't understand the point you are making.

 

The UI came from the fact that the 2S bidder wanted to change his call when it was too late (under the old laws he could have used 25B, now luckily dead). This has got nothing to do with bidding boxes.

[Finch]

Opinions wanted. The auction goes

 

 

W N E S

1D x 1H 2H(1)

No 2S(2) No 2NT

No 3H ALL Pass

 

EW contended that the auction at the 3H stage would normally be forcing and that the UI had been used to stop. The director after consulting with some of his colleagues agreed with this contention

I realise this isn't the question you asked, but it seems not at all obvious to me that 3H "would normally be forcing".

 

It comes down to partnership style.

 

2H is natural, constructive with 5 hearts.

 

2S is natural, assumed to be with some extra values. Does it show a real 'double then bid' hand i.e. a hand too strong to overcall 1S, for some people about 18+ HCP or so? Or would North have doubled 1D with a 5314 13-count? Can the 2H bidder be 4-5 in the majors, in which case could North could be 4324 I assume with very little extra?

 

This is a horribly murky auction. I've no idea if it would be forcing with anyone other than my most regular partners.

[bluejak]

I do not know whether the TD ruled as I suggested as I was in another event, and he came to consult with me. But I did not suggest that 3♥ was forcing: I just said that with his hand it was obvious to continue.

 

EW must be very "competitive" players if, after the opponents' bad bidding and bad play gives them 3H-1 when 4H is normally easily making, feel the need to seek a ruling to say the opponents should have bid 4H, been doubled in it, and go off.

It was a national final. I expect players in the last couple of rounds of - for example - the Spingold are "competitive".

[blackshoe]

I don't understand the point you are making.

 

The UI came from the fact that the 2S bidder wanted to change his call when it was too late (under the old laws he could have used 25B, now luckily dead).  This has got nothing to do with bidding boxes.

Joanne is from North America, where the bidding box regulations are different. In North America, a call is not made until the bidding card is held touching or nearly touching the table or held in such a position to indicate the call has been made. In England, where this presumably occurred, the call is made when the card is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent.

 

While it was a fairly easy guess this time as to where this happened, please folks, give us the jurisdiction in these threads.

[iviehoff]

Isn't there some sort of penalty to pay for this infraction?

It is in the same category as making extraneous remarks, and the consequences are the same.

[RMB1]

2S is natural, assumed to be with some extra values.  Does it show a real 'double then bid' hand i.e. a hand too strong to overcall 1S, for some people about 18+ HCP or so?  Or would North have doubled 1D with a 5314 13-count?  Can the 2H bidder be 4-5 in the majors, in which case could North could be 4324 I assume with very little extra?

2♠ was explained (to the TD) as a strong jump overcall but all the NS bids were non-forcing. I understood (second hand) that "strong jump overcall" meant "a real 'double then bid' hand". NS play a bidding style all of their own and we were not sure there were any real peers who would bid the same. But with this meaning of North's bidding and South's values, we thought that 4♥ was a logical alternative to passing 3♥.

 

Robin

[jeremy69]

While it was a fairly easy guess this time as to where this happened, please folks, give us the jurisdiction in these threads.

 

I hoped "Under EBU bidding box regulations" would have made this clear but sorry

if it did not.

 

I realise this isn't the question you asked, but it seems not at all obvious to me that 3H "would normally be forcing".

 

At the table NS said that 2S was the equivalent of a strong jump overcall in spades(but might only have a 5 card suit). If one of them continued with 2NT and then showed delayed support rather than passing 2NT isn't it normal to treat this as forcing even if not specifically discussed?

 

In general it is uncontroversial that playing 4H is not the same as playing 3H. So in general it is possible that declarer might make a different number of tricks playing in a different level contract in the same denomination, or at least there might be some probability of that outcome. But I'd want to look at exactly what it was that declarer did so badly and why, and know what sort of a player declarer is.

 

Delcarer was a decent tournament player who just took his eye off the ball and played the hand (by his own admission) badly. I'm sure he would have played the hand better 98 times out of 100 whether doubled or not. He may have been thinking about the potential of an adjustment not least because he also made a deficient claim near the end of the hand which did not cost him a trick.

[jallerton]

I agree with Ivan's point that the number of tricks that would/might have been made in 4♥ may or may not be the same as the number of tricks actually made at the table in 3♥. Often it will be correct, or at least plausible, to take different lines in the two different contracts.

 

It is also not unknown for a declarer, having assessed that his side has missed a good game or slam on seeing dummy, to play the lower level contract carelessly and find a way to go down in that (particularly embarrassing if has has already criticised dummy at trick 1 for 'underbidding' !) . Perhaps this is what happened in the actual case.

 

To answer Jeremy's question we need to look at the Laws themselves.

 

Law 16A (authorised and unauthorised information) tells the TD when to adjust the score. It says:

 

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

 

4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

 

But what is "damage"? Fortunately, this term is defined by Law 12B1:

 

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

 

In this case, the table result was 3♥-1, +50 (say NV) to the innocent side.

 

The "expectation had the infraction not occurred" was, according to Jeremy's assessment of the situation, close to 100% of 4♥=, -420 to the innocent side.

 

Therefore, per the above definition of "damage", it seems that damage does not exist in this case and that hence the table result should stand.