Damage

[Chris3875]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s642hkqt97543dt6c&w=skjth6d975cqj9864&e=saq75hadqj83cak32&s=s983hj82dak42ct75]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

North opened the bidding 4C, East asked what the bid meant and South said it was Gerber asking for aces. South didn't mention that their agreement was also that it could be a weak hand with a long suit. East passed, South bid 4H showing 1 ace and all passed.

 

North didn't add any explanation before the opening lead.

 

After the hand was played (4H going one off) E/W called me to the table as they felt they had been disadvantaged by the "misinformation". After polling 3 other senior players I agreed that they had been damaged and adjusted the score to 5C making by E/W. This is an area of directing that I have the most trouble with (probably because I am not much of a player) - I would appreciate your comments please.

[CamHenry]

First question to ask is "was there misinformation?". This is clear; the answer is "yes". Next we ask "was there damage?", and the way to decide that is to consider what would have happened if EW had been correctly informed.

 

If E is correctly informed at his first turn to call, he may well double (showing values; it could be that partner bids hearts but in that case you can convert to spades). It is also likely that he passed 4H because he thought he would have another chance to call.

 

If E doubles, what happens next depends on South's call. If he passes (redouble 0 pass 1), W will probably pass as 4CX does not look good for NS. N will then bid 4H (no LA exists), and E will double for takeout as N now has a known suit. W will choose to play in clubs, and the minimum-level response from W will be sufficiently discouraging that E is unlikely to make a slam try. 5C seems fair.

 

While 4S and 4NT are likely to make on the EW cards, I do not believe there is a likely auction to get there. I therefore would not consider including them in any ruling.

 

That's what contract we look at. Now we have to consider the play. In 5C by W, N probably leads a heart. W will win, draw trumps in 3 rounds, cash 4 spades and 3 more trumps for 11 tricks. Assuming S holds on to the diamond AK, 11 tricks is the limit on any declarer play. I agree with your ruling.

[pran]

There can be doubt if, and how East-West could have reached either 5♣ or 4♠ (Both contracts make), but doubt shal be resolved in favour of the non-offending side.

 

With correct information presented by North at the time of the opening lead East could have had his final pass replaced by a double, and West, now pretty sure of a spade suit in East could very well bid 4♠. In any case East-West might have had an easier path to 5♣ had the 4♣ opening bid been correctly described at the time.

 

I think your ruling was correct. (At matchpoints I would even have considered adjusting to 4♠ just making!)

 

regards Sven

[jeremy69]

If he passes (redouble 0 pass 1)

 

Anyone who thinks that a 4C opening is Gerber is unlikely to have gone into the wonders of ROPI if the opponents intervene!

 

I think damage is clear and an adjustment to 5C making appropriate. I could live with a portion of 4S making but don't think it is all that likely they will land there. Incidentally why on earth didn't East double in the passout seat?

[Codo]

East did fail to play bridge when he did not double 4 ♣.

 

Can't we give N/S -600 for 5 club made and E/W the table score for this irrational bid?

[RMB1]

East did fail to play bridge when he did not double 4 ♣.

In England, East 's decision to Pass 4♣ (to see how the auction pans out) would not be classed as a serious error or a wild or gambling action.

 

Robin

[Codo]

And in England you have no tool to come in later in the pass out seat after they stopped in 4 Heart?

 

Okay, in this case I must agree with the majority and shake my head in silence...

[bluejak]

There is doubt as to what the final contract and result would be without the MI: surely a weighted score is suitable, not a single one?

 

I agree about ROPI: N/S will think that ROPI is what you feel in the morning after a night of drinking Australian beer.

 

After polling 3 other senior players I agreed that they had been damaged and adjusted the score to 5C making by E/W. This is an area of directing that I have the most trouble with (probably because I am not much of a player) - I would appreciate your comments please.

The main thing is that you are going about this right insofar as you are polling players to see what they think.

[jdonn]

I am not seeing why there is an adjustment, or where there is misinformation. Yes I know "Gerber" is not the proper way to explain, but that didn't make a difference here since it seems east knew the opening asked for aces, but simply assumed a strong hand even though that wasn't part of the explanation. It's not as though east thought gerber meant something else and was damaged because of it, then he would have a good case.

 

I also don't feel the damage was due to the 'misinformation', it was due to east. I mean, north opened an ace-asking bid on 16 points at most and 0 aces, um hello? But I don't feel the need to even get that far into the issue since I don't believe there was relevant misinformation at all.

[bluejak]

When you are asked a question it is required that you answer fully. If you use a term in common use then it is assumed you will use it in a common way. If this pair has an agreement, implicit or explicit, that they play Gerber but use it in an uncommon way, ie as a pre-empt, then that must be disclosed. It was not, so there is MI.

[jdonn]

Ok fair enough. That still brings me to my second paragraph that it's east's fault anyway, but I can accept misinformation and whatever ruling follows from that.

 

I mean if east is at all experienced, shouldn't he be able to protect himself and see when he has a 20 count with 3 aces, and responder showed an ace on top of that, opener can't have a 'good' hand worth opening 4♣ on? What is he supposed to have, x KQJTxxxxxx x x?

[pran]

I am not seeing why there is an adjustment, or where there is misinformation. Yes I know "Gerber" is not the proper way to explain, but that didn't make a difference here since it seems east knew the opening asked for aces, but simply assumed a strong hand even though that wasn't part of the explanation. It's not as though east thought gerber meant something else and was damaged because of it, then he would have a good case.

 

I also don't feel the damage was due to the 'misinformation', it was due to east. I mean, north opened an ace-asking bid on 16 points at most and 0 aces, um hello? But I don't feel the need to even get that far into the issue since I don't believe there was relevant misinformation at all.

If I had been the Director I would simply not have believed an assertion that 4♣ in this situation was Gerber unless substantiated by convention cards or similar evidence. Every visible fact indicates that it showed long hearts (or possibly just a long unknown suit).

 

Consequently I need some convincing evidence before ruling that there was no MI and/or no damage to East-West.

 

Sven

[jdonn]

If I had been the Director I would simply not have believed an assertion that 4♣ in this situation was Gerber unless substantiated by convention cards or similar evidence. Every visible fact indicates that it showed long hearts (or possibly just a long unknown suit).

 

Consequently I need some convincing evidence before ruling that there was no MI and/or no damage to East-West.

 

Sven

Now you are just making up facts to suit your feelings. You don't believe them, therefore they are lying? It was explained as Gerber and responded to as Gerber. You don't get to make up agreements for people. You are essentially punishing N/S for being bad players.

[blackshoe]

From the OP:

South didn't mention that their agreement was also that it could be a weak hand with a long suit.

 

If that was, as this implies, an explicit agreement of this partnership, then their failure to disclose it is most certainly MI.

[pran]

If I had been the Director I would simply not have believed an assertion that 4♣ in this situation was Gerber unless substantiated by convention cards or similar evidence. Every visible fact indicates that it showed long hearts (or possibly just a long unknown suit).

 

Consequently I need some convincing evidence before ruling that there was no MI and/or no damage to East-West.

 

Sven

Now you are just making up facts to suit your feelings. You don't believe them, therefore they are lying? It was explained as Gerber and responded to as Gerber. You don't get to make up agreements for people. You are essentially punishing N/S for being bad players.

The facts I have available are:

 

North holds a hand fully compatible with 4♣ showing a long heart suit or possibly an unknown suit.

 

North's hand is not anywhere close to the potential where asking for aces seems reasonable. Even with South holding all four aces there are still two losers unaccounted for.

 

South didn't mention that their agreement was also that it could be a weak hand with a long suit (Quote from OP). I find it strange to combine an opening bid of 4♣ to possibly mean either a weak hand with a long suit or Gerber, but that is what the OP said, isn't it?

 

I haven't made up anything, but simply noticed these facts in the OP.

 

Is that good enough for you?

 

Sven

[jdonn]

Edit: Eh wrote a long post but trying to turn over a little new leaf where I don't get into these escalating discussions...

[Jlall]

East failed to play bridge. Passing 4C is fine but how can he not reopen over 4H?

 

The fact that south did not explain that north could have a long suit with a weak hand makes no difference when east is looking at 3 aces, and knows LHO has 1.

 

Let's see, we have FOUR aces between us, what does RHO have? Maybe he has a long heart suit and a good second suit? Nope we have the SQ, CK, and DQJ also. At best RHO has 10 hearts to the KQJ and 3 stiffs. RHOs hand type is known to east if he is able to play bridge. Giving him a free pass on this one is terrible.

[cherdanno]

When you are asked a question it is required that you answer fully. If you use a term in common use then it is assumed you will use it in a common way. If this pair has an agreement, implicit or explicit, that they play Gerber but use it in an uncommon way, ie as a pre-empt, then that must be disclosed. It was not, so there is MI.

After the 4♥ reply and the pass, it is obvious to East that they do not play 4♣ Gerber in the way he expects it. Do we really have reason to believe East would make a takeout double of 4♥ after 4♣ is explained as "asking for aces, could be a weak one-suiter", given that he didnt make a double on the actual auction?

[Sadie3]

I think this all depends on whether or not having a long unidentified suit is also part of the agreement or was it just that this hand happened to have a long suit? I suspect that the definition of "gerber" was accurate and could suggest several hand types one of which is this one. I think the opps failed to play bridge and I think the result stands.

[bluejak]

When you are asked a question it is required that you answer fully.  If you use a term in common use then it is assumed you will use it in a common way.  If this pair has an agreement, implicit or explicit, that they play Gerber but use it in an uncommon way, ie as a pre-empt, then that must be disclosed.  It was not, so there is MI.

After the 4♥ reply and the pass, it is obvious to East that they do not play 4♣ Gerber in the way he expects it. Do we really have reason to believe East would make a takeout double of 4♥ after 4♣ is explained as "asking for aces, could be a weak one-suiter", given that he didnt make a double on the actual auction?

I have been trying to make clear that there was misinformation. Whether there was damage is more arguable, but I believe that if it had been described as "Gerber, but we do sometimes bid it with a pre-emptive type hand" then it woudl be more likely that East would have protected. Remember, we do not look at the most likely auction or what would have happened: we look at all the possible auctions or what might have happened.

 

Suppose you decide that East would have protected only a third of the time. Fine, give him 35% of a better score, 65% of table result stands. But do not say he would not have protected unless you are sure he would not have protected.

 

There is also the possibility that you consider the actions of East qualify as "wild or gambling". I shall come back to whether they are, but even if you decide they are, you must still adjust for N/S: wild or gambling action does not mean no adjustment.

 

I think this all depends on whether or not having a long unidentified suit is also part of the agreement or was it just that this hand happened to have a long suit? I suspect that the definition of "gerber" was accurate and could suggest several hand types one of which is this one.

It was stated in the OP that it was part of the agreement. We are trying to decide the correct ruling on the facts as given, which means this is part of the agreement.

 

I think the opps failed to play bridge and I think the result stands.

That is not what the Law says: if the opponents committed "wild or gambling action" [my American friend in authority says even the ACBL has now accepted this is the standard, not 'failure to play bridge'] you still adjust, sometimes for the offending side only, sometimes in part for the non-offending side as well, based on the wording of Law 12C1B.

 

:P

 

I have given my worries in another thread, and here they are, re-surfacing in this thread. Re-read the original post, and tell me how good the players are. Do you really think these are players who woudl play Flight A in an ACBL nationals? It is perfectly clear that these are all medium or worse club players, quite likely very poor. It is not the general policy to follow this quaint American idea :wub: of blaming the victim. The EBU as part of the advice in its new White book says that "wild or gambling action" is generally intended. It is all part of controlling the double shot, not penalising poor players for being poor players. Sure, if Meckwell was E/W they would get no sympathy from me, but I think posters in this thread are unduly harsh on some poor pair that had no idea what to do, and in practice did what all poor players do: the moment their opponents have shown a "strong" hand, they pass throughout.

 

I believe we should give a weighted score as an adjustment, based on the likelihood of the opposition managing to get in the auction if they are told the bid may be weak, and not based on the idea that they should have done better anyway.

 

:wub: I say 'American' idea because many years of contributing to this forum, rec.games.bridge [RGB], and formerly the bridge-laws mailing list have led me to believe that Americans are much harsher on non-offenders than others. Recently a couple of my American friends on RGB explained that it is because of a growing American tendency to blame the victim in all walks of life, and they quoted examples of the effects of road accidents and other disasters in the USA.

[duschek]

The EBU as part of the advice in its new White book says that "wild or gambling action" is generally intended.  It is all part of controlling the double shot, not penalising poor players for being poor players.  Sure, if Meckwell was E/W they would get no sympathy from me, but I think posters in this thread are unduly harsh on some poor pair that had no idea what to do, and in practice did what all poor players do: the moment their opponents have shown a "strong" hand, they pass throughout.

Very well, but Law 12C1b reads:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

Therefore, you should not solely be concerned with wild or gambling action. If passing 4♥ is a serious error, E/W lose compensation whether they are good or poor.

[bluejak]

I believe that a 'serious error' is serious for the class of player involved, and I think that to deny redress for a poor player should be very rare. I think it is mainly to cover revokes and similar. Not giving redress because they do not know what to do when opponents open a 'strong' opening is not a serious error: it is being not a very good bridge player.

[duschek]

I believe that a 'serious error' is serious for the class of player involved, and I think that to deny redress for a poor player should be very rare.  I think it is mainly to cover revokes and similar.  Not giving redress because they do not know what to do when opponents open a 'strong' opening is not a serious error: it is being not a very good bridge player.

It is a matter of fact that poor players make more serious errors than good players. If we are to rule by the wording of Law 12C1b, it will therefore hit poor players more often than good players.

 

Note that Law 12C1b does not indicate that the concept of error should be relative to the class of player involved. If the lawmakers would have us consider the level of the player when applying Law 12C1b, perhaps they might have used a wording such as the one in the footnote to Laws 70-71.

[bluejak]

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

 

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.

• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.  This also applies to potentially wild or gambling actions.

 

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’

• Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

• Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.

• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.

[Sadie3]

 

North opened the bidding 4C, East asked what the bid meant and South said it was Gerber asking for aces. South didn't mention that their agreement was also that it could be a weak hand with a long suit. East passed, South bid 4H showing 1 ace and all passed.

 

 

I read "could be" not that "it is"."Could be" is totally different from "it is" and my thoughts remain the same. The opps failed to protect but they certainly had the instincts that something was amiss or a director wouldn't have been called at all. I do have a "hard line" attitude towards players that try to play both sides of an issue. You know, the ones that say we'll let this go in hopes the opps messed themselves up, and if we find we are going to get a bad board, let's call the director and see if we can get redress that way. So, yes, I have little sympathy here. The ethics of the N/S pair is the issue. Depending on the remainder of their agreement for this bid, I can see a penalty for a "failure to disclose". I'm still trying to understand why anyone thinks the E/W pair should be considered for any recompense.