Preempting too low

[o_fata]

At a regional tournament (2 rounds, MP scoring) NS are beginners; EW are experienced players

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakq9762h109d1098c9&w=s1085hj82dk542ca42&e=s3ha3dqj63ckqj1087&s=sj4hkq7654da7c653]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

          N          E          S          W

          2♠        3♣          P*         P

 

          3♠        PASS GENERAL

 

South hesitates before passing 3♣ (he agrees with this break of tempo). EW claim N can’t bid 3♠ after just opening 2♠ (he can’t be sure they don’t make 5♣) and he did it because he knew his partner has something but couldn’t bid anything.

What do you do?

[blackshoe]

First I tell EW that if they believe an irregularity has occurred, they should call the TD and give him facts, not opinions about what opponents can and cannot do, and certainly not when those opinions imply that an opponent was cheating.

 

There was an agreed BIT. If South had a clear call, he'd have made it. Therefore he was thinking of bidding or doubling. To me, that suggests that with so much extra playing strength, North should bid again. Since it's suggested, and he did it, in violation of Laws 73C and 16B1{a}, I would adjust the score. Looks like 3♣ makes 4, +130 to EW.

[karlson]

It's a little tricky. On the one hand, obviously the slow pass suggests bidding. However, I can't imagine ruling that pass on the north hand is a LA. If I myself was in North's position, I would think 3s was automatic, but of course I wouldn't have opened 2s to begin with. So I guess for a real ruling, we'd have to find some people who'd open 2, and then ask what they'd do without the hesitation over 3c p p. That might be well near impossible.

 

Note that the OP says that NS are beginners, and they might think this is totally normal bidding. If this were a club game, I think that some leniency might be called for. But given that this is a regional, they should know (or at least learn now) about hesitations constraining partner, so I think you have to adjust unless you can do a poll such as above.

[JoAnneM]

When was the director called? After n/s made their contract? I think this is always a win-win situation for e/w when they do it that way.

[Sadie3]

Wow, Your interpretation of the law is way different from mine on this one. I agree that the hesitation by the partner puts strain on the North hand to bid his hand without taking inference from partner, but I know of no one that would say that the North hand was not worth a 3S bid on its own merit.

[blackshoe]

I probably would have opened it 4♠ myself, but the question is "what does the player who held this hand (or his peers) consider to be an LA?" Even beginners are taught to shut up once they preempt, and if this player thought this hand only worth 2♠, then for him pass is an LA.

[karlson]

I don't think that "one should not bid again after preempting" is somehow more obvious or more likely to be part of a beginner's thinking than "this hand should obviously bid 3s over 3c no matter what the rest of the auction was".

[blackshoe]

<shrug> Our opinions differ. We should poll the player's peers and see what they say.

[aguahombre]

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid 2S, then 3S, all along. I also have no doubt that blackshoe's rollback to 3C is the correct ruling. Those two statements might seem to contradict each other, but so what. As director, that is what you do. You rule on the laws and the facts. the hesitation changed things. North might even gain from this, by learning how to bid.

[pran]

I had a call to a table in the fifth (i.e. lowest among five) division of the Norwegian league championship many years ago. I no longer remember the actual case, but it was something similar to this, a matter on where do I set the limit on what I shall accept by inexperienced players.

 

Eventually I came back to the table and gave my ruling "no rectification" with a remark mainly addressed to the experienced pair: "This is a case where I deliberately rule differently in the first and the fifth division". One of the experienced players (a very fine Norwegian Director) laughed heartily and exclaimed that she had no problem with my ruling.

 

Everybody were happy and the beginners had learned something more. They may have received a few unearned IMPs, but after some 24 boards results were fair in spite of me bending the law a bit on one board.

 

Regards Sven

[o_fata]

When was the director called? After n/s made their contract?

I was called after W bided 3♠.

 

I've asked around some players at the same level as North what would they do and 4 out of 5 said they would pass 3♣ now but they would have opened 3♠.

[iviehoff]

When was the director called? After n/s made their contract? I think this is always a win-win situation for e/w when they do it that way.

It makes no difference. There was never any possibility that the non-offending side would get a ruling to their disadvantage by calling him early. If they call the director early, he says "play it out and call me at the end if you are damaged". That's why the laws explicitly permit you to "reserve your rights" (to establish the BIT) and call the director at the end, if you are damaged, in this situation.

[bluejak]

As blackshoe says, rule it 3♦ making whatever.

 

If he thinks it is a 2♠ bid, then he does not think it a 3♠ opening, and for such players, they would consider passing 3♦ - and some of them would.

 

When was the director called? After n/s made their contract? I think this is always a win-win situation for e/w when they do it that way.

Sure you do, you have said so many times. But the Laws still apply when someone calls later rather than earlier, and you save a lot of wasted time with totally unnecessary TD calls - and that means a lot of upset. Where beginners are involved, you would upset far more beginners than I would so as to show your fairness. I do not think that balance is right.

 

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid S, then 3S, all along.

:ph34r: :D :)

 

Be serious! No beginner, opening with a pre-empt, considers the second round of bidding!

[helene_t]

Agree with Aquahombre.

[Jlall]

I agree with bluejak.

[lamford]

I've asked around some players at the same level as North what would they do and 4 out of 5 said they would pass 3♣ now but they would have opened 3♠.

Then they are not both of the same ability as this North AND of the same style, which are the prerequisites for them to be polled.

 

While I agree with bluejak that beginners would generally not bid again after pre-empting, if North was on the National Dog-Walking Register, it would be clear that he opened 2S with the intention of bidding 3S, and, if necessary, 4S. It is inconceivable that a strong player would start with 2S with the intention of giving in to an overcall of 3C.

 

Indeed, both Pass and Double are more suggested by South's hesitation for a strong player, as partner might well have been considering a penalty.

 

So, for beginners, I agree; but if Zia opened 2S then Pass would not be an LA on the second round.

[blackshoe]

It is inconceivable that a strong player would start with 2S with the intention of giving in to an overcall of 3C.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "Hmm. Should have put a period after 2S" :(

[JoAnneM]

I am not sure what Bluejak means, we don't call beginners on hesitations at all. If there is a problem with a beginner we mention it to the director and we then deal with it after the game, or before the next one, in a learning atmosphere. This "beginner" status lasts a few games until they know the basic rules.

[bluejak]

What you do as a player is irrelevant: if you are asked to rule, then you rule. If you want to start a thread on how you should act towards beginners, feel free, but we have been asked a problem here.

 

It is a strange fallacy that applying the rules upsets beginners and novices anyway: they are not surprised that they have gone wrong, it does not upset them, and they learn. It is people who have been ignoring the rules for thirty years who get upset when someone suggests they should follow the rules.

[aguahombre]

What you do as a player is irrelevant: if you are asked to rule, then you rule. If you want to start a thread on how you should act towards beginners, feel free, but we have been asked a problem here.

 

It is a strange fallacy that applying the rules upsets beginners and novices anyway: they are not surprised that they have gone wrong, it does not upset them, and they learn. It is people who have been ignoring the rules for thirty years who get upset when someone suggests they should follow the rules.

i second the motion.

[peachy]

What you do as a player is irrelevant: if you are asked to rule, then you rule. If you want to start a thread on how you should act towards beginners, feel free, but we have been asked a problem here.

 

It is a strange fallacy that applying the rules upsets beginners and novices anyway: they are not surprised that they have gone wrong, it does not upset them, and they learn. It is people who have been ignoring the rules for thirty years who get upset when someone suggests they should follow the rules.

Spot on!

[Mbodell]

I've asked around some players at the same level as North what would they do and 4 out of 5 said they would pass 3♣ now but they would have opened 3♠.

Then they are not both of the same ability as this North AND of the same style, which are the prerequisites for them to be polled.

What happens when you can't find any such player?

 

At a local sectional this weekend we had a BIT case where the, IMO, right ruling was made provisionally at the table, but the director went to poll.

 

The case was (us silent) opponents bid P-1♠(10-15 precision)-2♠(constructive)-BIT 2nt!(kokish try)-3♣! (forced) - BIT 3♦! (short suit diamond try) - BIT 3♠ (reject game try) - 4♠ (bid game anyways, and no it wasn't a slam try type hand).

 

♠ makes 10 tricks routinely on this hand.

 

Upon not being able to poll because everyone consulted would have bid game directly over 2♠ constructive already; the consensus after consulting with other directors, was to overturn the initial ruling and rule table results of 4♠= stand. Only after discussing this more with the directors (it happened on the last board of the session) and psuedo-appealing did we go back to the original ruling of 3♠+1.

[o_fata]

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

[pran]

As blackshoe says, rule it 3♦ making whatever.

 

If he thinks it is a 2♠ bid, then he does not think it a 3♠ opening, and for such players, they would consider passing 3♦ - and some of them would.

 

..............

I have no doubt that this beginner intended to bid S, then 3S, all along.

:P :D :lol:

 

Be serious! No beginner, opening with a pre-empt, considers the second round of bidding!

Strange statement.

 

I have no count of how many times I have seen just beginners first preempting and then bidding their suit again when opponents enter the auction.

 

Their logic appears to be something like: "I'll preempt, but I am willing to sacrifice higher if neccessary".

 

Sven

[gordontd]

I decided to adjust to 4♣ making. The AC adjusted to 2/3 of 3♠+1 and 1/3 of 4♣=.

On what basis did you make this ruling?

On what basis did the AC adjust it as they did?