Ruling from the Welsh Cup

[bluejak]

I cannot remember the hand exactly. One of our readers - who gave the ruling - might remember it exactly. As is common enough in the UK, we were playing a k/o match with no TD present - we were playing in the opposing captain's house - so when we needed a ruling we rang a TD. Personally, I get a quite a few such phone calls and am always happy to help, even if they are from another country.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sjxxxhatxxxdqxxcx&w=saxhxdjtxcakjtxxx&e=stxxxhjxxdxxc9xxx&s=skqxhkqxxdakxxxcq]399|300|Scoring: IMP

.W. .N. .E. .S.

. - .. - .. - .1♦

2♣ Dbl .P. 2♥

4♣ 4♥. 5♣ 5♥

.P. .P.. .P.

 

Lead: ♣A

Result: 5♥ -1

Score: NS -100[/hv]

 

Before East's first round pass, she hesitated. This was agreed. She said afterwards she was not thinking about bidding, just wondering what the double was, and wondering whether to ask.

 

N/S contended that West's bid of 4♣ may have been affected by this hesitation, the suggestion is that West might have bid 3♣ but the probability of club support made 4♣ easier. They suggested that East might not have bid 5♣ if West only bid 3♣. East said she would definitely have bid 5♣ anyway.

 

Of course, 5♥ is cold. N/S agreed that South's failure to make 5♥ - he miscounted trumps and lost a diamond ruff - counted as a "serious error".

 

So, what do you think?

[barmar]

So NS's contention is that the infraction pushed them to a level where they had an opportunity to make a stupid mistake, and that constitutes damage? If it were a pair game, they'd probably get a poor score if they were in 4♥=, too; they'd need 4♥+1 for a decent score (although both scores beat the 6♣ sacrifice). In teams, the argument has some merit. But I still think South caused his own damage by failing to play bridge.

[awm]

It seems clear that the break in tempo makes bidding 4♣ more appealing. The relevant questions become:

 

(1) Is bidding 3♣ a logical alternative?

(2) If west bid only 3♣, would east bid 5♣ anyway?

 

These two questions are best addressed via a poll of comparable players. While I suspect that 5♣ is likely to be reached in any case, I have quite often been surprised when shown the results of such a poll. It may also be relevant that the level of players involved seems not to be very high (given east's confusion about the meaning of the negative double and south's play of the hand). Assuming it is determined that 3♣ was a logical alternative and that it's fairly likely that east would not bid 5♣ over the ensuing auction (if either of these is not the case, result stands) the last considerations would seem to be:

 

(3) Did N/S forfeit some part of their rights to an adjusted score by the subsequent "failure to play bridge" according to local regulation? While I'm not as familiar with the EBU regulations, I seem to recall discussion in a prior thread indicating that this may well be the case. I can't find anything about this in the Laws themselves.

(4) If so, should the table result stand, or should we award a split score (i.e. -420 to E/W and -50 to N/S)? My suspicion would be that a split score is in order. It may also be that a fractional score should be awarded to E/W depending on the likelihood (as determined by poll) that E/W reach 5♣ without the UI.

 

Of course, all of this is a lot of work and given the setup (phone conversation, etc) it might be easier to just rule "result stands" since the odds are fairly good that E/W would've reached 5♣ anyway and N/S certainly could've made their 5♥ contract. It certainly saves defining and finding "comparable players" and doing a lot of polling.

[gnasher]

Did South's 2♥ show extra values? I know it would normally show a minimum, but against there is the evidence of what South actually held.

 

If 2♥ showed extra values, the auction would probably continue

  3♣ 4♥ all pass

 

If 2♥ might be a minimum, it would probably go

  3♣ 3♥ 4♣ 4♥

  5♣

[gnasher]

Of course, all of this is a lot of work and given the setup (phone conversation, etc) it might be easier to just rule "result stands" since the odds are fairly good that E/W would've reached 5♣ anyway and N/S certainly could've made their 5♥ contract. It certainly saves defining and finding "comparable players" and doing a lot of polling.

If the director isn't willing to make the necessary effort to give a proper ruling, he shouldn't have agreed to do it in the first place.

[jeremy69]

I think 3C is a logical alternative however I also think it is likely that East having not supported will now bid 5C anyway over 4H. I agree with the earlier comment that if polling some players is possible it is a good idea.

If East wasn't thinking of bidding why did she care what the double was?

Miscounting trumps strikes me as a serious error so most routes are going to lead to the table result.

[pran]

West holds a hand with eight (well maybe just seven and a half) playing tricks and sees opposition heading towards game red against white.

 

I would always sacrifice in 5♣ with this hand and these vulnerabilities if neccessary once I find opponents reaching a game contract that is likely to make. Consequenctly I am not too concerned about the BIT by East, but if possible I would certainly do a poll to see if I have the majority of players with or against me. (East raising at least once is obviouos.)

 

I see no connection between the BIT and misplay.

 

regards Sven

[jdonn]

I'm not convinced the BIT suggests club length. It may suggest exactly the opposite, moderate values without club length. I think the connection between the BIT and the 4♣ bid is very slight so I tend to rule no damage here.

 

South's 2♥ bid is really odd, were we not told of the system, or is he just a beginner? He is nearly worth a blackwood bid instead.

[gordontd]

Miscounting trumps strikes me as a serious error so most routes are going to lead to the table result.

If one were to award an adjusted score but deny redress to the NOS on account of the serious error, this would not lead to the table result.

[gordontd]

I cannot remember the hand exactly.  One of our readers - who gave the ruling - might remember it exactly. 

I was consulted about this ruling, and the hand as I was given it was:

 

[hv=n=sqj82hat643dq84c6&w=sa96h5dj7cakjt984&e=st743hj82d52c7532&s=sk5hkq97dakt963cq]399|300|[/hv]

[helene_t]

(3) Did N/S forfeit some part of their rights to an adjusted score by the subsequent "failure to play bridge" according to local regulation? While I'm not as familiar with the EBU regulations, I seem to recall discussion in a prior thread indicating that this may well be the case. I can't find anything about this in the Laws themselves.

I have always disliked these "declarer stopped to play bridge so he gets no protection" rulings.

 

Given South's 2♥ bid and East's explanation of why she hesitated, this is not a top-level game. These people do their best but by BBF standards they "fail to play bridge" all the time.

 

Yet they still deserve protection by the law when they are damaged by an infraction. If you play against balookas, one of the "good" thing that can happen when you take advantage of a UI is that you can lift them to a level where they make a stupid bidding mistake (i.e. allowing you to play undoubled in a sacrifice), or lift them to a cold contract which they will often go down in.

 

I think Josh's and Andy's argument are both good so maybe result should stand on that basis, or just a 25% 4♥= and 75% table result, but the "failed to play bridge" argument is wrong IMHO. I am all for taking protection away from double-shooters, or players who don't bother to play because they think "this board is going to be adjusted anyway". But weak players who play their normal game, including the regular failure to count trumps, should be protected.

[duschek]

But I still think South caused his own damage by failing to play bridge.

If the TD would have adjusted to 4♥ had it gone down in a more normal fashion, and in his opinion going down is a serious error, he must adjust the score to 4♥ making for E/W, then use Law 12C1b to let the score stand for N/S.

 

I have always disliked these "declarer stopped to play bridge so he gets no protection" rulings.

However, whether the TD likes the "serious error" part of Law 12C1b or not, he cannot just ignore it in a secret wish that it weren't there.

[campboy]

The law says that a player who has contributed to the damage by a serious error does not receive relief "for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted". This is not the same as "score stands for NOS".

 

So, let's suppose that the contract would be 4H without the infraction, and that the play was a serious error. How much of the damage is caused by that error? If he had made the same misplay in 4H, he would have lost an IMP. Therefore, in my opinion, the rest of the damage was caused by the fact that he was a level higher than he should have been.

[bluejak]

Did South's 2♥ show extra values?  I know it would normally show a minimum, but against there is the evidence of what South actually held.

 

If 2♥ showed extra values, the auction would probably continue

  3♣ 4♥ all pass

 

If 2♥ might be a minimum, it would probably go

  3♣ 3♥ 4♣ 4♥

  5♣

The problem is that North and South are not a pair who have played much together. They played once over ten years ago in an unimportant 24 board k/o match where one opponent played a blinder and won it single-handed. They played 48 boards last year in the semi-final of the Welsh Cup and lost by 2 imps. This was their third game where they played the last 16 boards of a 32 board match.

 

What does the double show? Neither North nor South probably know, and it makes a big difference whether it shows one or both majors.

 

I do know that North had decided to bid 4♥ while West was thinking, so would have bid 4♥ if West had bid 3♣.

 

South's 2♥ bid is really odd, were we not told of the system, or is he just a beginner? He is nearly worth a blackwood bid instead.

He is a very good player. I think you may have failed to realise the problems inherent in the sequence.

[jallerton]

Of course, 5♥ is cold. N/S agreed that South's failure to make 5♥ - he miscounted trumps and lost a diamond ruff - counted as a "serious error".

 

So, what do you think?

Has the WBU provided any guidance to its TDs on the interpretation of the term "serious error"?

 

The WBF has suggested that what constitutes a "serious error" may vary depending on the standard of the player concerned.

 

My initial reaction was that for anybody who thinks 2♥ might be the correct call over a negative double, miscounting trumps should not be considered to be a serious error.

 

Still, maybe 2♥ is played as forcing in some parts of Wales; I'd have to consult some very good Welsh players about that and ask the actual South why he did bid 2♥.

 

Bluejak explains that South is a "very good player" but it is clear from this hand that he is not playing his best. Is this the same player who was "very tired" during last year's Welsh Cup semi-final?

 

This does raise a serious question. Suppose that a very good player is ill and can hardly concentrate. Should his threshold for "serious error" be judged by his normal high standards or by his level of play on the day in question?

[jeremy69]

If one were to award an adjusted score but deny redress to the NOS on account of the serious error, this would not lead to the table result.

 

Yes, you are quite right but I was proposing to allow 5C so 5H mangled and down 1 would be the score.

 

 

I have always disliked these "declarer stopped to play bridge so he gets no protection" rulings.

 

I agree that the experience of players should be taken into account and some players do get flustered when a ruling is at hand but to go down in 5H on this hand is a serious error even for a relatively poor player and would meet my test. To say that declarer can't win after one or more Aces is cashed and draw trumps and cash diamonds from the top and knock out the SA if required is setting a very low benchmark.

[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.

• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

 

A failure to take advantage of privileges provided by the Laws, such as not asking the meaning of a clearly alerted call or waiving a penalty, would often be considered ‘wild’.

 

12.8.4 “Unrelated to the Infraction”

 

It can be argued that if the final contract is only reached as the consequence of an infraction then any error in the play or defence must be related to it and cannot be penalised. This is considered too extreme a view and a serious error has to be more directly related to the infraction to be given redress. Note that a wild or gambling action does not need to be related to the infraction.

 

In misinformation cases it is sometimes possible to work out from the sight of dummy or the first few tricks that there must have been either MI or a misbid during the auction. Some people might not correctly draw that conclusion, even if it would be considered obvious to more experienced players. This is related to the infraction and should not be penalised as a “serious error”.

 

The WBU accepts the EBU White book as an authority unless it decrees otherwise [and the only situation I know of where they decree otherwise is in the splitting of ties]. The 2010 White book is in course of preparation, but the above is based on a paper by Frances Hinden which, if I remember rightly, was part of an L&EC minute, which makes it official.

 

Bluejak explains that South is a "very good player" but it is clear from this hand that he is not playing his best. Is this the same player who was "very tired" during last year's Welsh Cup semi-final?

No. On paper this player is considered better than the tired player.

 

:lol:

 

If the double only shows one major, what bid would you make with the South hand, playing change of suit forcing as is normal?

[jallerton]

♠ K5

♥ KQ97

♦ AKT963

♣ Q

 

Auction: 1♦-(2♣)-Dbl-(P)-?

 

I would bid 3♣ showing an unspecified game force. Over that:

 

If partner bids 3♦ I'll bid 3♥, natural

If partner bids 3♥ I'll bid 4♣, showing a good raise to 4♥.

If partner bids 3♠, I'll bid 4♦, natural

[duschek]

So, let's suppose that the contract would be 4H without the infraction, and that the play was a serious error. How much of the damage is caused by that error? If he had made the same misplay in 4H, he would have lost an IMP. Therefore, in my opinion, the rest of the damage was caused by the fact that he was a level higher than he should have been.

It is not how I would normally calculate the self-inflicted part of the damage. But your way of thinking is certainly reasonable, and I see that maybe I should change my view.

 

It seems to me that the wording of Law 12C1b cannot stand on its own. A method of calculating the adjusted score should be published so as to avoid disagreements. Whether this is an issue for the WBF-LC or the RA I cannot tell.

[blackshoe]

Well, until the WBFLC corrects this oversight - if that's what it is - it would be up to the RA to do so, it seems to me.

[bluejak]

And until the RA does so, it might be worth discussing it here.

[blackshoe]

That's fair enough -- although that discussion might be better in 'changing laws and regulations". Or maybe not. If we have no guidance from on high, I suppose we have to figure out what to do ourselves. Perhaps there are two issues "what should we directors do as a practical matter now" and "how should we suggest the RA or WBFLC change things so we don't have to figure this out ourselves?"

[JoAnneM]

This is confusing to me. Why is N/S expected to make a contract that they would not have bid if E/W had not committed an infraction of BIT? The whole scenario would not exist if the BIT did not occur. At least according to ACBL rules "I would have bid it anyway" is not a logical aternatiive.

[bluejak]

Under ACBL rules - old ones anyway - redress is denied for non-offenders who "fail to play bridge" or "commit an egregious error". We are merely discussing a case where the modern equivalent, Law 12C1B, may apply - and that Law applies in the ACBL now.

[JoAnneM]

I am aware of that, but declarer would not have been put in the position of making that error if the other side had not committed an infraction first. Just a simple point that seems a bit unfair to the nonoffending side.