Director Error in Swiss Teams..

[Keeper1]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sjt72ha942d8ct962&w=skq3hdkj7542ckq54&e=sa64hj87d1093caj73&s=s985hkqt653daq6c8]399|300|Scoring: IMP

Pips and side suits approximate[/hv]

 

Bidding:

 

P P 2H 3D

3H P P X

P 3H/5D(1) 5H(2) P

P 6D(3) X(4) P

P P

 

ACBL A/X Unit GNT Qualifier

 

1 - E attempts to bid a insufficient 3H. Director called. He ascertains that E-W have no agreement as to what 3H "would have meant". 3H is not accepted. East is effectively informed that since 4H would be conventional he can bid what he likes but will bar partner. He is also told that, not only can he not double at this time, but specifically that he cannot double at any subsequent opportunity to call. This latter is queried, with E asking to be read the ruling "from the book". The director attempts to do so, but cannot find the relevant passage (!). In any event E corrects to 5D.

 

2. S confirms with director that "he really can't double?" Director still hasn't found the relevant passage, but encourages play to continue. S bids 5H.

 

3. E tries to confirm again, but ultimately bids 6D.

 

4. S doubles, since he isn't barred from doubling. It turns out he may have wished he had been barred, since 6DX rolls. [AH lead ruffed, cross to dummy, small diamond won by the ace, heart ruffed, cross to dummy, small diamond finessed, and W claims].

 

By the end of the hand, the Director returns and admits his guidance was in error, since the bar on doubling applies only to the current turn to call. S states he wouldn't have bid 5H without the guidance.....

 

At the other table 5D makes 5, with declarer noting he could have made 6, but had been "too lazy to try."

 

Director rules under director error, giving a non-reciprocal adjustment, granting NS a score based on 5D making 5, and EW +3imps on the board. If the table result stood, E-W would have gained 12 imps.

 

EW appeal on the grounds that there is no reason to give a +3IMP artificial adjusted score, since it was possible to achieve a table result. Moreover, since they are to be treated as "non-offending" there is no reason not to give them the table result.

 

How do you rule?

[pran]

Oh dear!

 

Tons of Director's errors here, just calling attention to even one more:

The Director should have considered what 3H most likely meant: A request to partner to bid 3NT if he (West) had stopper in Hearts.

If East then could use a double of 3H with this same (or more precise) meaning (quite likely to me!) then he should be allowed to replace his insufficient bid with a double (Law 27B1b). West of course would not have bid 3NT with his void in hearts, but the auction could have continued with (almost?) no damage.

 

The rest of the auction is just havoc, and I would have ruled that the Director with his many errors had destroyed the board beyond repair. Consequently I would have either ruled A+ to both sides or just cancelled the board if the extra IMPs to each side would mean nothing (e.g. KO match).

 

(As I am not familiar with ACBL regs my ruling is based on WBFLC Laws alone in case this makes any difference)

[bluejak]

EW appeal on the grounds that there is no reason to give a +3IMP artificial adjusted score, since it was possible to achieve a table result. Moreover, since they are to be treated as "non-offending" there is no reason not to give them the table result.

 

How do you rule?

For E/W as they say. Why not?

[pran]

EW appeal on the grounds that there is no reason to give a +3IMP artificial adjusted score, since it was possible to achieve a table result. Moreover, since they are to be treated as "non-offending" there is no reason not to give them the table result.

 

How do you rule?

For E/W as they say. Why not?

For a lot of reasons.

 

But one of them is that the statement by South "with correct guidance he would never have bid 5H" cannot be ignored.

In that case the contract would have been 5D.

[david_c]

Isn't this just 5♦+1 to both sides (or 5♦= for N/S)? "Treating both sides as non-offending" means they each get the benefit of the doubt. But surely here there is no doubt that, without the director's mistake, N/S would have passed 5♦ out. No other contract is conceivable once East has chosen to correct to 5♦.

 

In order to reach anything other than 5♦ we'd have to show that the director's error made a difference to East's choice of 5♦. I don't see any reason why this would be the case, and even trying very hard to give E/W the benefit of the doubt there doesn't seem to be any alternative call that leads to 6♦.

 

I can understand the director wanting to give E/W something, but where is there anything to give?

[bluejak]

Of course you do not ignore anything, pran, that is not the way rulings are done. But you do not automatically assume something said by the offending side is absolutely correct without any doubt whatever. For E/W, you treat E/W as the non-offending side, and you might easily feel that South would have bid 5♥ anyway. It is incredibly naive to always believe 100% self-serving statements.

 

Of course, for N/S we can believe it because then N/S are the non-offending side. Ruling should be done, pran, by considering the possibilities, taking all things into account but with self-serving statements given a lesser weighting, and then applying the standards, which are different for the two sides, especially in cases of Director's error.

[pran]

Of course you do not ignore anything, pran, that is not the way rulings are done.  But you do not automatically assume something said by the offending side is absolutely correct without any doubt whatever.  For E/W, you treat E/W as the non-offending side, and you might easily feel that South would have bid 5♥ anyway.  It is incredibly naive to always believe 100% self-serving statements.

 

Of course, for N/S we can believe it because then N/S are the non-offending side.  Ruling should be done, pran, by considering the possibilities, taking all things into account but with self-serving statements given a lesser weighting, and then applying the standards, which are different for the two sides, especially in cases of Director's error.

I accept that you have your opinion, but I do not accept that the following quote from OP bears any sign of being self-serving on behalf of South:

 

2. S confirms with director that "he really can't double?" Director still hasn't found the relevant passage, but encourages play to continue. S bids 5♥

 

To me this is a very convincing evidence that South bid 5♥ only because he knew that he couldn't be doubled.

 

The later statement by South simply corroborates this evidence.

 

And if South passes instead of bidding 5♥ then that is the end of the auction.

 

"I rest my case".

 

Sven

[duschek]

I agree with david_c and pran. Opposite a partner who could bid 3♥ only, South hardly expects to make 4♥, so 5♥ is going to be an expensive sacrifice if doubled. For East to go on to 6♦ making is unexpected to South, but that does not change my view that 5♥ would be an unlikely bid had South been given correct information from the TD.

 

So the adjusted score will be based on 5♦ for both sides.

 

A mild objection to a point of pran's:

 

The Director should have considered what 3H most likely meant: A request to partner to bid 3NT if he (West) had stopper in Hearts.

If East then could use a double of 3H with this same (or more precise) meaning (quite likely to me!) then he should be allowed to replace his insufficient bid with a double (Law 27B1b).

I believe Law 19A1a cannot be ignored when applying Law 27B1b :)

[pran]

A mild objection to a point of pran's:

 

The Director should have considered what 3H most likely meant: A request to partner to bid 3NT if he (West) had stopper in Hearts.

If East then could use a double of 3H with this same (or more precise) meaning (quite likely to me!) then he should be allowed to replace his insufficient bid with a double (Law 27B1b).

I believe Law 19A1a cannot be ignored when applying Law 27B1b :)

Quite true!

 

Sorry, I somehow missed "Pass - Pass - Double - Pass" after the 3♥ bid from North. Actually extremely silly by me.

 

Thanks, Sven

[barmar]

The TD said that East couldn't double, but he never said that West couldn't double. So what makes South think that he's safe from being doubled?

[duschek]

The TD said that East couldn't double, but he never said that West couldn't double.  So what makes South think that he's safe from being doubled?

This OP excerpt may have made South feel safe from westerly doubles:

 

1 - E attempts to bid a insufficient 3H. Director called. He ascertains that E-W have no agreement as to what 3H "would have meant". 3H is not accepted. East is effectively informed that since 4H would be conventional he can bid what he likes but will bar partner.

[pran]

The TD said that East couldn't double, but he never said that West couldn't double.  So what makes South think that he's safe from being doubled?

That is the single item the Director explained correctly.

 

Law 27B2: except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23.

[Finch]

Although obviously East can't double, I still think that the TD should have considered the application of 27b1b.

 

One thing is clear about an insufficient 3H bid, that it is a cue bid. This is either a hand that is looking for 3NT, or any generally good hand too strong to make another call. It seems to me that a 4H cue by East would be legal over the double, as any hand that would cue 4H here would also have cued 3H in a similar but legal fashion i.e. it is more precise than the insufficient bid.

 

Now, I don't know whether East would have done that had he realised he could do so without it barring partner. For me, a 4H bid would show one of two hand types - (i) choice of games between 4S and a minor, or (ii) a good 5D bid. This wouldn't help me get to slam.. but if this EW pair would play 4H as specifically showing a very suitable hand, it has a chance of getting them to 6D. East does have an absolutely enormous hand in the context of the auction so far (West's double was quite aggressive).

 

So certainly NS get -420. But I'm not sure about EW.