Year End C #1 - Swiss Pairs [MP>VP] - MI/UI

[bluejak]

I have notes on 25 or so judgement rulings from th Year End, most of interest in my view, if not all. In a few cases I was th TD: more normally one of the other TDs consulted with me, occasionally I just heard about it. In all there were nine TDs involved, two who were never on the floor but involved with organisation and scoring, two Nationals, three of various other ranks, one who has just been appointed a trainee and one who hopes to be appointed a trainee shortly. I thought the inexperienced pair did really well. I shall keep posting the rulings - though not perhaps as quickly as last year - until there is a feeling you have had enough and I should stop.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=st8654ha732d2cj74&w=shkqj985dkq8643c3&e=sqj2ht4dajtcqt952&s=sak973h6d975cak86]399|300|Scoring: MP

           P    P   1♠

2NT[1] 4♠ 5♣  Dbl

   5♦     P   P   Dbl

    P    5♠  Dbl   P

    P     P

 

Result:

5♠ dbld -3

NS -500[/hv]

 

East and West have not played together before, and quickly ran through a SC at the start of the tournament. Under 2NT overcall they agreed "Unusual" and both wrote that on their SCs.

 

Apparently West thought "Unusual" meant the two highest unbid suits, East the two lowest. North-South asked, and were told "Minors".

 

North and South are generally unhappy. How do you rule?

[jeremy69]

It sounds as if EW had a superficial agreement and had not finished discussing it. This might have caused the opponents some confusion however when West removed 5Cx to 5D then I think the worlkd knew that West might not have the minors and North had no reason whatsoever to remove 5Dx. After all he had an Ace! I don't think either of EW have acted on any UI going around as a result of the confusion. 500 might actually be cheaper then the 550 that would result from a spade lead!

I would rule score at the table stands. I don't know why it went 3 off. Sounds like that wasn't best play.

[pran]

With any decent system East/West should reach (and did indeed reach) 5♦. This contract normally goes down one with a lead in either hearts or clubs. Depending on the auction I expect no more than about one third probability for a lead that gives the contract.

 

My actual ruling would depend heavily on the level of the tournament, and this doesn't seem to be very high???? The calls by East and West speak for themselves and I consider the 5♠ bid by North very close to "wild and gambling".

 

Possibly a split score is in order with table result stands for North/South and an adjusted weighted score of 250 to East/West?

[bluejak]

Unde what Law?

[pran]

12

[bluejak]

You cannot apply Law 12 just because you do not like the players. You need a legal basis.

[gnasher]

I think the chance of 5♦x making is quite high. Nobody would lead a heart, and a spade looks normal to me. My plan would be for our side to win the first trick and then decide what to do - we might need to play a forcing game, to draw trumps, or to play for a heart ruff. There's no particular reason to expect a void in declarer's hand - he wasn't the one that bid to the five level, and dummy's more likely to have ♣A than ♠A.

[pran]

You cannot apply Law 12 just because you do not like the players. You need a legal basis.

Who says that I don't like the players? Not me.

 

You just may have noticed that I (assuming the event is not one of a very high standard) tend to let the table result stand for North/South and give East/West a weighted result in a contract of 5♦.

 

In case you need me to dot the i-s and cross the t-s let me add that I do not see North/South much damaged by the defective agreement between East and West.

[aguahombre]

We used to use 2NT with this hand type, intending to remove clubs and show the reds -- on purpose. It was clear to all when this happened. Then we learned Michaels :)

 

If there is a feeling by anyone that without the UI from partner, West should pass 5C if convinced he had shown the reds -- I say not with this hand.

 

It is not clear when N/S asked about 2NT. Was it after the pull of 5C? If so, then "the world knew" is not quite right and East gave MI or incomplete disclosure if he was the part of the "world" that knew. An adjustment or PP might be in order, if this was the case.

 

If the inquiry about 2NT was before the 5C call by East, and no further questions were asked afterward, then I think the result should stand. Should a courtesy alert of 5D have been given? We would have.

[bluejak]

2NT overcall requires an alert. While I do not know for certain, I expect it was asked then.

 

We do not alert above 3NT so 5♦ is not alertable.

 

A 2NT overcall to show any pair of suits is [a] illegal and played by neither East nor West.

 

I still see no legal basis for the split score, and I still think a TD who refuses to give a legal basis for a split score is on very shaky ground legally.

[awm]

While there has been some misinformation, in that E/W did not really have an agreement that 2NT showed the minors, I'm not convinced there is damage here. This is because:

 

(1) The pull of 5♣X to 5♦ should be indicative that something like this has occurred.

(2) I don't see a link between the possible MI and north's pull of 5♦X to 5♠.

(3) I don't see a link between the possible MI and south's result of down three in 5♠X.

 

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that east's explanation of "minors" could potentially effect west's decision to pull 5♣X to 5♦ (UI problem), except that given west's hand playing in clubs is not a logical alternative, especially opposite a partner who could not open with a club preempt.

 

It's worth asking N/S how they would've bid or played differently if told that 2NT was red suits. If they can make some very convincing point (I don't know how the play went in 5♠X for example) it may be worth adjusting. However, without this my inclination is to rule that the table result stands.

[Finch]

There are potential MI and UI rulings here.

 

West has UI that his partner thinks he has the minors, however I don't think passing 5Cx is a LA opposite a passed partner (in fact it's arguable that 5C should be pass-or-correct by a passed hand, and then you can use 4NT as something more subtle).

 

North/South have MI from the initial explanation, but I can't see that affecting the auction, so unless they can explain why they are damaged I (other than 'unhappy') I would rule that the table result stands.

 

This contract normally goes down one with a lead in either hearts or clubs. Depending on the auction I expect no more than about one third probability for a lead that gives the contract.

 

If West is declarer I would expect the contract to make much of the time. Why on earth would North pull out the ace of hearts as the opening lead? I agree the auction is relevant, but on the given auction it's far more likely that dummy has a singleton heart than partner. And I can't see any reason to lead a club (from Jxx) rather than a spade, when you know that dummy thought that 5C was a good contract opposite the minors. If West had been 1660 instead of 0661 would you suddenly suggest that a spade was obvious? And what about all those textbooks telling us it's always right to lead a trump against two-suited auctions?

 

I made +550 on this deal, and I didn't find the chosen spade lead surprising or particularly worthy of criticism.

 

Along with bluejak, I don't understand the legal basis for your split score. You say that North's 5S bid was "close to" wild and gambling, but that is not the same as ruling that it is wild or gambling. And given that 5Dx was likely to make, pulling to a contract that should have gone for 300 seems eminently sensible to me.

 

 

p.s. as a slightly off-topic diversion, a 2NT overcall of 1S to show a two-suiter including diamonds (i.e. diamonds + clubs, or diamonds + hearts) is legal. But no-one is suggesting this pair were playing it.

[aguahombre]

2NT overcall requires an alert.

We do not alert above 3NT so 5♦ is not alertable.

Jump to 2NT that is unusual is not an alert in ACBL

 

Although bids above 3NT are not alerted under normal circumstances, certainly in a competitive auction when a subsequent bid such as 5D changes what was earlier explained it would be appropriate to alert same before the auction continues. Hence, referred to as a courtesy alert.

[david_c]

Perhaps it doesn't matter, but I would call this a misbid and not MI. Certainly the pair had a clear agreement to play "unusual", and IMO unusual is minors irrespective of what West thinks. I don't think this is the same as the situation where a pair has no firm agreement at all - here they do have a firm, well-documented agreement but one player doesn't understand it. I'd treat this the same as a forget.

[cherdanno]

I think the main question is whether the MI caused declarer to misplay, but given that we weren't told how the play went we can't answer that question.

Oh and I definitely think this was MI. It's my responsibility to ensure partner means the same thing when we agree "Michaels", or "2/4 leads".

[gnasher]

I think it was MI, because they stated that they had an agreement when they didn't.

[bluejak]

2NT overcall requires an alert. 

We do not alert above 3NT so 5♦ is not alertable.

Jump to 2NT that is unusual is not an alert in ACBL

Sure, and if we get the same ruling in an ACBL tournament we shall take note of that. But the question is always how do you rule under the situation given by the OP, and that includes the fact that it was in London UK.

 

Although bids above 3NT are not alerted under normal circumstances, certainly in a competitive auction when a subsequent bid such as 5D changes what was earlier explained it would be appropriate to alert same before the auction continues.  Hence, referred to as a courtesy alert.

Your so-called courtesy alert is unheard of here, so players will not do it. Certainly no-one can be ruled against for not doing such an alert, and that applies to the ACBL as well.

 

It's my responsibility to ensure partner means the same thing when we agree "Michaels", or "2/4 leads".

I am not quite sure you can justify that in Law.

[blackshoe]

Although bids above 3NT are not alerted under normal circumstances, certainly in a competitive auction when a subsequent bid such as 5D changes what was earlier explained it would be appropriate to alert same before the auction continues. Hence, referred to as a courtesy alert.

Speaking from an ACBL viewpoint, as I think aqua is doing: It would not be appropriate, because it is not what the regulation requires. If 5D is alertable, the regulation requires the alert to be delayed. There is no such thing, in law or regulation, as a "courtesy alert".

[aguahombre]

Although bids above 3NT are not alerted under normal circumstances, certainly in a competitive auction when a subsequent bid such as 5D changes what was earlier explained it would be appropriate to alert same before the auction continues.  Hence, referred to as a courtesy alert.

Speaking from an ACBL viewpoint, as I think aqua is doing: It would not be appropriate, because it is not what the regulation requires. If 5D is alertable, the regulation requires the alert to be delayed. There is no such thing, in law or regulation, as a "courtesy alert".

all very true, of course. And equally I hope I will not be penalized for informing the opponents of a change to previous information --which has come to light in the course of the auction -- while they have a chance to act upon the new information if they choose during the auction.

 

I know how important it is to always follow the exact letter of the laws, and how it is quite proper to use all the laws to one's advantage. Sometimes, I fail to do this if I feel the opponents might need clarification in a live auction. My bad.

 

As already established by my many posts, I would be a crummy director. And if I were a judge, lawyers would avoid my courtroom if they wanted Law untainted by personal standards.

[jeremy69]

My actual ruling would depend heavily on the level of the tournament, and this doesn't seem to be very high????

 

Not sure how you can divine the potential strength of a tournament from one possible result but it is a national tournament and had a number of good players as well as weaker ones.

 

My actual ruling would depend heavily on the level of the tournament

 

Do you then have different law books according to the strength of the tournament or perhaps in a Swiss different regulations or interpretations of the law according to the table number of the problem?

[nige1]

IMO: North-South were misinformed. Few players play high-level doubles as clearly penalty. North's removal to 5♠ may be poor judgement but it is not wild and gambling and with the correct explanation he might have passed. North-South could allow 5♦X to make, but since they are victims, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. ie 5♦X-1.

[pran]

My actual ruling would depend heavily on the level of the tournament, and this doesn't seem to be very high????

 

Not sure how you can divine the potential strength of a tournament from one possible result but it is a national tournament and had a number of good players as well as weaker ones.

 

My actual ruling would depend heavily on the level of the tournament

 

Do you then have different law books according to the strength of the tournament or perhaps in a Swiss different regulations or interpretations of the law according to the table number of the problem?

Judgement rulings very often depends on the level of the event and the experience of the players.

[nige1]

[sNIP] ... unless they can explain why they are damaged (other than 'unhappy') I would rule that the table result stands ... [/sNIP]

A victim's explanation of how he thinks he is damaged is important evidence. IMO, however, even if a victim can't give a coherent explanation or even if his reasoning is clearly wrong, then the director should still investigate possible damage. North-South were misinformed. Here a director might sympathise with North that ♥ Axxx in one of LHO's putative long suits has more defensive potential than Jxx

[jallerton]

I think it was MI, because they stated that they had an agreement when they didn't.

E/W did have an agreement.

 

However, you are correct to say that there was MI, because the correct explanation was: "we've agreed to play our 2NT overcalls as 'unusual', although we did not have time to discuss what this means".

 

Given the correct explanation, North and South would both assume (as East did) that 2NT showed both minors, which is exactly what they assumed when given the actual explanation at the table. Hence there is clearly no damage from the MI.

[blackshoe]

I know how important it is to always follow the exact letter of the laws, and how it is quite proper to use all the laws to one's advantage. Sometimes, I fail to do this if I feel the opponents might need clarification in a live auction. My bad.

Sarcasm. How very useful.

 

As already established by my many posts, I would be a crummy director.  And if I were a judge, lawyers would avoid my courtroom if they wanted Law untainted by personal standards.

 

I think you will find that a judge whose decisions are "tainted by personal standards" may find himself out of a job — unless those standards are pretty close to those of the community at large.