sanity check

[spw99]

ACBL sectional open pairs (no screens, of course):

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sak543hqjt3d32c86&w=sjt9h952daq4cqj93&e=s872ha87dkt76ca72&s=sq6hk64dj985ckt54]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

W - N - E - S

P - P - 1NT- P ; 1NT = 12-14 announced (East upgraded his hand)

P -2H - P - P ; 2H showed both majors but was not alerted

x -2S - x - AP; x(W)=takeout, x(E)=penalty (given that West has shown

some spades)

 

2Sx made 9 tricks.

 

North did not ask about the first double and assumed it was penalty, therefore corrected 2Hx to his longer suit.

 

The MI about 2H came to light after it was too late to change West's final pass, but of course he wouldn't have changed that call anyway.

 

EW claim that if 2H were alerted, West's double would be less attractive (though West admits he might have doubled anyway), but in any case it would be takeout of both majors (i.e., showing minors, nothing about spades), and East would have an automatic 3D bid.

 

What should the ruling be? This is ACBL, so weighted scores are not possible, but feel free to comment on what might happen in other jurisdictions. And for amusement, can you guess the actual ruling? (No, not avg+/avg-; that would be too easy!)

[Pict]

Fun hand.

 

By no stretch of anyone's imagination is East's hand an upgrade.

 

Beyond that, result stands for me. No damage, because I don't believe the bids were related to the explanation/absence thereof: I think EW were determined to get a score on this board.

[RMB1]

Its not clear which players understood which partnership agreements (either their's or their opponents').

 

I think West is more likely to double 2H if it means majors because he is not showing spades now.

 

I think East is less likely to double 2S if 2H means the majors because partner has not shown spades.

 

So I "remove the (second) double" and assign 2S+1 (N). NS +140. For both sides.

[Finch]

Its not clear which players understood which partnership agreements (either their's or their opponents').

 

I think West is more likely to double 2H if it means majors because he is not showing spades now.

 

I think East is less likely to double 2S if 2H means the majors because partner has not shown spades.

 

So I "remove the (second) double" and assign 2S+1 (N). NS +140. For both sides.

Aren't you concerned about North's 2S bid?

He made a call showing the majors and his partner showed preference for hearts.

Why would he remove to 2S without the UI of partner not alerting it?

[RMB1]

Aren't you concerned about North's 2S bid?

I guess I should be.

 

I blame laziness: EW claimed damage from MI so I only considered MI. I know we should also check for UI in cases of misexplanation and the OP sub-heading told me to too.

 

Are East/West defeating 2HX?, otherwise an adjustment to 2S+1 is better.

Although a fine for using UI may be appropriate.

 

Is East passing 2HX?, or is 3D by EW a better score than 2S+1 by NS?

[spw99]

Thanks for responses so far.

 

Its not clear which players understood which partnership agreements (either their's or their opponents').

Sorry, what was unclear?

 

EW understood their own agreements (though you can certainly dispute their judgment in using them!) but had no idea North's 2H showed anything but hearts until too late. North knew 2H showed both majors but didn't realize West's double was takeout. Believing the double to be penalty was North's justification for the 2S bid. (Neither takeout nor penalty is alertable in the ACBL.) South forgot the NS agreement about 2H and didn't care about double; South was always passing no matter what.

 

One mistake in my posting was that the EW range for 1NT was 11-13 and announced as such. This was my mistake in posting; there was no confusion on this at the table. Sorry if that makes a difference, but I haven't seen a clear answer to the overall question yet.

 

I think West is more likely to double 2H if it means majors because he is not showing spades now.

 

West's explanation was that if 2H shows both majors, NS might have landed in the wrong one. In contrast, if 2H is just hearts, and opener cannot pass for penalty, NS probably have a heart fit, and EW likely have a fit in another suit, perhaps even spades. You can, of course, believe this or not, but it's what West said.

 

I think East is less likely to double 2S if 2H means the majors because partner has not shown spades.

 

If EW have correct information that 2H shows majors, and West doubles anyway, showing minors, East's potential double of 2S would be takeout. East might do that or might pass, but it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that East would bid 3D. Your judgment may, of course, differ.

[jdonn]

Why would west ever show minors with 3-4 in the minors? And why would north ever pull 2♥X without the UI? And why would south pass 2♠X if he thought 2♥ was natural so north should be 4-6 or something, or did he know what the bid meant and just dishonestly not alert?

 

Anyway west says he might have doubled anyway, which means he also might not have doubled. Not doubling is entirely conceivable so NS +110 (3 rounds of diamonds).

 

I don't see what is very difficult about this other than the bridge judgment that a takeout double for 3 suits with 3-3-4 in those suits is quite a lot more attractive than a takeout double for two suits (which are both a level higher) with 3-4 in those suits.

[bluejak]

North knew 2H showed both majors but didn't realize West's double was takeout.  Believing the double to be penalty was North's justification for the 2S bid.  (Neither takeout nor penalty is alertable in the ACBL.)

Yes, well, it is an excuse, but a pretty unbelievable one. He has shown both majors, his partner has said "I prefer hearts" so he has run to spades, believing a double to be penalties but not bothering to ask. :huh:

 

Sorry, I do not buy it for a moment. The reason he ran to 2♠ is simple: once his partner has not alerted the 2♥ bid he realised his partner had forgotten. Now his partner could easily have longer spades so he was scared to play in hearts. Thus he used the UI from his partner's non-alert and bid spades to wake his partner up and also because on balance spades might be safer.

 

Such a bid is illegal, unethical, and disgraceful if North is anything but a beginner. Whatever other rulings given it is important that North has it explained to him that a complete lack of regard for the rules is not the way to play this game.

[peachy]

By happenings at the table, it seems pretty obvious that N used the UI from the non-alert to bid spades. Questions, perhaps out of curiosity: When did the MI about the NS agreement come to light? Did someone lead face up? Did NS not inform opponents of failure to alert?

 

West doubled 2H for takeout with a only three worthless in hearts, and according to OP writeup, he would also have doubled for takeout if he knew N promised both majors, with his three worthless in both majors. Whether East takes out the takeout double or passes for penalty, EW are heading for a minus in 2H making, doubled, or in 3D failing doubled or undoubled.

 

The key fact is that West said he was going to double for takeout also when he knew N showed both majors. Therefore, the double was not caused by the MI. In fact, I would describe the double "gambling".

 

Dunno what the ruling in this mess should be. Probably for EW 2HN doubled, making, and for NS 3DE doubled down two. Or 2HX making vor both sides. Then give PP and lecture to NS for illegal use of UI, if their experience level is high enough that they should have known.

[jdonn]

The key fact is that West said he was going to double for takeout also when he knew N showed both majors.

Huh? No he didn't.

 

EW claim that if 2H were alerted, West's double would be less attractive (though West admits he might have doubled anyway), but in any case it would be takeout of both majors (i.e., showing minors, nothing about spades), and East would have an automatic 3D bid.

 

In what way does that mean "I was also going to double if I knew N had shown both majors"?

[peachy]

The key fact is that West said he was going to double for takeout also when he knew N showed both majors.

Huh? No he didn't.

 

EW claim that if 2H were alerted, West's double would be less attractive (though West admits he might have doubled anyway), but in any case it would be takeout of both majors (i.e., showing minors, nothing about spades), and East would have an automatic 3D bid.

 

In what way does that mean "I was also going to double if I knew N had shown both majors"?

You are right. It was "West" who would "might have doubled anyway". Maybe I should re-read before commenting on anything! Thanks.

 

West's "Doubled anyway" to me means that he "might have doubled anyway" whether N showed hearts or both majors. That is the only meaning I got.

[greenender]

So, you look at the possible rulings for the two infractions, MI and UI, and work out which is best for the NOS. An adjustment from 2♠ doubled to 2♥ doubled isn't going to get E/W a whole bunch of MPs, so the choice seems to be whether you think E escaping for down 2 in 3♦ undoubled is within the tolerances for adjustment in the ACBL. Otherwise Robin's adjustment seems correct.

[spw99]

Maybe this thread is losing interest, but let me try posting a list of possible rulings. Th list includes the actual TD and AC rulings, what I think the ruling ought to be, and maybe a few others to confuse you. ;) There could well be a split score, so if replying, please mention rulings both for NS and for EW.

 

1. With correct information, West might have passed 2H, which just makes. NS +110.

1a: for NS, it would have to be "at all probable" for West to pass.

1b: for EW, it would have to be "likely" for West to pass.

 

2. The 2S bid was legal, but with correct information neither E nor W would have doubled it. NS +140.

 

3. The 2S bid was illegal, but we can't tell what would have happened if there had been neither MI nor UI. Normally we'd give EW avg+, NS avg-, but EW bid badly, and most outcomes are favorable to NS. Avg.

 

4. West would have doubled 2H even with correct informatin, but North's 2S was illegal, and East would have bid 3D over the takeout double.

4a: 3D-2, NS +100.

4b: 3D-3, NS +150.

 

5. EW caused their own problems, nothing to do with MI or UI. Score stands, NS +570.

 

I'll give the actual result and my own opinion in a couple more days.

[bluejak]

3. The 2S bid was illegal, but we can't tell what would have happened if there had been neither MI nor UI. Normally we'd give EW avg+, NS avg-, but EW bid badly, and most outcomes are favorable to NS. Avg.

That is incorrect and illegal, so we shall not include this one. Of course we can decide what would have happened, and we do not give Average scores because we are not going to assign correctly.

[spw99]

Thanks for all the comments.

 

3. The 2S bid was illegal, but we can't tell what would have happened if there had been neither MI nor UI.  Normally we'd give EW avg+, NS avg-, but EW bid badly, and most outcomes are favorable to NS.  Avg.

That is incorrect and illegal, so we shall not include this one. Of course we can decide what would have happened, and we do not give Average scores because we are not going to assign correctly.

 

Actually I don't believe this is illegal any more, but I agree it's a terrible idea.

 

The actual TD ruling was as my item 5: score stands for both sides. EW appealed.

 

The AC ruling was score stands for EW, avg(!) for NS. The AC didn't explain their ruling, but I'm guessing the reasoning was as items 3 and 5 in my earlier post.

 

My ruling would have been +110 (as item 1a) for NS, -150 (as 4b) to EW. I'd like to give EW more but can't get the combined chances of -100 (3D-2) and -110 (2H=) to add up to "likely." If allowed to give a weighted score, I'd include some weighting for both of those. Oddly, the AC score is not that far in actual matchpoints from what my ruling would have given.

 

Further comments welcome, especially related to the title of this thread.

[dburn]

Maybe this thread is losing interest, but let me try posting a list of possible rulings.  Th list includes the actual TD and AC rulings, what I think the ruling ought to be, and maybe a few others to confuse you.  ;)    There could well be a split score, so if replying, please mention rulings both for NS and for EW.

 

1. With correct information, West might have passed 2H, which just makes.  NS +110.

1a: for NS, it would have to be "at all probable" for West to pass.

1b: for EW, it would have to be "likely" for West to pass.

 

2. The 2S bid was legal, but with correct information neither E nor W would have doubled it.  NS +140.

 

3. The 2S bid was illegal, but we can't tell what would have happened if there had been neither MI nor UI.  Normally we'd give EW avg+, NS avg-, but EW bid badly, and most outcomes are favorable to NS.  Avg.

 

4. West would have doubled 2H even with correct informatin, but North's 2S was illegal, and East would have bid 3D over the takeout double.

4a: 3D-2, NS +100.

4b: 3D-3, NS +150.

 

5. EW caused their own problems, nothing to do with MI or UI.  Score stands, NS +570.

 

I'll give the actual result and my own opinion in a couple more days.

[1] doesn't seem right; with correct information West would be more, not less likely to double 2♥ (given than he doubled it anyway). If North has majors, East is more likely than otherwise to take the double out into clubs, which would suit West fine.

 

[2] isn't right; the 2♠ bid was not legal.

 

[3] isn't right; we can tell what might have happened and assign probabilities to each occurrence.

 

[4] seems right; with correct information West would double, North would pass and East would bid. The score should be adjusted to whatever the most favourable of likely outcomes would be for East-West (minus 150 in 3♦ would be my guess).

 

[5] isn't right, or at least not completely right; North-South can't get 570 for this performance. If it is judged that East-West's actions were wild, or gambling, or serious errors unrelated to the infraction, then they do not receive redress for such damage as was self-inflicted. In my view both East and West are a pair of complete nutters, but being a complete nutter is not in itself illegal and given their levels of sanity, their actions were not such as to deny them full redress for North's irregularity.

[Pict]

Maybe this thread is losing interest, but let me try posting a list of possible rulings.  Th list includes the actual TD and AC rulings, what I think the ruling ought to be, and maybe a few others to confuse you.  ;)    There could well be a split score, so if replying, please mention rulings both for NS and for EW.

 

1. With correct information, West might have passed 2H, which just makes.  NS +110.

1a: for NS, it would have to be "at all probable" for West to pass.

1b: for EW, it would have to be "likely" for West to pass.

 

2. The 2S bid was legal, but with correct information neither E nor W would have doubled it.  NS +140.

 

3. The 2S bid was illegal, but we can't tell what would have happened if there had been neither MI nor UI.  Normally we'd give EW avg+, NS avg-, but EW bid badly, and most outcomes are favorable to NS.  Avg.

 

4. West would have doubled 2H even with correct informatin, but North's 2S was illegal, and East would have bid 3D over the takeout double.

4a: 3D-2, NS +100.

4b: 3D-3, NS +150.

 

5. EW caused their own problems, nothing to do with MI or UI.  Score stands, NS +570.

 

I'll give the actual result and my own opinion in a couple more days.

 

 

[5] isn't right, or at least not completely right; North-South can't get 570 for this performance. If it is judged that East-West's actions were wild, or gambling, or serious errors unrelated to the infraction, then they do not receive redress for such damage as was self-inflicted. In my view both East and West are a pair of complete nutters, but being a complete nutter is not in itself illegal and given their levels of sanity, their actions were not such as to deny them full redress for North's irregularity.

I suppose the OP included option 5 to make fun of me, because it was my choice and no-one else's.

 

I am reassured to see that almost the only reasonable reading of dburn's take on it suggests I was right.

 

In my mind people described as 'complete nutters' (and I come from a background where I understand and have experienced this phenomenon) are being treated kindly by dburn, rather than his just saying they committed at the very least a 'serious error'. They are being treated kindly by dburn because they probably don't have the the cultural background to understand the extent to which their play is being excoriated.

[bluejak]

I shall stick to my guns: giving an artificial adjusted score is illegal.

 

There are two situations where an artificial score replaces an assigned score. Law 12C2A refers to where no result can be obtained but one was so this does not apply.

 

The other one, the new one, is Law 12C1D which allows someone who attempts to rule via Law 12C1C something to do instead of burst into tears if his mother decides he has been out too late trying to work out th possibilities. However, since Law 12C1C does not apply in the ACBL there is no need to adopt this approach. Since Law 12C1E, which does apply in the ACBL, refers to most favourable or unfavourable scores, multiple outcomes are not relevant.

 

Thus where a result has been obtained to give an artificial adjusted score is illegal in the ACBL.

[blackshoe]

The AC ruling was score stands for EW, avg(!) for NS.  The AC didn't explain their ruling, but I'm guessing the reasoning was as items 3 and 5 in my earlier post.

If it's illegal to give an artificial adjusted score to both sides when a result has been obtained (and I agree that it is), it is certainly also illegal to give an artificial adjusted score to only one side.

 

IMO, it ought to be policy for the TD to review committee decisions to make sure they're legal, and when they're not, the committee should be sent back to the drawing board.

[aguahombre]

The AC ruling was score stands for EW, avg(!) for NS.  The AC didn't explain their ruling, but I'm guessing the reasoning was as items 3 and 5 in my earlier post.

If it's illegal to give an artificial adjusted score to both sides when a result has been obtained (and I agree that it is), it is certainly also illegal to give an artificial adjusted score to only one side.

 

IMO, it ought to be policy for the TD to review committee decisions to make sure they're legal, and when they're not, the committee should be sent back to the drawing board.

Yep. This is workable for the sole issue of legality of the decision(s), of course ---not any other disagreement by the TD with the AC.

[blackshoe]

Yes.

[dburn]

I shall stick to my guns: giving an artificial adjusted score is illegal.

 

There are two situations where an artificial score replaces an assigned score.  Law 12C2A refers to where no result can be obtained but one was so this does not apply.

 

The other one, the new one, is Law 12C1D which allows someone who attempts to rule via Law 12C1C something to do instead of burst into tears if his mother decides he has been out too late trying to work out th possibilities.  However, since Law 12C1C does not apply in the ACBL there is no need to adopt this approach.  Since Law 12C1E, which does apply in the ACBL, refers to most favourable or unfavourable scores, multiple outcomes are not relevant.

 

Thus where a result has been obtained to give an artificial adjusted score is illegal in the ACBL.

I believe that there is (at least) one position in which an artificial score may replace a result actually obtained at the table.

 

The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity.

That was not the case on this occasion, but it was the case where the players continued to play the board despite East's prior possession of unauthorized information from another table.

 

In general, I believe that a Director may say in effect that "if you had called me when you should have done [instead of incorrectly rectifying the irregularity yourselves], I would not have allowed this board to be played, so I will cancel the result you obtained on it and award an artificial adjusted score" (note that L12A3 does not restrict the Director in terms of the kind of adjusted score he may award).

[spw99]

The other one, the new one, is Law 12C1D which allows someone who attempts to rule via Law 12C1C something to do

I don't see anything in L12C1d that restricts it to cases involving L12C1c. Given the makeup of the WBFLC (concentration of ACBL representatives), my guess is that 12C1d was added specifically to legalize the too-frequent award of artificial scores in the ACBL.

 

Legal or not, giving an artificial score when a deal has been played is a terrible idea.

[spw99]

In my view both East and West are a pair of complete nutters, but being a complete nutter is not in itself illegal and given their levels of sanity, their actions were not such as to deny them full redress for North's irregularity.

 

I agree that West is a nutter (both on the evidence at hand and other experience with this player), but I don't see why you form that opinion of East. What did he do that was nutty, other than agree to partner West?

 

1. With correct information, West might have passed 2H, which just makes.  NS +110.

 

[1] doesn't seem right; with correct information West would be more, not less likely to double 2♥ (given than he doubled it anyway). If North has majors, East is more likely than otherwise to take the double out into clubs, which would suit West fine.

 

Given West's nuttiness and his stated "reasoning" (in my Mar 22 post), I'm surprised you don't attach any weight to his statement that he might have passed 2H if given a correct explanation. Maybe you had to be there, but that looks "at all probable" to me.

 

Anyway, I'm encouraged that my view of the proper ruling is sane, even if not absolutely correct. Thanks to everyone for your responses.