Your call?

[Jlall]

How can partner have 7 spades and declarer have 3 clubs? If declarer really has 3 clubs then his shape is 3433.

 

If declarer is 3433 and dummy is 0-6 in the blacks and partner has KJTxxx and out, they ruff the spade lead and do what? cross to their hand and lead a high club. Ok, we split. If they win and drive out our club, we tap them again with a spade. Now what? We have the DA still, if they pull trumps we will simply run our spades. If they run their winners we will ruff in. etc etc.

 

So even on your proposed layout, they are going to go down on a tap.

 

I am not sure why partner would bid 3S with KJTxxx and out though after a limit raise, that is just asking to get doubled. Bidding 3S shows something. But even in that incredibly contrived layout, they are still extremely likely to go down.

 

Not to mention sometimes they bid 5C with a stiff spade. Sometimes the ace of clubs is with the opening bidder. Those things are not impossible.

 

I hate to say it but I agree with the very blunt director who said ""I feel sorry for you if you can't find a double of 5♣ with that hand"." It is honestly a huge joke to pass with this hand.

 

We have 1.25 trump tricks plus 2 aces plus a fourth trump with a very likely tap, PLUS a partner who has overcalled freely at the 3 level.

[aguahombre]

.........and rules no adjustment, because:

 

2. East and West also play inverted minors, as do many in this bridge club. Therefore, they have a duty to ask what the bids mean and protect themselves.

 

3. East's question about the 3♣ was considered 'inappropriate', since dummy was about to be faced, and was thought to be (some form of) UI to her partner who stated she would double (definitely the wrong thing to say during the play).

 

I would also rule no adjustment, because of the failure to double.

 

But these two parts bother me:

 

2) How can it be right to require self protection in this situation? 3C is clearly alertable if weak/preemptive. Asking about an unalerted call can easily give UI. Can anyone say they always ask about unalerted calls? E/W might play inverted, but how does that put the burden on them to divine that the opps also play inverted and failed to alert?

3)Asking a question about what a player is about to see in dummy is not inappropriate. The answer will tell the defending side what declarer expected to see in dummy --valuable information.

[Jlall]

Isn't this a spot where a split ruling can be applied where the offending side gets 5C X down whatever and other side keeps their score for failing to play bridge after the infraction? BLACKSHOE?!

[RMB1]

If I read the action correctly, the misinformation (failure to alert) came to light before the opening lead was faced. In which case the auction is not over and the last pass of the auction can be changed if it was made as a result of the misinformation. This would give the original hand the chance to correct his Pass to Double; even if Pass was a serious error, he is still more likely to double if 3C is preemptive. There should have been no need for a judgement ruling.

[OleBerg]

If I read the action correctly, the misinformation (failure to alert) came to light before the opening lead was faced. In which case the auction is not over and the last pass of the auction can be changed if it was made as a result of the misinformation. This would give the original hand the chance to correct his Pass to Double; even if Pass was a serious error, he is still more likely to double if 3C is preemptive. There should have been no need for a judgement ruling.

This is indeed a correct ruling.

 

However, had the misinformation been unearthed later, I would still not adjust score.

 

Not doubling is grievious a mistake, that it counts as a wild or gambling action. (Well, in my opinion, that is.)

[Phil]

If I read the action correctly, the misinformation (failure to alert) came to light before the opening lead was faced. In which case the auction is not over and the last pass of the auction can be changed if it was made as a result of the misinformation. This would give the original hand the chance to correct his Pass to Double; even if Pass was a serious error, he is still more likely to double if 3C is preemptive. There should have been no need for a judgement ruling.

Yes, however the Director was not aware that the opening leader could have changed their call.

[gwnn]

who voted for pass???

[jdonn]

I'm confused, why did Phil post "Phil's argument for pass"? Phil are you arguing for pass?

[Phil]

who voted for pass???

:)

 

Look, I was biased, OK? I heard about the hand before the ruling. Spent some time trying to justify a pass - when if fact Double looks risk free. As far as 5♠ vs double - lets not go there :)

 

OK, double is obvious......:P

 

AND WITH THIS IN MIND....lets concentrate on the ruling. Please!

[OleBerg]

.........and rules no adjustment, because:

 

2. East and West also play inverted minors, as do many in this bridge club. Therefore, they have a duty to ask what the bids mean and protect themselves.

 

3. East's question about the 3♣ was considered 'inappropriate', since dummy was about to be faced, and was thought to be (some form of) UI to her partner who stated she would double (definitely the wrong thing to say during the play).

 

I would also rule no adjustment, because of the failure to double.

 

But these two parts bother me:

 

2) How can it be right to require self protection in this situation? 3C is clearly alertable if weak/preemptive. Asking about an unalerted call can easily give UI. Can anyone say they always ask about unalerted calls? E/W might play inverted, but how does that put the burden on them to divine that the opps also play inverted and failed to alert?

3)Asking a question about what a player is about to see in dummy is not inappropriate. The answer will tell the defending side what declarer expected to see in dummy --valuable information.

I'm with you on 3).

 

But not on 2). Actually, I might easily say, that if a system declaration is availble, and it hints that 3♣ might be weak, the opponents are supposed to protect themselves.

 

Whether a call should be alerted or not, is not in itself the factor that determines whether a player is obliged to protect himself by asking. (Being to lazy to look it up, my memory tells me, that it is actually when a call is not alerted, that you are sometimes obliged to protect yourselves.)

 

The TD must determine whether he thinks it is reasonable to assume, that the player in question should have suspected something. The TD will take various factors into account; How experienced is the player, how well do he know his opponents, is the treatment common in the players circles, and in principle any thing he might think of.

 

In this, if the North player herself plays inverted minors, and inverted minors (and the use of 3♣ as preemptive) are common in her circles, it is reasonable to say that she should have protected herself by asking.

 

Make the hand a little weaker (remove whatever you feel appropriate to make the decision to double very close.) Now we dont want to give a Shrewd North a complete free ride, just because the opponents forgot to alert; The option to pass and smile if it is correct, and call for the cops if it goes down.

[aguahombre]

Ok, Ole. Your points are obviously valid.

 

I just see too many times on-line and at the table, where opponents don't alert their alertable calls because they assume we either know the convention or play it the same way. I don't think that we are required to know that is how they play it; and asking about an unalerted call always feels wrong ---especially when we get the answer: "we didn't alert, did we?" and they feel we have somehow communicated information to partner.

[blackshoe]

There is, I think, a wrong impression some players have that if a call does not require an alert, it does not have a meaning which may require explanation. This goes along with the often heard director error: "which call did you want to ask about?" when a player has asked for an explanation of the entire auction, as the law suggests, and their opponents call the TD because they don't have a clue how they're supposed to answer that question.

 

Whether a call is alerted or not, opponents have a right to ask for an explanation of its meaning. "We didn't alert, did we?" is not only not an appropriate answer, it's a violation of the proprieties (see Law 74A2). And when a player asks for an explanation of the meaning of an entire auction, that's what he should get (this may, but does not necessarily, mean giving explanations of each individual call).

[Codo]

Why isn't this the clearest case of a splitscore from the last 20 years?

 

And a refreshing course for the TD seems to be obvious too. How can he not judge that the last call can be changed?

[OleBerg]

Why isn't this the clearest case of a splitscore from the last 20 years?

 

I answered above, why NS can't get any redress. And almost the same goes for EW. They should have alerted, but it is not considered enough to adjust the score. The rules are not there to punish people, but to restore equity. If a pair has a lot such instances, (not alertn alertable bids), the TD can give a procedural penalty.

 

And a refreshing course for the TD seems to be obvious too. How can he not judge that the last call can be changed?

 

He might be called to the table later. Or he might have forgot the rule. It is quite new.

[Phil]

They should have alerted, but it is not considered enough to adjust the score.

Its a difficult situation with the director not allowing the undo of the last pass with the knowledge of the MI.

 

Frankly, I don't think its relevant that West should double 5♣, regardless of the meaning. What is relevant is that she wanted to double a preemptive 3♣ / 5♣ but couldn't.

 

So a split score makes no sense nor does 'no adjustment'.

[Jlall]

They should have alerted, but it is not considered enough to adjust the score.

Its a difficult situation with the director not allowing the undo of the last pass with the knowledge of the MI.

 

Frankly, I don't think its relevant that West should double 5♣, regardless of the meaning. What is relevant is that she wanted to double a preemptive 3♣ / 5♣ but couldn't.

 

So a split score makes no sense nor does 'no adjustment'.

If you do something completely terrible after being damaged, you don't get redress. Getting damaged does not alleviate you from your duty to play bridge after it happens. So it is definitely relevant.

 

On the other hand the other guys should not gain from failing to alert, so I still think a split score is right.

[Phil]

If you do something completely terrible after being damaged, you don't get redress.

If West is allowed to change her call based on the MI before the opening lead is faced, the auction period isn't over by definition. Clearly, she said, "had I known 3♣ was preemptive, I would have doubled".

 

The fact that the director didn't know the law should not enter into it, nor should the player's 'bridge judgment'.

 

If East was the hand that needed to double, I would agree, since her last pass can't be reversed.

[Phil]

...however, here's what I am confused about.

 

Related to 22B.1 and 21B.1.a, is if NS never disclose the agreement, or EW never ask, what happens after dummy is faced and the failure to alert is found out then? Since the auction period is over, West can't take back her call any more, but the Director won't issue an adjustment based on the MI, so the best EW can do is a split score.

 

Doesn't make sense to me :D

[RMB1]

And a refreshing course for the TD seems to be obvious too. How can he not judge that the last call can be changed?

He might be called to the table later. Or he might have forgot the rule. It is quite new.

The relevant laws did not change in 2007, so the law is at least 13 years old.

 

I can't find a 1987 law book but I don't think they changed in 1997, so the law is probably at least 23 years old.

[RMB1]

Related to 22B.1 and 21B.1.a, is if NS never disclose the agreement, or EW never ask, what happens after dummy is faced and the failure to alert is found out then? Since the auction period is over, West can't take back her call any more, but the Director won't issue an adjustment based on the MI, so the best EW can do is a split score.

 

Doesn't make sense to me  :)

There is some difference in rulings depending on when misinformaiton comes to light. But I don't think it necessarily applies in this case.

 

If the misinformation does not come to light before dummy is spread, the offending side have committed two infractions: failure to alert 3♣, and failure to correct the failure to alert once the auction has (apparently) finished. The offending side should get an adjustment to 5♣X and a procedural penalty (warning or fine). But neither of these need benefit the non-offending side.

 

It is the concensus of this thread that failure to X 5♣ was a serious error regardless of the (lack of) explanation of 3♣, and implicitly that there should a split score. The law that requires a split score is Law 12C1b, which requires "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action". I don't think failing to double can be wild or gambling, but I accept that failing to double was a serious error. But I do not think that the serious error was "unrelated to the infraction": we are adjusting for the offending side because the non-offending side were likely to avoid their error given the right information. So I do not think Law 12C1b does not appy, and the adjusted score 5♣X-4 should be awarded to both sides.

 

The application/interpretation of "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" in the 2007 Laws is not yet fixed but I think the above is a reasonable approach.

[OleBerg]

If you do something completely terrible after being damaged, you don't get redress.

If West is allowed to change her call based on the MI before the opening lead is faced, the auction period isn't over by definition. Clearly, she said, "had I known 3♣ was preemptive, I would have doubled".

 

The fact that the director didn't know the law should not enter into it, nor should the player's 'bridge judgment'.

 

If East was the hand that needed to double, I would agree, since her last pass can't be reversed.

If the director was indeed called to the table before the opening lead was faced, and he didn't allow North to change her call, and it is later discovered that he should have, I'm fairly sure then, that 60%/60% is the correct ruling.

 

The TD has made a mistake that makes it impossible to make a fair ruling. None of the players should pay for this. (Again, to lazy to look up things.)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

it is either Pass or X, 5S is out.

 

I am not good at playing MP, so dont ask me, what to choose,

but I think it wont matter a lot, and maybe because of this Pass

will rate to be better.

I doubt that we will be able to beat to compensate for making 4S=,

unless they are red and we are green, in which case you should

double, but than are they insane?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe