Multi problems...

[Hanoi5]

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=s973hq54dk8543ck4&w=sq5hakt872dt9c763&e=sk42h963daqj76ct5&s=sajt86hjd2caqj982]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]

 

2♦* Pa 3♥** 4♥***

Pa Pa 4♠ X

5♥ X All pass

 

2♦ is Multi, 3♥ is Pass or correct, 4♥ was a two-suiter (appartently). 4♥ wasn't alerted to anyone from any side of the screen. It is not in the convention card though. How would you rule?

[Lanor Fow]

I'm assuming that under yuor juristriction 4♥ should be alerted if two suited (otherwise there is no ruling to give).

 

I cannot particulaly see any reason to presume misbid rather than misexplination. As the post lies it seems to imply that the players involed said that it shuold have been a two suiter. Obviously at the table i'd have talked to the players concerned and may have come to a different conclusion, but based on the post I'm ruling misinformation (lack of alert).

 

If East knew that 4H was a two suiter he'd pass (could the two suiter have contained hearts? if so that may change things slightly, but i dont think significantly). As such i'd rule 4 hearts down however many (early in the morning, looks like down 6 or so at a quick glance).

[Codo]

4 Heart was not alerted at both sides of the table, so both player did not think, that 4 heart was alertable.

4 Heart was passed by north.

There is no clue in the cc that 4 heart shows a two suiter.

 

So the evidence that south invented a bid at the table is really high.

 

So, why shall we rule that 4 Heart shows a two suiter then? South invented a bid and had an epic fail. 4 Heart is no success for his side. He got lucky because East made a really questionable reopening. He is allowed to have some luck.

[Lanor Fow]

4♥ was a two-suiter (appartently)

 

I assumed that either this meant that one of the players thought it was a two suiter, or that if the players had been spoken too and both said 4H is not systematically a two suiter the original post would have mentioned it. As I said if i go to the table and find both players saying that either they had no relavent agreements (which seems unusual as the sequence isn't particually unusual) or that two suited was not the agreement, then i would probably rule differently.

 

On the evidence given by the OP i'm ruling MI.

[greenender]

What worries me about this hand (assuming that 4♥ to show a 2-suiter is an alertable agreement: otherwise there's no issue, as has already been said) is that S bid 4♥ but did not alert it to his screenmate.

 

Perhaps S was just insane, but one has to be pretty insane to bid 4♥ on 5-1-1-6 distribution unless one thinks that it is a better than even chance that one's ox is going to take the bid as denoting a hand that is at least vaguely consistent with what one actually holds.

 

If one thinks that partner has a better than even chance of being on the same wavelength, then regardless of explicit agreements, one is banking on the existence of at least an implicit agreement. If such an agreement is alertable, then one should alert (in circumstances, i.e. with screens or online, where one alerts one's own calls), notwithstanding that one may be in some doubt as to the security of the implicit agreement. This is the screens corollary of the advice to alert partner's call when one isn't sure, but is planning to take it as having an alertable meaning.

 

So I agree with Lanor Fow: S clearly though he was showing a two-suiter. N saw it differently. There is sufficient evidence of a disagreement for me to rule MI.

 

And a PP to S for failing to alert, unless he can produce a doctor's note that he is truly insane.

[Codo]

So you assume:

 

1. This is a usual situation to this pair. ??

2. South has an implicit agreement that he shows a two suiter, but failed to alert it. ??

3. They have this agreement despite the facts that it is not written down on the cc AND north passed 4 Heart. ??

 

Wow.

These assumptions are not mentioned by the OP and does fit in no way to the behaviour at the table.

 

South did not alert, nor die north. North passed. They have nowhere written down that 4 Heart shows a two suiter. They were on their way to a bottom and East rescued them.

 

What else do you need to be sure that there was no agreement? Or to put it another way: Is it ever possible to be lucky with you as TD while inventing something at the table? What do you need as a proove that this worked just because of good luck?

 

Of course, if you want to penalize anybody who is creative at the table, you should give a PP to south....

[shyams]

I agree with Codo's reasoning. This was most probably a "creative" bid and N/S were lucky that West made one more bid

 

I'd hope the director ruled "table result stands" and did not bother with PPs to N/S

Edited April 16, 2010 by shyams

[Lanor Fow]

Hmmm Codo, I refer you my earlier post.

 

I have specifically stated that at the table I would talk to the players and if i felt that they had no agreement (or there agreement was natural) I wouldn't adjust. I dont particulaly see why you are asking me questions I have already answered. Nor do I imagine that you expect me to write out word for word what I would ask the players. Is it not enough to write that i would investigate, and in what circumstances I would not adjust (as I did earlier).

 

As to my assumptions. There are some, yes. The original post doesn't have enough information in it to make a ruling without assumptions. I've already quoted the part of the post (and statements not contained in the post) that lead me to the assuption that this is an implicit or explicit agreement.

 

My assumption that this is a usual situation for this pair is based on the fact that it is quite a usual multi auctino (up to the 4h bid). Obvoiusly in places liek teh ABCL where multi is unuusal its much less liekly to be a usual auctino for this pair. The OP didn't give a jurisdiction. Simmilaly for some pairs, especially inexperienced pairs this might be an unusual or even new situation. Obvoiusly in such a situation I do not adjust.

 

North passing 4h is evidence of it not being an agreed two suiter true, but no stronger than south bidding it beign evidence that it is a two suiter. Yes it is not written on the CC, however I have an agreement with my regular partner abuot this sequence, and despite normally taking about ten pages of additional notes for oppos if they want them at the table, this sequance is not listed on it. Simmilaly my partner and I have many high level sequences where bids are two suiters that are simmilaly not listed on our CC. THe CC cannot contain everything, and i would be more surpised to see this sequence listed than not, even if there is an agreement.

 

As for the alerting of the bid by south? I think greenlander argues that better than I could, and I agree with everything he puts. Obvoiusly at the table I might come to different conclusions

[helene_t]

W inflicted part of the damage himself by failing to double 4♥. If we assume that NS have the implicit agreement that 4♥ show spades then we might as well assume that EW have the implicit agreement that W's pass shows spades. In fact I think the latter assumption is more plausible.

 

It's certainly an acceptable tactic not to double in a situation where you know opps have a misunderstanding. But the price you pay is that you don't tell your partner about the misunderstanding, either. So it may be him who makes the final mistake.

 

OK I have an emotional bias against multi so if I were in the AC I should probably withdraw in such cases.

[campboy]

I suspect that they had no explicit agreement about this bid, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should not be alerted. I have not discussed this 4♥ bid with my current partner (though I shall now check he is on the same wavelength [edit: yes he is]), but if I would alert it (in a jurisdiction where it can be alertable) because I do have an agreement that a double of 3♥ would show hearts, so logically this would show a 2-suiter with spades (and I would expect partner to work that out). Conversely if they had an agreement that double of 3♥ would be takeout it is clear that this bid needs to be natural. I would need to be convinced that there was no agreement about the double before deciding that there was no implicit agreement about the 4♥.