mistaken bidding perhaps?

[TMorris]

Playing in a national final our opponents bid, with us passing throughout

 

1♣ 1♦

2 NT 3♥

3 NT

 

Nothing was alerted. My partner with AKxx hearts and xx spades led a spade. Dummy was a little unexpected it was

 

A10976

Q8

J976

96

 

There is no entry to dummy and the only way that the spades can be picked up is if my partner leads them. as I have Qxx and declarer has KJx. 3NT making was not a success for our side as the spade lead is the only lead to let it make.

 

Dummy said that the 3 ♥ bid was intended as a transfer to spades, declarer said he had no such agreement. I believed declarer

 

The director ruled (not in so many words) that dummy didn't have a clue - how could I argue - and the result stood.

 

Time has passed and I have a question. As dummy thought that her 3 ♥ bid was a transfer and declarer, not surprisingly did not alert it, should she have said before my partner led that declarer should have alerted the 3 ♥ bid?

[pran]

Playing in a national final our opponents bid, with us passing throughout

 

1♣ 1♦

2 NT 3♥

3 NT

 

Nothing was alerted. My partner with AKxx hearts and xx spades led a spade. Dummy was a little unexpected it was

 

A10976

Q8

J976

96

 

There is no entry to dummy and the only way that the spades can be picked up is if my partner leads them. as I have Qxx and declarer has KJx. 3NT making was not a success for our side as the spade lead is the only lead to let it make.

 

Dummy said that the 3 ♥ bid was intended as a transfer to spades, declarer said he had no such agreement. I believed declarer

 

The director ruled (not in so many words) that dummy didn't have a clue - how could I argue - and the result stood.

 

Time has passed and I have a question. As dummy thought that her 3 ♥ bid was a transfer and declarer, not surprisingly did not alert it, should she have said before my partner led that declarer should have alerted the 3 ♥ bid?

In my opinion, definitely yes. She had reason to believe that partner gave misinformation to opponents in failing to alert an alertable call. As Dummy (or Declarer) she must take action and notify opponents of such misinformation before they make their opening lead.

[jeremy69]

North is required to explain the failure(in her eyes) of partner to alert.

Not doing this caused damage.

However absurd the agreement might sound why has the TD decided it is mistaken bid rather than mistaken explanation.

This is not a good effort by the TD and you were dealt with harshly on the facts as presented.

[peachy]

"dummy doesn't have a clue" is no excuse not to investigate and establish facts when TD is called to a table. Ignorance of the laws is also not an excuse for failure to alert, although in ruling TD might consider experience level. However, in the posted case, defenders have received MI, the MI caused damage, and adjustment is in order. Sorry you received a bad ruling.

[gordontd]

You are entitled to know the opponents' agreements.

 

You are not entitled to know that one of them has misbid (though you may use the information if you are given it).

 

You are not entitled to know that they have had a misunderstanding (though you may use the information if you are given it).

 

I gave the ruling, in consultation with one of my senior colleagues who regularly posts here. It was clear to us that the pair had no such agreement to play 3H as a transfer, but that the player in question had been confused and misbid (both with 3H and with 1D).

 

That being the case, the original poster, for whom I have great sympathy, is not entitled to a notification of a failure to alert, because there was no agreement and so nothing to alert.

[gordontd]

"dummy doesn't have a clue" is no excuse not to investigate and establish facts when TD is called to a table.

What gives you the idea that I didn't investigate? Please note that, as stated in the original post, "dummy doesn't have a clue", was not my phrasing in my ruling. However it was clear that she was out of her depth (she was playing as a substitute in an event for which she hadn't qualified), and I had more calls to her table than to any other during the weekend, and spoke to her and her partner at some length. So, I got a fair idea of what was going on.

[bluejak]

I think it is a little more complicated. No doubt dummy thought she was playing transfers at the time she bid 3♥. But from the failure to alert she realises that partner believes it is not a transfer.

 

The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, ...

Obviously she should say something at the end of the auction if she still believes that her partner's explanation is wrong, in her opinion, but sometimes partner's explanation/alert/lack of alert will make her realise she is wrong. Then she does not need to correct.

 

So you may have got a poor ruling, but it needs more investigation as to what responder thought, not when she made the bid, but at the end of the auction.

[gordontd]

However absurd the agreement might sound why has the TD decided it is mistaken bid rather than mistaken explanation.

I spoke to both players and their opponents at some length. I examined their simple system card. I discussed the matter with one of my colleagues, particularly with regard to the degree of evidence required by L21B1b, and I made a judgement. That's what we're meant to do, isn't it?

[gordontd]

North is required to explain the failure(in her eyes) of partner to alert.

Actually it's not that simple.

 

Imagine my partner opens 1NT and it is doubled, but I fail to notice that and bid 2H intending it to be a transfer. My partner will not alert (because our agreement is that it is natural and so not alertable).

 

That lack of alert might well wake me up so that I notice the double. Although I'm not allowed to use this UI in my choice of calls should the auction continue, I am allowed to use it to avoid giving the opponents misinformation in my explanations. So, I'm not supposed to tell them that there has been a failure to alert, because there hasn't been.

[aguahombre]

Nothing was alerted???

 

Not 1C?

Not 1D?

 

Certainly in some jurisdictions it must be appropriate to disclose an apparently artificial first round of bidding (like, maybe it is a forcing club auction).

 

At least, if that had occurred, it might sound like a standard 2NT-3H start, and the transfer meaning would be out there as a possibility. I would not call assuming transfers "clueless".

 

But, Gordon seems to have more information than the OP showed, so maybe he could share about the earlier failures to alert. Maybe they were playing two different systems altogether.

[TMorris]

Gordon,

Thanks for your comments which are appreciated. It has been niggling at the back of my mind and I wanted to get things clear for future reference.

Trevor

[TMorris]

Aguahombre,

 

They were playing a simple 4-card major system, I am pretty sure, so both 1C and 1D were natural.

[aguahombre]

I guess I assumed 1D with four of them, holding a five card spade suit, suggested artificiality.

[TMorris]

No just incompetence.

[gordontd]

Nothing was alerted???

 

Not 1C?

Not 1D?

 

Certainly in some jurisdictions it must be appropriate to disclose an apparently artificial first round of bidding (like, maybe it is a forcing club auction).

 

At least, if that had occurred, it might sound like a standard 2NT-3H start, and the transfer meaning would be out there as a possibility. I would not call assuming transfers "clueless".

 

But, Gordon seems to have more information than the OP showed, so maybe he could share about the earlier failures to alert. Maybe they were playing two different systems altogether.

When I first saw the auction I thought it must be a strong club auction, because that would have made perfect sense.

 

But no, they were playing simple Acol and there was nothing to alert. As mentioned above, the lady was playing in an unfamiliar partnership as a substitute, and I think her partner was as frustrated as anyone else at not being able to fathom what was going on.

 

Certainly she could give no reason why 3H should have been a transfer, and she had apparently bid 1D rather than 1S because she had been told to respond by bidding suits in ascending order.

 

By this stage of the event she also appeared to be finding the whole thing hard work, and might have been feeling a bit bullied by some of her opponents (not the original poster and his partner I must stress).

 

Looking at some of the responses in this thread, I wonder if the original post inadvertently gave the impression that I just came to the table and made an off-the-cuff pronouncement. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

When I was first called Trevor and his partner wanted me to record a psyche. At that point they didn't realise they had been damaged - they thought they were getting a good score and they didn't seek any adjustment. I talked to their opponents and it was clear that the call had been a misbid and not a psyche, and so with the agreement of all concerned I decided not to record the hand.

 

Later, when they had seen the frequencies and realised that they had got a poor score, they asked me to look again at the hand which I did. I asked further questions of their opponents about their system, looked at their convention card, discussed it with my colleague on site, and then phoned RMB1 and talked to him about it - in particular the degree of evidence required by L21B1b. Only after all this did I give the ruling.

[campboy]

I agree with the ruling.

 

In particular, if we read Law 20F5 in full, it is talking about "a player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation [...] the player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous". The phrase "in his opinion" is a red herring; while he is required to add that caveat, there is in fact no legal requirement for him to do anything unless he is right in that opinion.

 

Of course, I would warn the player of what her requirements would have been if she had been correct.

[jeremy69]

Actually it's not that simple.

 

I think it is exactly that simple. The player believed that she was making a transfer at the time. She may have been confused, tired, out of her depth etc. The only reason she woke up was because of the failure to alert. This is clearly UI for her. Why does she not correct at the end of the auction?

[dburn]

Actually it's not that simple.

 

I think it is exactly that simple. The player believed that she was making a transfer at the time. She may have been confused, tired, out of her depth etc. The only reason she woke up was because of the failure to alert. This is clearly UI for her. Why does she not correct at the end of the auction?

Because East-West are entitled only to knowledge of the North-South methods, not the North-South hands. If the Director is satisfied that 3♥ was not a transfer by partnership agreement (and he seems to have investigated the matter thoroughly and efficiently), then he should rule that there has been no misinformation and that there are no grounds to adjust the score.

 

East-West certainly seem to have had some bad luck on this deal, but equally certainly they did not receive a bad ruling.

[peachy]

"dummy doesn't have a clue" is no excuse not to investigate and establish facts when TD is called to a table.

What gives you the idea that I didn't investigate? Please note that, as stated in the original post, "dummy doesn't have a clue", was not my phrasing in my ruling. However it was clear that she was out of her depth (she was playing as a substitute in an event for which she hadn't qualified), and I had more calls to her table than to any other during the weekend, and spoke to her and her partner at some length. So, I got a fair idea of what was going on.

First, I did not know who the TD was so I was not criticizing Gordon in person. Second, there was no mention of investigation in the OP so I went ahead and assumed there was none. My apologies to both the OP and to Gordon.

 

Third, 3H bidder was awakened to the actual system by UI (the failure to alert, which actually was not a failure to alert). Is she not legally obligated to remain "not awakened" and when about to be dummy, to inform opponents of the failure to alert (although in this case it would not have been failure to alert, because she has misbid)? Simple as it may be to others, I am a little troubled that the UI aspect of all this does not deserve attention.

[campboy]

No. UI only restricts what calls and plays you may make. It is entirely proper to use UI to ensure opponents are correctly informed. In the EBU, which I assume this was, OB 3D7 says precisely that.

[jeremy69]

Because East-West are entitled only to knowledge of the North-South methods, not the North-South hands. If the Director is satisfied that 3♥ was not a transfer by partnership agreement (and he seems to have investigated the matter thoroughly and efficiently), then he should rule that there has been no misinformation and that there are no grounds to adjust the score.

 

I agree with what you say and am not suggesting that the investigation was anything but thorough however North has a. bid her suits in a canape order and b. suggested her bid was a transfer. It maybe that she is bonkers and her partner is right but I think the presumption should be that it is an agreement unless it can be demonstrated it is not. If it was so demonstrated to the TD then fair enough but given the mix up which NS started the standard of proof should, in my view, be high.

[gordontd]

It maybe that she is bonkers and her partner is right but I think the presumption should be that it is an agreement unless it can be demonstrated it is not.

It was completely clear to me that her partner was right, and I think it also seemed so to the original poster and his partner (they can correct me if I'm wrong about that).

[TMorris]

Just to be clear I am sure that dummy didn't have a clue. For example she was genuinely quite insulted when I even suggested that there might have been a psyche (I was trying to think of possible reasons for her bidding) saying something to the effect that she was an honest upright citizen who wouldn't even consider pysching.

 

At the time with little opportunity to consider the hands I thought 4 spades would make so 3NT should be good for us. Well 4 spades makes double dummy but apparently rather less often in practice hence our 12% score on this board.

 

I am surprised that a substitute was allowed in such an event albeit that is not directly relevant to the case under discussion (I'd have thought a substitute pair would be allowed but not one player which is what I think Gordon said). It does rather sound like it had the effect of randomising the scores, when one played this pair, rather more than I would have thought appropriate in a final.

[bluejak]

In particular, if we read Law 20F5 in full, it is talking about "a player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation [...] the player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous". The phrase "in his opinion" is a red herring; while he is required to add that caveat, there is in fact no legal requirement for him to do anything unless he is right in that opinion.

I do not think so. It gives valuable advice. If a player believes but is not sure that his partner has got it wrong, what should he do? The answer is that the Law is completely clear as to what he should do because of the phrase "in his opinion".

 

:ph34r:

 

I am surprised that a substitute was allowed in such an event albeit that is not directly relevant to the case under discussion (I'd have thought a substitute pair would be allowed but not one player which is what I think Gordon said).  It does rather sound like it had the effect of randomising the scores, when one played this pair, rather more than I would have thought appropriate in a final.

The general rule is that if a substitute is allowed you criticise the TD for randomising or for giving the pair concerned an unfair advantage, dependent on the success of the substitute [not on his ability]. If a substitute is not allowed you criticise the TD for not allowing bridge to be played or for spoiling an all-play-all event. There is never any satisfactory solution.

[campboy]

It is clear as to what the best thing to do is, but I do not see how the player has committed an infraction by failing to disagree with an explanation which was, as it turns out, correct all along. If law 20F5 instead began "a player who believes his partner has given an incorrect explanation", then it would apply to this player.