judge my ruling

[shevek]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=saj643hkdat863c76&w=st85haq9763dqj5c8&e=skq9hjdk972cakt94&s=s72ht8542d4cqj532]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

             1♣   no

1♥   1♠   X   no

3♥   4♦   X   4♠

no   no   X   no

 

 

4♠x went for -800.

 

North (an international) called and admitted he was not proud of 4♦.

However, West had explained East's first double as support - 3 trumps.

This combined with the vul and the jump to 3♥ convinced North that 4♦ was safe enough. He'd have been +8 IMPs if South had something like

♠xx   ♥xxx   ♦KQxxx   ♣xxx

 

admittedly specific cards.

 

East-West were good players with minimal partnership experience. Clearly West should not have said "support" with such confidence. An offer to lead the table was appropriate. East was thinking "balanced-ish extras" in Acol-style.

 

No screens. With East as North's screenmate, EW might well end -500 in 4♥x, though they make 3NT.

 

I was under time pressure (entering scores from datum sheets) with nobody to refer to. Small likelihood of an appeal.

 

Anyway, I just threw the board out, though that looks too generous to North's carefree action.

 

What do people think?

[gwnn]

wild+gambling imo..

[TylerE]

I think throwing the board out was the one thing you absolutely can not do here. That said, I'm a bit out of my league here as for saying what you should have done, but I don't think you can just throw out a board where a result has been obtained.

 

Ok, actually changed my mind...

 

An international player should know that with the opponents showing at least a combined 23 count or so, his partner can have at most 5 points here. Let's be generous and say 6. I don't see how he can justify a 4 level bid with about a 9 loser hand with poor long suits opposite a known turd. Note also, that he has a very decent hand to defend 4♥. So I think NS get every bit of the -800 they earned. That said, I can see north's arugments to an extent, so I'm not inclined to give E/W the +800, at least in full. Not a weighted score area so I don't really have much expirience there.... but as a simple split, -800 to NS, and whatever they make in 3♥ for E/W feels about right.

[peachy]

You have no authority to throw the board out. Take your best stab at ruling or call another TD for advice.

 

It sounds like EW did not have an agreement on what the Dbl meant so there was MI which contributed to North's 4D call and subsequent damage. Had the Dbl been explained correctly as "no agreement" or even "standard" or something like that, North would have passed 3H and EW would have played in 4H, going off at least 2. That is what should be the adjusted score for both sides. West has extras so he is accepting a strong invite. Besides, 3H might even have been forcing, I don't know EW methods.

 

I completely understand North's logic in bidding 4D; it is risky but nowhere near the standard of irrational or gambling. But even if it is judged as such and they keep their -800 [i would not do that], EW score should still be 4H -2.

[TylerE]

How can 4♦ ever be right? If he catchs the *absolute best possible dummy* he still has basically no chance of making. Also, if you say N wouldn't bid 4♦, fine, but surely EW then will land in 3N? E will bid it and W has no reason to pull.

[blackshoe]

Clearly West should not have said "support" with such confidence.

 

Why not? Surely it is possible to be both confident and wrong. :D

 

An offer to lead the table was appropriate.

 

What does this mean?

 

I was under time pressure (entering scores from datum sheets) with nobody to refer to. Small likelihood of an appeal.

 

That's why we get paid the big bucks. :lol:

The likelihood of an appeal should have no bearing whatsoever on the ruling.

 

Throwing the board out is illegal, as others have noted.

 

There are two problems here: NS have MI from West's erroneous explanation of the double (it appears the correct explanation is "we haven't discussed it"

:P ) and the explanation is UI to East.

 

4♦ is a bad bid, but it doesn't reach either wild or gambling. IOW, it's an error, but it would need to be judged a serious one to invoke Law 12C1{b}.

 

Would North or South have done anything different with a correct explanation? It doesn't sound like it — so I'd say no damage from MI*.

 

Did East, who had UI fail to carefully avoid taking advantage of it? It doesn't seem so — which would lead to a conclusion of no damage from use of UI.

 

On that basis, I'd have ruled "result stands".

 

* If accepting North's argument that it was the MI that led him to bid 4♦ (which is reasonable to do), then there was damage from MI, and NS are due a score adjustment. How would that work? Well, I am kinda split between 4♥-2 and 3♥-1, so I'd weight it 40% of the former and 60% of the latter (Australia being a 12C1{c} jurisdiction). Given the MI, I don't think 4♦ can be judged "serious" if N says that with the correct info he would not have bid it. So no change due to that. What about EW? Well, if you give a weighted score, you shouldn't split it. I would give NS +140, EW -140.

 

East would have to convince me he might bid 3NT over 3♥. If he did, I'd include some portion of that in the weighting.

 

Throwing the board out is TD error. I'm going to assume the correction period has passed, since I don't want to try to figure out how to fix it, but if still in the period, Law 82C applies. B)

[jdonn]

4♦ is a bad bid, but it doesn't reach either wild or gambling. IOW, it's an error, but it would need to be judged a serious one to invoke Law 12C1{b}.

It seems both wild and gambling to me, although I think it's borderline whether or not it's egregious. But wild, very, and gambling, very.

[gordontd]

it's an error, but it would need to be judged a serious one to invoke Law 12C1{b}.

It would also need to be unrelated to the infraction to invoke L12C1{b}.

[iviehoff]

though they make 3NT.

There are many possibilities but making it doesn't seem easy unless S leads a club. I see the significant likelihood of a spade lead and a heart finesse, in which case North takes 3 spades, a heart, and a diamond. So a high weighting to one off.

[OleBerg]

Would North or South have done anything different with a correct explanation? It doesn't sound like it — so I'd say no damage from MI*.

I completely disagree on this one.

 

With the given explanation, EW's bidding says: We have a nine-card fit, and minimum values.

 

With the right explanation, EW's bidding says: We have extra values, but we might very well have a misift.

 

To me it is quite clear, that the first explanation makes 4♦ a somewhat less unattractive alternative.

 

I am not the right person to ask, when you want to know whether a bid is wild and gambling or not. But if it isn't, I would adjust to 3♥-1. (And remember; when you have to judge whether 4♦ is wild and gambling, it should be under the assumption, that opponents have 9(+) hearts, and are minimum.)

 

This is indeed generous to NS, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt. I certainly believe, that with the right explanation, North might very well not have bid 4♦.

 

A weighted or artificial score (if allowed), just around -100, wouldn't make me raise an eyebrow.

[Cyberyeti]

How can 4♦ ever be right? If he catchs the *absolute best possible dummy* he still has basically no chance of making. Also, if you say N wouldn't bid 4♦, fine, but surely EW then will land in 3N? E will bid it and W has no reason to pull.

Partner can't hold x, xxx, Kxxxx, xxxx ? which if spades and diamonds split would mean that not only does 4D make, but it's actually your hand because you have 4 tricks off a heart contract with the 2 ruffs.

 

I don't think 4D is a sensible bid, but I don't think it's ridiculous if he thinks there's a 9 card heart fit there at favourable. Absolute worst thing partner is likely to hold is 2326 and he's likely to be more suitable than that.

 

I think an adjustment is due. E will bid 3N over 3H, does W pull to 4H ? maybe, maybe not (if partner has length in spades with his stop, you could be suffering ruffs in 4H despite the 6-3 fit). Pass is playing partner for K9xx, Kxx, Kx, AJ9x or similar.

 

I'm not sure if you can do this legally but I'd suggest a proportion of 3N and a proportion of 4H. I don't think it's clear 3N makes at all. It certainly can, but single dummy there are losing options too, so a split between 4H-2, 3N= and 3N-1 for both sides might be equitable.

[Trinidad]

Would North or South have done anything different with a correct explanation? It doesn't sound like it — so I'd say no damage from MI*.

I completely disagree on this one.

 

With the given explanation, EW's bidding says: We have a nine-card fit, and minimum values.

That is not my interpretation of the bidding after a support double. Mine is:

 

We have an 8+ fit and 3 ♥ is invitational, limiting West to about 9-11. East is still unlimited (~12-21).

 

With the right explanation, EW's bidding says: We have extra values, but we might very well have a misift.

 

To me it is quite clear, that the first explanation makes 4♦ a somewhat less unattractive alternative.

 

Here, I agree

 

I am not the right person to ask, when you want to know whether a bid is wild and gambling or not. But if it isn't, I would adjust to 3♥-1. (And remember; when you have to judge whether 4♦ is wild and gambling, it should be under the assumption, that opponents have 9(+) hearts, and are minimum.)

Again, make that an 8+ fit and unlimited. I would consider it both wild and gambling, but not necessarily an error. Wild West bridge is not always wrong. ;)

 

However, I would adjust to 3NT making. East will never pass 3♥ and West has pretty much the perfect hand to pass 3NT (thinking that East has a strong 3334 hand).

 

Rik

[mink]

I fully agree with peachy.

 

4♦ is a sound call nonvul vs. vul given E/W have a 9 card hard fit. They nearly never double but bid 4♥, and now partner can decide if it is worth to sacrifice in 4♠ or 5♦.

 

If the 4♦ bid is removed assuming correct information, East will rather bid 4♥ and not 3nt, because in nt it might be difficult to reach the dummy. My adjustment:

 

33% 4♥-2

33% 4♥-2 doubled by South

23% 3nt=

10% 3nt-1

 

Karl

[gwnn]

haha people are giving partner 5 card diamond support to justify a 4 level bid of diamonds ;) :) hahaha sorry I know it's wrong to lol people so I will just say hahahaha

[Cyberyeti]

haha people are giving partner 5 card diamond support to justify a 4 level bid of diamonds ;) :) hahaha sorry I know it's wrong to lol people so I will just say hahahaha

Well given that he has at least 8 cards in the minors and very possibly 9, it's not that far fetched. (My view of the situation is that partner raises with any 3 spades and 3H shows 6, so 2S/3H max).

 

I didn't say it was a good bid, I was responding to a post that said it was NEVER making.

[OleBerg]

23% 3nt=

10% 3nt-1

 

Karl

???

 

If the defence punches spades at every oppertunity, declarer has to guess hearts.

 

(If we play rough, we duck the first spade, just to cloud it a little.)

[gwnn]

Fair enough. I think 3H doesn't show 6 hearts for most people though. partner could have 3-4 in the majors even (denying a raise because of insufficient values/too much of his values in hearts - if he raises he knows we will overcompete in spades over hearts), so I really think thinking 'yes partner could have 5 diamonds' is gambling and quite a bit wild.

[shevek]

I am suitably chastised and knew it was coming.

 

At the time I was only vaguely aware that cancelling the board was not an option. I think I (& others) do this through lack of guts, not wanting to be harangued following a more decisive ruling. Anyway as Blackshoe said, this is what we are paid for.

 

The call came at a bad time. End of round 6, 19 tables, collecting old boards and distributing new ones as the pile of datum sheets on the desk grows. Things were under control but I felt I didn't have time to make a good bridge judgement. No excuses.

 

In retrospect, I think it was okay to rule "no score" for the purpose of the draw, coming back with a revised ruling while they were playing the last round. (7 x 8 bds, 1 day event)

 

I think North's 4♦ is acceptable on the info he had. Most of the time East will just bid 4♥ at the vul, when NS could have -300 in 5♦ or 4♠. Only at these colours though.

 

IF you accept that, NS +200 vs 4♥ for both looks plausible.

It looks like I didn't have the guts to rule that way (Take away their 800 and hit them with -200 to boot)

 

Tyler said "4♦ has basically no chance to make" but that is not the intent. Also "West has no reason to pull 3NT" but West thought she was facing 3-card support. While 3NT can be made, it is not easy and few managed it.

 

"An offer to leave the table was apprpriate"

This is what players tend to do. Admittedly they should call the director, explain the situation and he might send them away. Players take this role themselves, I do it myself as a player.

 

I think it's clear that North would have passed 3♥ if told that X was a strong notrump.

 

I made a bridge judgement on the merit of 4♦ given the MI. If you consider it meritless, then is -800 NS, -200 EW appropriate?

 

Nick

[bluejak]

I was under time pressure (entering scores from datum sheets) with nobody to refer to. Small likelihood of an appeal.

 

Anyway, I just threw the board out, though that looks too generous to North's carefree action.

 

What do people think?

You should not make illegal rulings because you are under time pressure, and throwing the board out is illegal. What you should do is get rid of the time pressure. You score up, announce the result as "subject to ruling", and then you have a week to make your ruling - assuming this was a club event. You can then phone someone else for help [me, if you do not mind paying international call rates!] and take your time.

[bluejak]

An offer to lead the table was appropriate.

What does this mean?

I expect he meant 'leave'.

 

I was under time pressure (entering scores from datum sheets) with nobody to refer to. Small likelihood of an appeal.

That's why we get paid the big bucks. ;)

The likelihood of an appeal should have no bearing whatsoever on the ruling.

Theoretically true, but in practice I think the opposite of the OP: small likelihood of an appeal means you take more care, not less, over your ruling.

 

It seems both wild and gambling to me, although I think it's borderline whether or not it's egregious. But wild, very, and gambling, very.

I think 'egregious' no longer matters, even in the ACBL. But since this was the ABF, it certainly does not matter.

 

A weighted or artificial score (if allowed), just around -100, wouldn't make me raise an eyebrow.

There is no legal basis for an artificial score, and a weighted score means we give weightings to various scores, not that we apply a figure like -100.

 

I'm not sure if you can do this legally but I'd suggest a proportion of 3N and a proportion of 4H. I don't think it's clear 3N makes at all. It certainly can, but single dummy there are losing options too, so a split between 4H-2, 3N= and 3N-1 for both sides might be equitable.

Yes, you can do it legally: it is a weighted score, and should be the norm when giving an adjustment - except in Law 12C1E jurisdictions like the ACBL.

 

I would consider it both wild and gambling, but not necessarily an error.

For Law 12C1B to apply, you only need one out of

• 
   
  
• wild
   
  
• gambling
   
  
• serious error [unrelated to the infraction]
   
  

not all three. So if you consider it wild and gambling, Law 12C1B applies.

 

The call came at a bad time. End of round 6, 19 tables, collecting old boards and distributing new ones as the pile of datum sheets on the desk grows. Things were under control but I felt I didn't have time to make a good bridge judgement. No excuses.

 

In retrospect, I think it was okay to rule "no score" for the purpose of the draw, coming back with a revised ruling while they were playing the last round. (7 x 8 bds, 1 day event)

You should never be giving an immediate ruling in a judgement case. You seem to think an immediate ruling was necessary: it is not, it is poor directing [sorry :) ].

 

The correct procedure with a judgement ruling always is to put the table score in as the score and adjust later if you make an adjustment.

[bluejak]

[OleBerg]

A weighted or artificial score (if allowed), just around -100, wouldn't make me raise an eyebrow.

There is no legal basis for an artificial score, and a weighted score means we give weightings to various scores, not that we apply a figure like -100.

 

I based it on Law 12.C.1.c and 12.C.1.d:

 

"© In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids

it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities

of a number of potential results.

(d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may

award an artificial adjusted score."

 

Isn't that legal basis? (Honest question, not trying to be smartass.)

[bluejak]

Yes, but it does not apply to a case like this. Once an auction has developed it is always possible, and usually easy, to weight it without any need for Law 12C1D. I believe the only times you should consider such a Law is when you have to assign from a position like Pass Pass where you have no sensible basis for adjustment. To be honest, I do not know why this Law appeared, but if you forget it with a developed auction you will not go far wrong.

[Fluffy]

4♦ is not a great bid, it is risking defending a ame that doesn't make for -300 against +100.

 

But what it doesn't risk is going -800 against nothing, if the opponents have fit, and LHO has more clubs than diamonds, and RHO has more hearts than spades it is very hard to construct hands where we are catched at the 4 level for a big penalty.

 

 

So IMO, he risked maybe too much because there is a hazzard, but he got a bad result because of another hazzard that was almost impossible. North doesn't deserve such outcome IMO.

[OleBerg]

Yes, but it does not apply to a case like this. Once an auction has developed it is always possible, and usually easy, to weight it without any need for Law 12C1D. I believe the only times you should consider such a Law is when you have to assign from a position like Pass Pass where you have no sensible basis for adjustment. To be honest, I do not know why this Law appeared, but if you forget it with a developed auction you will not go far wrong.

Where can I read about this?