WBU Swiss Pairs 1

[VixTD]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sak43hakq1054d7ck9&w=sq8h932dakq9caq105&e=s1097hj76dj10843c87&s=sj652h8d652cj6432]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♥..P...P..1NT(1)

2♥..P...P....P[/hv]

(1) Explained before North's second bid as 15-17. West asked East to leave the table at the end of the auction and corrected the explanation to 11-14.

 

Result: 2♥ (N) +3, NS +200

 

North called the TD at the end of play and said that had he known at the time that 1NT could have been weaker he would have rebid 2♠ and his side would have bid game.

 

Assuming the convention card states that EW indeed play a protective 1NT as 11-14, would you adjust the score?

[blackshoe]

Don't think so. Looks to me like North is fishing.

[iviehoff]

"I was correctly informed as to what my opponent had. Unfortunately he had misbid, and the legally correct explanation would have misled me as to what he had. Because I was correctly informed as to what he had, I ended up in a good contract. But if my opponents had given me the legally correct information, I would have ended up in a bad contract. But every card is right, so the bad contract makes. So I've been damaged."

 

According to the laws of bridge, I think the above argument is, at least in principle, correct. But, subject to consultation, I think there must be some percentage for South passing 2S.

[RMB1]

West asked East to leave the table at the end of the auction and corrected the explanation to 11-14.

Does anyone else want to give West a procedural penalty/fine?

 

He asks his partner to leave the table, which he is not entitled to do.

He corrects partners explanation as a defender before the end of the play, which is at the wrong time.

He offers an alternative explanation that could mislead the opponents because it does not match his hand (presumably West claims both he and East coincidentally "forgot" their agreement about protective 1NT overcalls).

 

North called the TD at the end of play and said that had he known at the time that 1NT could have been weaker he would have rebid 2♠  and his side would have bid game.

I don't believe North but perhaps in the circumstances would give him 10% of 4♠+1 and 10% of 2♠+3 (along with 80% of 2♥+3).

[VixTD]

West asked East to leave the table at the end of the auction and corrected the explanation to 11-14.

Does anyone else want to give West a procedural penalty/fine?

Yes, I do, but I wasn't the TD called to the table, so I didn't get the chance.

 

He asks his partner to leave the table, which he is not entitled to do.

Goody, does that mean I can fine Bluejak when he next does this (please)?

 

I don't believe North but perhaps in the circumstances would give him 10% of 4♠+1 and 10% of 2♠+3 (along with 80% of 2♥+3).

This is pretty much what I suggested, but I think the TD was less impressed with North's argument and ruled that the table result should stand (largely on the grounds that "fewer points with East" does not necessarily add up to "more points with South").

[bluejak]

West asked East to leave the table at the end of the auction and corrected the explanation to 11-14.

Does anyone else want to give West a procedural penalty/fine?

 

He asks his partner to leave the table, which he is not entitled to do.

He corrects partners explanation as a defender before the end of the play, which is at the wrong time.

He offers an alternative explanation that could mislead the opponents because it does not match his hand (presumably West claims both he and East coincidentally "forgot" their agreement about protective 1NT overcalls).

Yes: and I would make a written record and submit it to the L&EC.

[mrdct]

I agree that there is no legal basis for west to ask his partner to leave the table so that he can (presumedly) correct a misexplanation. Only a director can send someone away from the table. In this case the fact that he isn't holding what he's shown looks very dodgey and should at the very least go to the recorder.

 

However, putting aside the UI issues for which the non-offenders would be naturally protected, what if west called the director and said "I wish to seek general advice from you in relation to my rights and responsibilities". Whilst this could be construed as illegally drawing attention to the irregularity of partner's misexplantion, could it then be at the director's discretion to send east away so west can tell everyone what's on his mind?

 

I've seen the situation where, playing without screens, a player alerts something and then upon enquiry announces that he isn't 100% sure what it means after which the director is called who sends the forgetful player away and asks his partner to describe his own bid. I presume the director has discretion to do this, but the players can't do it of their own accord.

[PeterE]

If a player knows that his partner’s call is conventional but says he cannot recall what was actually agreed the Director may in his discretion send the player away from the table and allow the partner to tell opponents in his absence what the agreement is. The Director must be called and no action may be taken before he arrives.

The partner continues in the action on the basis that the player has understood his call, and does not use the unauthorized information that his partner is uncertain of the meaning.

The Director is strongly urged to remain at the table whilst the hand is completed.

This procedure is only for the exact circumstances described; it does not apply when the player says that the position is undiscussed or there is no agreement.

Whilst this could be construed as illegally drawing attention to the irregularity of partner's misexplantion, could it then be at the director's discretion to send east away so west can tell everyone what's on his mind?

No, of course this is a real NO GO, see

(a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may notcorrect the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

(b) 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, which is

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

[wank]

as the write up says the range was asked prior to north's second bid, this implies that north's second action was contingent on the answer he received, which implies he would have taken a different action with a different answer.

 

so i'm more sympathetic to north's argument than other posters have suggested.

[Oof Arted]

He asks his partner to leave the table, which he is not entitled to do.

Goody, does that mean I can fine Bluejak when he next does this (please)?

:D

 

 

I would go further and stick david with the heftiest PP I could think of :D

 

:)

[jallerton]

as the write up says the range was asked prior to north's second bid, this implies that north's second action was contingent on the answer he received, which implies he would have taken a different action with a different answer.

Not quite. It implies that the answer to the question might have had an effect on North's second actions.

 

Players do not generally decide before they ask a question what their actions are going to be in several different scenarios based on the various different answers they might receive. Instead they ask the question, listen to the answer and then decide what to bid.

[greenender]

I don't believe North but perhaps in the circumstances would give him 10% of 4♠+1 and 10% of 2♠+3 (along with 80% of 2♥+3).

This is pretty much what I suggested, but I think the TD was less impressed with North's argument and ruled that the table result should stand (largely on the grounds that "fewer points with East" does not necessarily add up to "more points with South").

Of course fewer points with W "does not necessarily aded up to" more points with S. But it doesn't have to.

 

With 15-17 with W there are 4-6 for S and E combined. With 11-14, it's 7-10. S presumably still has 0-5 of those (as he passed 1♥), but his chances of having something useful have increased somewhat.

 

I agree with wank with the modification suggested by jallerton, and would be more inclined than others to adjust on the basis that N might have taken different action with the "correct" information. Perhaps 20/20/60 rather than 10/10/80.