Good bid!

[JLOGIC]

( update by uday, vaguely trying to recreate the original post, now lost. )

 

Original post described an unusual call - after a 3S opening, someone with something like

 

-

Axx

AQxx

AKQJx

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=shaxxdaqxxcakq7xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Addition by inquiry... Bud Hinckley reports the the actual hand in question was this one. The bridgewinner website also shows the same hand (with x for the ♣7). In addition, Justin suggested the hand was "something like.... " the one he showed. So we can easily agree the hand Bud submitted is the actual one. [/hv]

 

chose a 6D call which worked out well when his partner tabled a flat weak hand with Kxxx in D. This someone was down approx 40 imps in the 2nd quarter or so , of a long match.

 

This led to a lot of discussion, argument, and perhaps outright shouting as people went back and forth on whether the wiseguy was clever, too clever, not psychic, psychic, and so on.

 

eventually the original poster effectively the original post (replacing it with a big red cry of rage) .

 

I typed this in to create some context. Locking this thread down now.

 

Uday

[jdonn]

Wow. This is so much worse than the one clee posted, and I thought that was bad.

[awm]

I wonder what this person would say if the director simply asked why he decided to bid 6♦? It seems a bit inexplicable to me...

 

Roger's hand at least makes some sense if the person is having a bad set and is trying for a swing board to make the overalls. This one just seems bizarre.

[andy_h]

"fml"

[MFA]

lol, seriously or are you kidding?

[nigel_k]

I am normally very slow to make any kind of accusation. On the other one I thought even just going to the recorder was a bit excessive. On this one, if he had bid 4NT then raised 5♦ I might have assumed he was merely a lunatic. But a direct 6♦ is mind-boggling - for its stupidity apart from anything else.

[JLOGIC]

The rules have to be changed so that common sense can prevail that the 6D bid was based on unauthorized information imo. On the other hand that opens up another can of worms, but it just seems completely wrong to me that there can be no adjustment here if that's true.

[JLOGIC]

lol, seriously or are you kidding?

I am so unbelievably serious right now...

[Cascade]

wtp?

 

Aren't you boys in the US used to canape overcalls?

[tgoodwinsr]

I can imagine no plausible explanation of 6D. Nor can I imagine a player who has some sort of wire that 6D is the objective cannot plan a more plausible route to that contract. So the whole thing is baffling, at least to me. Was there a protest/hearing?

[JLOGIC]

I can imagine no plausible explanation of 6D. Nor can I imagine a player who has some sort of wire that 6D is the objective cannot plan a more plausible route to that contract. So the whole thing is baffling, at least to me. Was there a protest/hearing?

It's tough to find a plausible route to diamonds. Even if you overcall 4N, partner will bid 5C with 4-4 in the minors. Maybe 4N then 5N? But that requires partner to know whats going on/how to bid.

 

I was thinking that if the board was setup it should be something more plausible, but the more plausible it becomes the more likely it is we will find the right contract at the other table. Anyways, it shouldn't be hard but...

[kayin801]

"It's a 3 suited slam forcing takeout obviously, forcing to 6D, 6H, or 7C!"

[jdonn]

I always root for Justin since he is one of my best friends. But wow do I really hope he wins this match.

[manudude03]

Did he mean to bid 6♦? Is it at all plausable that he meant to bid 6♣ and pulled the wrong bid out?

 

But yeah, I would be miffed if that happened against me.

[mrdct]

Did the 6♦ bidder offer any explanation as to why he chose to bid his hand that way? His best bet might be to "own-up" that at the start of the hand when everyone was sorting their cards he caught an "accidental" glance at both of his opponents' hands and was able to deduce that 6♦ was the best spot based on that (albeit dubious) AI. Sure, it's a long bow - but anything else he might proffer will just sound like he cheated.

 

Why on earth are they using hand-dealt boards in such a prestigious event?

 

This one seems so blatant that there must just about be a presumption that the 6♦ bidder was in possession of UI. I'm not 100% on how the laws operate if there is clearly UI on the hand but nobody can pin-point what the UI actually was. Can the TD and/or appeals committee still award an adjusted score?

[TimG]

Why on earth are they using hand-dealt boards in such a prestigious event?

It's the ACBL.

 

This one seems so blatant that there must just about be a presumption that the 6♦ bidder was in possession of UI.  I'm not 100% on how the laws operate if there is clearly UI on the hand but nobody can pin-point what the UI actually was. Can the TD and/or appeals committee still award an adjusted score?

It seems to me that any adjustment would be equivalent to saying this player cheated. And, for that there should be evidence of how the presumed information was obtained.

[blackshoe]

You can't adjust the score unless you can point to a law that says you can adjust the score, and there's no law that says you can adjust the score just because you think there must have been something strange going on.

[Keeper1]

I guess all you can do is file a recorder form...did the directors encourage you to do so, or indiate they would do so themselves?

[mrdct]

Laws 16A3 and 16A4:

3. No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous).

4. If there is a violation of this law causing damage the Director adjusts the score in accordance with Law 12C.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the 6♦ bid could only have been made if the bidder was in possession of "extraneous" UI and therefore the TD, if he makes such an assessment, would be able to award an adjusted score as there has been a violation of Law 16A3.

 

Law 85A1:

1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

In a legal sense "balance of probabilities" is generally synonomous with "more likely than not" which is a much easier threshold to get over than "beyond reasonable doubt" and appears to be a test that could be satisfied in this case.

 

If I was in Justin's shoes, I'd come right out and say "I believe the 6♦ bid was a call based on extraneous information (as there can be no other reasonable explanation for it) and ask that the TD determine the facts in accordance with Law 85A1 and adjust the score accordingly". It would be a good one to take to an appeals committee to get it on the public record.

[aguahombre]

As much as I would like it to go down as Mrdict wrote, I don't think that can happen (currently) unless Justin can allege what extraneous information the player had. I don't think he has to prove it to get to commitee, but must do more than just assume there was some.

 

Anyway, that is what has happened in the past when I tried for a ruling in similar circumstances. In fact, I have been warned to be careful of putting myself at risk.

[kfay]

This is mind blowing.

[Cascade]

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

 

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

[jdonn]

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

 

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

According to the edit in the first post there is a history.

[Cascade]

I don't see why a director cannot ask the player on what basis the 6♦ bid was made. In fact if it is drawn to his attention the director must investigate.

 

As a director I would give a player quite a lot of latitude without more evidence or a history.

According to the edit in the first post there is a history.

I know.

 

I am just trying to emphasize that one can ask this question without necessarily being threatening or accusatory. I seem to get a lot of questions of this type when directing online. Many of which I think don't require further investigation. And many of the others I let go with any semi-reasonable explanation - online it is almost always misclick.

 

Here it is hard to imagine an innocent explanation except perhaps I pulled the wrong card. But if this was drawn to my attention I would want the player to tell me that as it just doesn't seem reasonable that anyone with any experience at all would deliberately offer a four-card suit at this level with no way of getting back to their primary suit.

[mrdct]

Nothing that I can see in the Laws would require Justin to detail precisely what the extraneous information was. All that needs to happen is Justin calls the director and suggests that the 6♦ bid may have been based on extraneous UI. The 6♦ bidder will disagree and come up with some lame explanation for his bid following which the TD is now dealing with a disputed facts situation and has no choice but to follow the procedure set out in Law 85:

LAW 85 - RULINGS ON DISPUTED FACTS

When the Director is called upon to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are not agreed upon, he proceeds as follows:

A. Director’s Assessment

1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

2. If the Director is then satisfied that he has ascertained the facts, he rules as in Law 84.

B. Facts Not Determined

If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue.

As the original post indicates that the TD was in fact called and did in fact rule that the table result stands, one has to assume that the TD either formed an opinion that on the balance of probabilities the 6♦ was not based on extraneous UI or was unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction (the latter being more likely I guess). That decision is, of course, appealable.