Is the ruling correct?

[twcho]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sa4hk97d9765ca642&w=s6hqj852dq832cj75&e=skqj82hat4dakjt4c&s=st9753h63dckqt983]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

It is a pairs event (not online). The bidding is as follows:

 

W______N______E______S

_______1NT(1)_X(2)___3C(3)

P(4)___3D(5)__X(6)___3S(7)

P______4C(8)__All Pass(9)

(1) 12-14

(2) Penalty, equal strength +

(3) Alerted and explained by N to both E & W in paper (South not knowing the explanation) as rubenshohl, inv+ in D

(4) After the explanation, west decided his hand not good enough to bid

(5) Since submin, settle for 3D

(6) Penalty again

(7) No alert was given by N this time

(8) Realize that his pd's hand must not be the same as his explanation

(9) Don't know why there was no further action from EW

 

West led a D and after the 1st D was ruffed by south, he called the director complaining there was misexplanation by NS. Director asked all the players to continue the play. Result 4C-1. West then told the director if he knows that 3C was not rubensohl, he will bid 3H and his pd will surely raise to 4H (doubtful imo, may easily go overboard).

 

Director asked for the convention card of NS. In the convention card, it is stated that NS plays rubensohl after opp's overcall but play escape method after opp's penalty double (However, the escape method stated in the convention card cease at 2S which is a natural call, no higher bid explanation is given).

 

The ruling, table result not stand, correct to 4H by west just make. Director said that this was the possible most favourable result for the non offending side. As the result of this ruling, 4H was a top bd for EW and 0 for NS (a side note, EW won the event because of this ruling over the 2nd pair within 2MP).

 

Questions:

(1) Should EW be awarded the most favorable result?

(2) Is there any responsibility by W of not taking any action noting that the obvious escape by S after the double of 3D and also the pass of 4C? W for sure knows that N has misinterpreted S bid. So is W taking a two-way shot?

(3) Can S bid on even if as suggested by W that he will bid 3H and E will raise to 4H? Can S bid 4S to offer contract for sacrifice and thus 4H shouldn't be the final contract?

(4) Is it fair to both sides receiving such score from this board (probably yes for NS but is it fair to adjust a top to EW)?

(5) Can split result be awarded to two sides?

[Free]

I'm not a TD, but if you state that East would SURE bid 4♥, then North would SURE lead a ♦ and defeat 4♥ by 2 ♦ ruffs, ♠A, and a trump in North. So if EW are sure they missed their 4♥ contract, I'd change the score to +50 for NS and -50 for EW :) It's not because they explained wrong that they cannot have any chance of a good defense imo.

[hrothgar]

Hi Twcho:

 

I'd strongly recommend posting your question to the Bridge Laws mailing list. Much better source of information regarding rulings in a face-to-face playing environment.

[mikestar]

The relevant paragraph of Law 12C:

 

2. Assigned Score

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

 

In general, prevent gain by an irregularity is a higher ranked goal than redressing damage. So EW should get the normal result if the irregularity had not occured,. geting the better of two fairly equally likely normal results. They should not get an unusually good result.

 

NS should get the worst result that was resonable, that is might unusual but isn't freakish. 4H= is right for NS but I'm less certain about EW--I'm not so sure West will bid 3H, but it is a reasonal suppostion that if he does, East will bid 4. This is a hand that I might adjust in matchpoints giving EW something between their table result and the top for 4H=, while giving NS the bottom, letting the table result stand for matchpointing the other tables.

 

 

By the way, 4H makes against a two diamond ruffs--after the ruffs are taken, the Queen of diamonds is an entry to allow the trump finesse.

[jtfanclub]

Most confused I am. What is the argument for adjustment?

 

1. That North deliberately misalerted? That seems unlikely.

2. That South 'woke up' after North's explanation? That seems equally unlikely.

3. That South figured out something was up after the 3♠ bid? That's bridge.

4. That North didn't explain the misunderstanding after the bidding was over?

That's not going to get you 4♥.

 

In face to face bridge, you don't have the right to know what a bid means- you only have the right to know what the partner of the bidder believes is the special meaning, if any.

 

Example (from an actual club I was playing in).

 

1NT X 2♦ P 2♦ announced as transfer.

2♥ P P P

 

Turns out that 2♦ is not transfer, and they get a good result because the opps don't lead trumps to start. No adjustment.

 

Now, if North had bid 3♥ and South had pulled it, I'd be suspicious. But it has to be right to pull with a void.b

[whereagles]

Hi mikestar,

 

You can also try posting your question at the Bridgetalk laws forum.

 

In this case, and being a Director myself, I rule there was misinformation, but it is not clear how the misinformation caused damage, since after South's pass to 4C, the N/S mix up is obvious, and West might have called 4D now. Since this is not a clear-cut problem, I would ask a few peers what they'd do with West's cards over 3C, with the correct information that 3C showed a weak hand with clubs. According to that I might adjust to some number of hearts or diamonds by E/W, depending on how I judge the bidding would be likely to go.

 

But please put your question to the BLML mailing list or at the Bridgetalk forum. Every Director has his own view on how to handle complicated cases, so it's always nice to see the matter from different perspectives.

[Free]

By the way, 4H makes against a two diamond ruffs--after the ruffs are taken, the Queen of diamonds is an entry to allow the trump finesse.

No it doesn't, since the table has to ruff a ♣ return, and is short on trumps to finesse the K out. Or don't ruff ♣A and lose a ♣ for -1...