A ruling decision

[mr1303]

Auction went:

 

1D (2D) X (2H)

X (3C) P (3H)

X (4C) 4S

 

1D was alerted. Opps didn't ask, but were aware that we were playing precision

2D was alerted as michaels. The actual hand was both minors, 5 diamonds to the KJ, around a 9 count.

 

4S made up one, but I wasn't happy (I was declarer) about the auction and called the director, who adjusted to 2HX-6.

 

Was this ruling fair? Whilst I believe this is correct according to the laws (correct me if I'm wrong) everyone was dissatisfied at the result, which turned the match completely in our favour.

 

Comments would be welcomed

[hrothgar]

Who alerted the 2♦ bid?

[jtfanclub]

Auction went:

 

1D (2D) X (2H)

X (3C) P (3H)

X (4C) 4S

 

1D was alerted. Opps didn't ask, but were aware that we were playing precision

2D was alerted as michaels. The actual hand was both minors, 5 diamonds to the KJ, around a 9 count.

 

4S made up one, but I wasn't happy (I was declarer) about the auction and called the director, who adjusted to 2HX-6.

 

Was this ruling fair? Whilst I believe this is correct according to the laws (correct me if I'm wrong) everyone was dissatisfied at the result, which turned the match completely in our favour.

 

Comments would be welcomed

I don't see any evidence that the partner of the 2D bidder believed it was anything but Michaels. In fact, he/she even bid 3H to 'correct'.

 

Maybe I'm just confused. What exactly was the complaint? That the 2D bidder knew he didn't have a Michaels hand? That's not exactly unauthorized information. Or was he told somehow by his partner through the alert process that his partner was bidding Michaels?

 

As long as the 2H bidder had no reason to think it wasn't Michaels, and the 2D bidder wasn't told through table talk that the 2H bidder thought it was Michaels, I don't see the problem, whether it was a mistake or a psyche.

[TimG]

It seems to me that the reason for the post is that the 2♦ bidder intended his bid as natural and was given UI by his partner's alert and explanation of the 2♦ bid as Michaels. Without the UI, there might be no reason to run from 2♥ doubled. Of course, all this seem a bit strange in an online environment because no one should see their partner's alerts or explanations.

[helium]

hi all;)

I dont think the ruling was fair, u should not bid 4 ♠ but X 4 ♣ and call the director. now it loos like u are "safing" a great score by bidding 4 ♠ and when u see that was only midle score call director and complaine.

sry but i thing 4 ♠ +1 was a fair result for u and opps got of whit a scare for forgetting the system

 

 

kenneth

[hotShot]

Well i don't think the ruling is correct.

 

At BBO one can only explain ones own bidding, so th 2♦ bidder must have alerted his bid as michaels.

 

His Partner must see this as both majors. He picks ♥ and when his p bids ♣ showing a very strong hand probably with a diamond void. He corrects to ♥ showing a very weak hand.

 

Without the hand shown i see no reason to believe he knew that p did not bid correctly.

 

After 4♣ from his p (a strange bid) and 4♠ from your side he has the perfectly legal information that something might be wrong. If not his P can dbl the 4♠ contract so he is save to pass.

 

Still no reason to belive that this Opponent made something wrong.

 

So did the bidder of 2♦ give you a wrong explanation or did he make a mistake (wrong bid)?

His explanation must cover the partnership agreement not his actual hand. (This is where a CC comes in handy to prove the bid was wrong) His partner acted as if Michaels was the agreement, but when in doubt the TD should asume wrong explanation.

 

So there might be reason to adjust, but to what contract?

 

The question is how did the 2♦ bidder get aware, that his bid was wrong?

In f2f bridge this can happen if his p gives an alert., this cannot be the case on BBO.

So it is likely that his wrong bid was either a deliberate psyche or some sort of mistake. If he did not get the UI from his partner that his bid was wrong, than he is allowed to bid. Here on BBO it is very likely that he had legal information that his bid was wrong.

So if the 2♦ opener has reason to believe that dbl on 2♥ is penalty, he is allowed to bid.

Now we come to the interesting part. If your side did not bid 4♠, your other opponent would have been in big trouble, because he has to act on the base that his p has a very strong hand with both major suits, i don't think it would be legal to pass 4♣.

 

But your bid of 4♠ took him of the hook, now he has legal information that something is wrong with his p bid and he does not have to bid to keep the bidding alive.

 

So let us say there was a infriction, but was there a damage?

Even though you believed that one of your opps had 5 ♠ cards in his hand you reached you ♠ contract, and made it. Since you made only 5, you did not miss a slam. So it seems you where not damaged by the wrong explanation, so a score correction is unneccesary.

 

In f2f bridge your opps would have earned some sort of procedural penalty, because they had no CC and did not know their own system.

[mink]

Without knowing the exact hands of your opps and assuming that the 2♦-bidder alerted and explaind his bid himself, I would think that he either did not know what is Michaels or he psyched. Even if he really thought that Micheals meant that 2♦ would be for the minors, this is no misinformation as long as his partner's bidding suggests that they really agreed on Michaels (e.g. partner bid ♥ twice on a 2=3 distribution of the majors). So there is nothing to do for the director, as errors (such as a wrong idea of how some convention is defined) are not punished, even if they turn out to be lucky for the erroneous side.

 

However, the declarer side is not required to accept the explanation "Micheals". So after he bid 3♣ I might have asked by private chat "I do not know 'Micheals'. Can you explain please?". The answer would make everything clear.

 

Karl