was this bid legal?

[helium]

Hi all, i had this hand in a team match for experts today:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=saj10xxhaxdkxxcqxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

and bidding whent, whit me as dealer: 1♠-pass-2♥-pass-2nt-pass-4nt-pass-?

 

and its my turn to bid again, now 2nt-4nt was undiskussed so while my p meant it as rcbw whit spades i thougt it was kvant and bid 6 nt. now rho dbl and p hasitate for a minnute and pass,lho pass and its my turn again.

 

now i trye to se what rho dbl on and can make a fair oppsomsion that he ether have both minor aces or ace king in clubs,if he have to aces it dont matter what i do,couse we are down anyway,but if he have ace king in !C we have a chance in 7 harts if p have good harst and lho dont find the lead.

 

So i bid 7 ♥, left opps dbl again and all pass, west lead a ♠ and this is all hands:

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skqxhkqj10xxxdaqcx&w=sxxxhxdjxxxxcakjx&e=sxxhxxxdxxxcxxxxx&s=saj10xxhaxdkxxcqxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

and the bidding was: 1♠-pass-2♥-pass-2nt-pass-4nt-pass-6nt-dbl-pass-pass-7♥-dbl-all pass

 

 

 

Now my question is: was 7 ♥ an illeagal bid from me given my partners hassitasjon? i whould bid the same if my p pass in a split second so i think the bid is ok, opps wher mad since 7♥ made on a non !C lead and they wanted the board to be stryken from the match( teams no director) what do u think??

 

 

thx for all applies

 

 

kenneth

[inquiry]

Hesitations cause a lot of problems. Your partners hesitation might have been he was considering a redouble or he was considering bidding on to the seven level. Your uncertainty what 4NT was is rather immaterial.

 

After the hesitation, the only ruling needed would be, would a substantial number of liked skilled people make the same bid as you did. I am never sure what that substantial number would be, it could be 30% or so is what I shoot for here.

 

I think the answer is no. A substantial number of people, when invited to bid 6NT via a quantative 4NT, would not bid on to 7♥ on a doubleton honor. I don't even think this is close. So, if I was a director, I would rule 7♥ was not allowed, and the result would be 6NTx down one. Now in the real world, of course, you could then appeal my ruling, and a committee would have to decide if a sustantial number of people of your ability would have bid 7♥. I think the answer to that would have also been no, but then that is why they have committee's, so you can get a consensus of opinion.

 

Does this mean that you would not have bid 7♥ had your partner passed in a flash? Of course not. I belive you when you say you would have. But that is immaterial, because the hesitation could (and in fact did, but that is immaterial) have suggested that 4NT meant something other than what you ended up taking it as.

 

Are you certain this was an all expert game, btw? The second double should not have happened, and and EAST would have 50/50 chance to find correct lead. Second, norht should bid 3♠ first, establishing trumps, then 4NT to make his intentions clear. And clearly 4NT here is quantatitive on the given auction, not roman keycard blackwood.

 

As for what your LHO could have for the double, it could be KQ of spades and a minor ace too, maybe just Spade King and minor ace. and a slow heart trick (like JT98)...

 

Ben

[helium]

Are you certain this was an all expert game, btw? The second double should not have happened, and and EAST would have 50/50 chance to find correct lead. Second, norht should bid 3♠ first, establishing trumps, then 4NT to make his intentions clear. And clearly 4NT here is quantatitive on the given auction, not roman keycard blackwood.

LOL u know how it is, i joind a team match for only real expert:))))

[Fluffy]

I agree that you get 6NT X -1, but opponents are gonna keep 7♥ X = as well since they misslead and also missdoubled 6NT.

[mikestar]

Partner was right to think things over, but he should have bid 7H himself. The auction tipped him that you did not interpret his bid the way he meant it as 6N over RKCB is impossible. Since this can be determined from the auction alone by bridge logic, this is authorized information for partner and he should have acted on it.

 

By the way, from the defender's point of view, this sort of hand is why the Granovetters advocate the "Slam Spade Double" rather than Lightner.

 

This is the double of a slam by the hand not on lead when there are at least two suits which the opponent have not bid. The double directs a lead in the highest ranking "unbid" (unbid by them, we might have bid it) suit.

 

Here, double would call for a diamond, so pass says don't lead a diamond. East leads a club as he is too short in spades to think West might be void.

 

Note that when West does have the Lightner hand with the spade void, East will often be able to diagnose it from his hand and the failure to double.

[JRG]

I agree that you get 6NT X -1,  but opponents are gonna keep 7♥ X = as well since they misslead and also missdoubled 6NT.

I believe I disagree with your ruling. The first thing is to identify the facts clearly. The 7♥ bid was made based on unauthorized information. That appears to be undisputed. What was not clear, was when was the director called.

 

In any case, it is clear that the 7♥ bidders were the "offenders" and the other side were the non-offenders. If you are going to award an adjusted score (which the Laws require), then either it will be same result for both pairs or (Law 12 C2 - 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 favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. ...

 

The objective is to protect the non-offenders against the effect of the irregularity, not punish them because they couldn't figure out what to do. Personally, I think the time to call the director was when the 7♥ bid was made.

 

In any case, "had the irregularity not occurred" then the non-offenders would have been defending 6NT Doubled and the result is clear (down 1) so that is what they should get.

 

Now to see what the offenders should get. Note that the Law does not say it is simply a choice between what the non-offenders get and the table result. The result should be "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". So what are the probable results?

 

Clearly 7♥ Doubled making is one probable result (after all, that is what happened at the table).

So is 7♥ Doubled down one (on a ♣ lead).

 

Clearly down one is is the most unfavourable, and that is what they should get.

 

If (and I know this is not the case on the hand in question), 6NT would go down 3 doubled and 7♥ only one doubled, they would get the score for 6NT doubled down 3.

 

Now in the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" published by the European Bridge League (I have mentioned elsewhere that I'm reading this interesting book), examples are given where the Director (or Appeals Committee) gave an additional penalty to the offenders (so far I've only seen 10% used) "for a breach of the laws on propriety". This only appears to be done when the offending pair is an experienced pair (who should, presumably, have known better). However, I still haven't found anything in the Laws that supports doing this. Law 16 describes how to rule in the case of Unauthorized Information and Law 12 discusses Adjusted Scores. The Laws are very explicit on what things fall under "Procedural Penalties" (Law 90). If anyone can assist me in determining whether a Director is allowed to do this (i.e. assess an aditional penalty "for a breach of the laws on propriety"), I would be appreciative.

[inquiry]

In any case, it is clear that the 7♥ bidders were the "offenders" and the other side were the non-offenders. If you are going to award an adjusted score (which the Laws require), then either it will be same result for both pairs or (Law 12 C2 - Assigned Score):

I am not certain this is always the case. In this example, I happen to agree, that the result should be 6NTx down one for both.

 

However, there can be examples where one side created an offense, and the other side used such bad bridge judgement, the offending side can not be allowed to profit from their action but the non-offending side are not excused from their blunder.

 

Ben

[1eyedjack]

The 7♥ bid was made based on unauthorized information. That appears to be undisputed.

Permit me to dispute it, then.

 

From the original post, the bid of 7♥ was cogently thought through based on the transfer of opening lead and possibility that the double was based on AK rather than two Aces.

 

Yes he was in receipt of UI. That is a far cry from saying that the bid was based on that UI. The law does not distinguish, of course.

[JRG]

In any case, it is clear that the 7♥ bidders were the "offenders" and the other side were the non-offenders. If you are going to award an adjusted score (which the Laws require), then either it will be same result for both pairs or (Law 12 C2 - Assigned Score):

I am not certain this is always the case. In this example, I happen to agree, that the result should be 6NTx down one for both.

 

However, there can be examples where one side created an offense, and the other side used such bad bridge judgement, the offending side can not be allowed to profit from their action but the non-offending side are not excused from their blunder.

 

Ben

Yes, I've heard of this being done (I'm sure cases in The Bridge World, or ACBL Bulletin); however, I've been unable to find anywhere in the Laws the justification for doing so.

 

In general:

 

In a way it sounds fair ("bad bridge deserves bad results"); however, if the non-offenders had managed to survive the deal up to the time of the irregularity, then it is the irregularity that put the non-offenders in a position to mess up -- and the irregularity should not have occurred. So why should the non-offenders be punished because there was an irregularity?

 

Now a different kettle of fish is when the non-offenders wait until the deal is over before calling the director. Again it is something I haven't been able to find in the Laws, but I know there are examples that have been discussed in The Bridge World. Appeals Committees have made their rulings so as to prevent a pair from having a "Double Shot". That is, if the "non-offending" side knows an irregularity has occurred and does not call the director at that point, then they will be under suspicion of taking a double shot -- if the result they achieve at the table is good, they might not have called the Director; but since the result was bad, they did call.

[Free]

I think this is one of these cases where the rules are quite stupid. If partner passes fast, you can bid whatever you want, but because he thinks you get punished?? :lol: It's obvious our LHO has 2 tricks in NT, so the best spot is 7M. Even if partner doesn't think, my line of thinking is the exact same...

 

I don't say we have to ignore the rules that exist, just that in this case they really suck. Some rules should really be updated!

[inquiry]

The non-offending side has the right to earn a top, after the offense, with some kind of manuever. But if they can earn a top after an offense (without a ruling), they also, sometimes, have to bear the result when they earn a bottom. This does not excuse the offending side, of course. And in this example, the result should be 6NTx down one for both sides. I will see if I can find the rule.

 

Ben

[jtfanclub]

I have the idea that West led a spade instead of the obvious (and called for) club because he figured if he waited and got his clubs, he'd get a top board at -2, but if he waited and didn't get his clubs, he'd call the director?

 

Is that a strange thing to think?

[inquiry]

I have the idea that West led a spade instead of the obvious (and called for) club because he figured if he waited and got his clubs, he'd get a top board at -2, but if he waited and didn't get his clubs, he'd call the director?

 

Is that a strange thing to think?

Yes that is a strange thing to think, simply because EAST, not WEST was on the opening lead.

[jtfanclub]

I have the idea that West led a spade instead of the obvious (and called for) club because he figured if he waited and got his clubs, he'd get a top board at -2, but if he waited and didn't get his clubs, he'd call the director?

 

Is that a strange thing to think?

Yes that is a strange thing to think, simply because EAST, not WEST was on the opening lead.

So i bid 7 ♥, left opps dbl again and all pass, west lead a ♠ and this is all hands:

 

I only believes what they tells me. And they tells me west led.

[1eyedjack]

I think this is one of these cases where the rules are quite stupid. If partner passes fast, you can bid whatever you want, but because he thinks you get punished?? :lol: It's obvious our LHO has 2 tricks in NT, so the best spot is 7M. Even if partner doesn't think, my line of thinking is the exact same...

 

I don't say we have to ignore the rules that exist, just that in this case they really suck. Some rules should really be updated!

The rules do protect you to some degree, Free. If bidding 7 is that obvious (typically, I think, if 70% of peers would do the same, but that may depend on country) then there would be no adjustment.

[paulhar]

Now a different kettle of fish is when the non-offenders wait until the deal is over before calling the director. Again it is something I haven't been able to find in the Laws, but I know there are examples that have been discussed in The Bridge World. Appeals Committees have made their rulings so as to prevent a pair from having a "Double Shot".

In my experience, the director when called immediately, says "Go ahead and play the hand, call me back if there's a problem." Of course if 7H goes down, there's no problem, so the defenders get their double shot anyway.

[inquiry]

I don't say we have to ignore the rules that exist, just that in this case they really suck. Some rules should really be updated!

I think this is one of the best rules in bridge.. .and most definetly does not suck. You CAN take an action over your partner's huddle, as long as a reasonable percentage (not a majority) would have done the same.

 

Here, as I told helium, I have NO DOUBT that he would he ahve bid 7H in a flash if his partner passed in tempo. And an argument can be made that partner was considering redoubling rather than bidding on to 7, so no particular action was specifically suggested by the hesitation. But having said that, hesitations cause ethical problems all the time. I frequently end up passing when normally my agreesive nature would ahve been to bid when my patner hesitates. The reason being, after the hesitation the bid is "Easier to find", and in cases where I judge I am out there on a limb by myself (if partner had passed), I know that I can not bid because of this rule.

 

As an aside.. if I hestitate a long time, I almost always do something (unless I am in fourth seat) to avoid causing such problems for my partner.

 

Here, I seriously doubt you could get a reasonable number of people to say 7H is what they would bid over the double. And if fact, the "he has two aces or AK of clubs" theory is terrribly flawed in that he could have KQ of spades and a minor suit ACE, for instance and being on lead. Or Spade King, Diamond Ace, good hearts (knowing hearts are not breaking).... the "hypothetical either or" is not a very good one. And 6NT might be down one, but six hearts due to a bad trump split (5-1 for instance) mgiht go for a ton. Of course, like I said earlier.. send it to committee and see what they say... if they all go "yea, 7H on doubleton ACE and a 14 count look right to me", then the director would be overruled.

 

Ben

[epeeist]

Since some of the discussion seemed to be about breaks in tempo generally (not just the instance given by the original poster), this past thread (involving complaint and discussion of director ruling no problem with delay) might be of interest:

 

http://bridgebase.lunarpages.com/~bridge2/...?showtopic=3085

 

In the online setting, there are so many possible sources of delay (most common for me is waiting for some opponents to properly explain what certain bids mean :lol: ), lagtime, real-life intruding, etc. that I can't see any scope for the sort of break in tempo rulings you see in f2f bridge (e.g. "south didn't show 'stop' card when making a skip bid, but despite this according to N/S west waited 20 seconds before bidding, E/W dispute this and said it was at most 10-15 seconds and N/S shouldn't be able to complain since didn't follow recommended practice of showing stop card before making skip bid etc...." or "the tray took 35 seconds to come back from the other side of the screen, and in the situation it was clear that most of the time had been taken by the doubler...").

[helium]

:P

[JRG]

Now a different kettle of fish is when the non-offenders wait until the deal is over before calling the director. Again it is something I haven't been able to find in the Laws, but I know there are examples that have been discussed in The Bridge World. Appeals Committees have made their rulings so as to prevent a pair from having a "Double Shot".

In my experience, the director when called immediately, says "Go ahead and play the hand, call me back if there's a problem." Of course if 7H goes down, there's no problem, so the defenders get their double shot anyway.

The law on unauthorized information states explicitly (Law 16A2), "When Illegal Alternative is Chosen: When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage."

 

So, the director is supposed to have play continue. If he is a non-playing director and doesn't have other calls to attend to, he may very well stand back and watch the rest of the deal. There should be no double shot. Having said that, I'm sure that (as in all walks of life) not all directors have the same degree of competency.

 

I hope to be competent, but only time will tell. I certainly have the opportunity as I'm lucky enough to have the Chief Tournament Director for the zone as a mentor (and he isn't wishy-washy in his critique).

[TimG]

After the hesitation, the only ruling needed would be, would a substantial number of liked skilled people make the same bid as you did. I am never sure what that substantial number would be, it could be 30% or so is what I shoot for here.

I believe this is wrong. After a hesitation, the question is: did the player choose form amongst logical alternatives one which could have been suggested by the UI. It doesn't matter if 90% of the players peers would have taken the same action absent the UI, so long as the action was sugegsted and there were logical alternatives the action should not be allowed.

 

Of course he did have UI. After a quantitative (non-forcing) invitation to slam, the person who invites doesn't think about redoubling the slam contract, he's thinking about pulling to seven of a suit. The hesitation suggested doubt about 6NT and thus bidding on.

 

Is passing 6NT doubled a logical alternative. Sure it is: a significant percantage of experts would consider passing. And, that's all you need to determine if it is a LA.

 

Ruling: roll it back to 6NT doubled, down one. If the offending side appeals, keep their deposit money.

 

Tim

[TimG]

Hi all, i had this hand in a team match for experts today:

 

and bidding whent, whit me as dealer: 1♠-pass-2♥-pass-2nt-pass-4nt-pass-?

"Experts" on BBO will get this wrong all the time. Experts in the real world seem to have trouble with RKC.

 

We don't, however, have enough information to know how trumps should have been set before the intended keycard ask. If they were playing 2/1, 3♥ or 3♠ over 2NT would have set trumps, not playing 2/1, either of those bids might have been invitational.

[inquiry]

After the hesitation, the only ruling needed would be, would a substantial number of liked skilled people make the same bid as you did. I am never sure what that substantial number would be, it could be 30% or so is what I shoot for here.

I believe this is wrong. After a hesitation, the question is: did the player choose form amongst logical alternatives one which could have been suggested by the UI. It doesn't matter if 90% of the players peers would have taken the same action absent the UI, so long as the action was sugegsted and there were logical alternatives the action should not be allowed.

Well, I am no expert on the laws, so take this with a grain of salt... but....

 

The definition seems to me that the player taking an action after a hesitation has to force himself to choose between logical alternatives. Clearly he has to choose a logical one. For example, imagine 6NTx rolls home, can you penalize the player for passing after the hesitation? Pass is clearly a logical alteranative. Can you penalize his for REDOUBLING if it makes?

 

It is my belief from years of reading how would you rule bridge world, that the definition of "logical alternatives" is that barring the hesitation, a substantial percentage (what that is seems to change, sometimes 25%, some times 30%, etc, depending upon the editor/author) of "liked skilled players" would have made the same bid. My personal belief, is that it would have to be a higher percentage (more like 60% would have made the bid, becasue you are "safer" in making it after the hesitiation...but there you go).

 

But in any case, on htis hand, helium's bid would have to be rolled back, and the result changed... on this, the great majority of us clearly agree.

 

Ben

[TimG]

The definition seems to me that the player taking an action after a hesitation has to force himself to choose between logical alternatives. Clearly he has to choose a logical one. For example, imagine 6NTx rolls home, can you penalize the player for passing after the hesitation? Pass is clearly a logical alteranative. Can you penalize his for REDOUBLING if it makes?

First you have to determine what was suggested by the UI. If bidding on was suggested and the player passes, you cannot force him to bid. But, if passing was suggested and and he passed, you could certainly impose a bid (or redouble).

 

In this case, pass is a logical alternative, but not one that is suggested by the hesitation. So, if the player had passed and that turned out well, there would be no adjustment.

 

Tim