Yet another MI/(UI?)

[Rossoneri]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk943htdkt8432c65&w=st8hqj73dq97cat43&n=s652h962da5ckqj82&e=saqj7hak854dj6c97&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1hp3cdp4sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

EW were playing 3♣ as a Bergen Raise. However, this was not alerted during the bidding. At the end of the auction before the opening lead, West clarified that 3♣ was a Bergen Raise per their partnership agreement. Director was called and East admitted that he did indeed forget to alert 3♣

 

How would you rule?

[TylerE]

I don't think NS get anything. 4♠ is W a/o G imo, opp. a passed hand. Not sure what I do for EW.

[Chris L]

Presumably North knew 3♣ was a Bergen raise and doubled to show ♣ whereas South didn't and thought the double showed ♠ and ♦, in which case NS appear to have a big double fit - if that is right then I'm not sure I'd be quite so quick to classify 4♠ by South as "wild or gambling". If North has ♠ AQxx and ♦ Axxx, 4♠ will make a lot of the time and even if he doesn't, EW may be cold for 4♥

[RMB1]

Can we rewind a bit.

 

"EW were playing 3♣ as a Bergen Raise."

Is there any evidence, other than West's bid, that their agreement is Bergen.

 

"before the opening lead, West clarified that 3♣ was a Bergen Raise"

West was a defender, yet corrected partner's failure to alert at the end of the auction.

 

"East admitted that he did indeed forget to alert 3♣"

Is there any evidence that East knew 3♣ was Bergen.

 

I don't think 4♠ is SEWoG.

 

I would adjust on the basis that South would pass 3♣X with the correct explanation. West has UI from the failure to alert. For me, East's pass of 3♣X is encouraging (stronger than 3♥) so 4♥ is a logical alternative for West. 4♥ seems to be -1 on a ♣ lead.

 

4♥-1 NS+50 to both sides.

A standard procedural penalty to East/West for West correcting partner's explanation before the end of play.

[blackshoe]

If you're asking how I would rule were I called at the time this director was called, I would explain the relevant laws, and tell the players to play out the hand, and to call me back after that if they felt they were damaged by the MI.

 

I don't think 4♠ was SEWoG, but even if it was, if EW's MI caused damage to NS, EW should get an adjusted score.

 

There are other considerations, as Robin points out.

[Rossoneri]

If you're asking how I would rule were I called at the time this director was called, I would explain the relevant laws, and tell the players to play out the hand, and to call me back after that if they felt they were damaged by the MI.

 

I don't think 4♠ was SEWoG, but even if it was, if EW's MI caused damage to NS, EW should get an adjusted score.

 

There are other considerations, as Robin points out.

 

Well, of course they call you back, because they felt damaged when 4♠ doubled went 2 off! (Life would be so much simpler for us directors if they didn't call us back eh? ;) )

[blackshoe]

4♠X went two off? Good to know. Essential to know, if an adjustment is to be made.

 

Two off is -300. If EW could have made 4♥, there's no damage. However, I agree with Robin — it looks like they might get to 4♥, and it looks like that's down 1. So I agree with Robin's ruling, including the PP. If, that is, I was in fact called back after the play. ;)

[campboy]

What are the possible meanings of an unalerted 3♣ bid in Singapore? Obviously at the table I would ask North why he doubled, but assuming some sensible answer I agree with 4♥-1 to both sides (and the PP).

[mfa1010]

Assuming no surprices in the Singapore alert regulations this seems like a routine adjustment to 4♥-1 for both sides.

 

Sewog is out. If S bids less than 4♠ with this apparent huge double fit we might even be about to consider a fielded misbid... (just kidding :P).

 

I really don't like PPs for such a mini-offense.

[Finch]

I don't get this.

 

Why did North double an unalerted 3C bid? The source of the bad score to NS was the North doubled a (supposedly) natural call meaning it to show length and strength in the suit, and South thought the double was for take-out.

Did anyone ask North why he doubled 3C? Did anyone ask South what he thought the double meant?

 

Has anyone asked NS how they play the double of a 3C Bergen raise? There are two possible meanings: clubs, and take-out of hearts. Perhaps both North and South assumed EW were playing Bergen but didn't agree about the meaning of double.

 

As Robin says, is there any evidence one way or another about how EW actually play this sequence? West has said it has Bergen, and East has agreed with him, although the evidence of the auction is that they didn't have an agreement. What does their convention card say?

[WellSpyder]

Why did North double an unalerted 3C bid? The source of the bad score to NS was the North doubled a (supposedly) natural call meaning it to show length and strength in the suit, and South thought the double was for take-out.

Perhaps North knew (from previous experience of this pair or from the system card) that 3C was artificial. If so, he is not allowed actually to ask about the bid in order to be sure his partner understands his double, is he?

[nige1]

Perhaps North knew (from previous experience of this pair or from the system card) that 3C was artificial. If so, he is not allowed actually to ask about the bid in order to be sure his partner understands his double, is he?

The director tries to establish this kind of thing in the course of his investigation. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, WellSpyder's interpretation is likely..

[bluejak]

Players sometimes make assumptions, possibly out of laziness! Yes, I am speaking from experience! If Bergen is common where this was played, the bidding goes 1♥ pass 3♣ and you have five good clubs, you probably assume it is Bergen without asking, so you double. Since you are right, there is nothing wrong with this.

[campboy]

Perhaps North knew (from previous experience of this pair or from the system card) that 3C was artificial. If so, he is not allowed actually to ask about the bid in order to be sure his partner understands his double, is he?

I think he is allowed to ask, since he is entitled to draw attention to an irregularity. Of course, it does not matter what the legal position is; if North believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was not allowed to ask then he had a perfectly good reason not to.

[mycroft]

Hmm, I'm not so sure about 4H-1 being "likely" - If West bids 4H after this auction (without an explicit agreement about pass showing extras, like Robin has), and it makes, we're rolling it back to 3H, aren't we, from potential use of UI from the failure to Alert? And so West bids 3H. Does East go? Opposite a potential doubleton? What did East think it was when she failed to Alert 3C?

 

In a no-weighted-score world, E/W are -50. N/S may only get -110. Weightings would be different.

 

Yeah, this is definitely a PP situation (at least if E/W are at all experienced), for explaining the agreement at the wrong time. Might have helped the defence, too (HQ lead, East now plays a "suit no-preference" 5 instead of overtaking and playing for the heart ruff).

[mfa1010]

Hmm, I'm not so sure about 4H-1 being "likely" - If West bids 4H after this auction (without an explicit agreement about pass showing extras, like Robin has), and it makes, we're rolling it back to 3H, aren't we, from potential use of UI from the failure to Alert? And so West bids 3H. Does East go? Opposite a potential doubleton? What did East think it was when she failed to Alert 3C?

 

In a no-weighted-score world, E/W are -50. N/S may only get -110. Weightings would be different.

4♥ is the normal contract to reach but it will surely go down with the now indicated club lead and the ♠K offside. Unless we have some particular reason to think that EW are about to miss the good game then 4♥-1 for both sides seems to me to be the logical ruling, regardless if we may use weighted scores or not.

 

(As Frances rightly points out we should remember to check if north's double is not antisystemic, since that would influence on the correction.)

 

Yeah, this is definitely a PP situation (at least if E/W are at all experienced), for explaining the agreement at the wrong time. Might have helped the defence, too (HQ lead, East now plays a "suit no-preference" 5 instead of overtaking and playing for the heart ruff).

It's a different style of using PPs than what I have normally encountered. In our national tournaments we use the criterion that PPs can be handed out in a lone case like this only if the infraction would tend to damage the opponents and the player should have been aware of this. This infraction would not qualify.

[lamford]

"EW were playing 3♣ as a Bergen Raise."

Is there any evidence, other than West's bid, that their agreement is Bergen.

 

<snip>

 

4♥-1 NS+50 to both sides.

A standard procedural penalty to East/West for West correcting partner's explanation before the end of play.

I agree with the ruling, and I think we should always assume that the OP is accurate, and that the establishing of facts by the TD has taken place. The OP does not state "EW thought they were playing ...". North may have inspected his opponents' convention card prior to the round, as he is supposed to do, and doubled 3♣ because he knew it was a Bergen raise. He certainly would not have doubled a natural and game-forcing 3♣! Absolutely no reason for a split score, but a PP is a bit harsh unless E/W are experienced - no real damage resulted from the premature announcement of the lack of an alert, and the intention was to be helpful.

[mycroft]

Hmm, I'm not so sure about 4H-1 being "likely" - If West bids 4H after this auction (without an explicit agreement about pass showing extras, like Robin has), and it makes, we're rolling it back to 3H, aren't we, from potential use of UI from the failure to Alert? And so West bids 3H. Does East go? Opposite a potential doubleton? What did East think it was when she failed to Alert 3C?In a no-weighted-score world, E/W are -50. N/S may only get -110. Weightings would be different.

4♥ is the normal contract to reach

"Normal" isn't relevant to score adjustment - it has the same problem as looking at the traveller. It is certainly the normal contract to reach ab initio, but if, without the MI from the failure to Alert, we say that South will pass (reasonable), then the auction will go 1H-p-3C-X; p-p-3H-p (repeating myself, if West bids 4H, that is clear use of UI). Is East going to raise automatically? Is it "likely" per Law 12C? Can East prove that she knew that it was a Bergen raise, and just forgot to Alert it? Of course, if it is, then it's going to make 9 tricks. But I'm not sure that *at this table* it would be likely reached.

 

Yeah, this is definitely a PP situation (at least if E/W are at all experienced), for explaining the agreement at the wrong time. Might have helped the defence, too (HQ lead, East now plays a "suit no-preference" 5 instead of overtaking and playing for the heart ruff).

It's a different style of using PPs than what I have normally encountered. In our national tournaments we use the criterion that PPs can be handed out in a lone case like this only if the infraction would tend to damage the opponents and the player should have been aware of this. This infraction would not qualify.

If the user is at all experienced, then she should know the proper time to correct MI (they don't, by and large, but they should). Above I gave you the case where it is *very likely to* damage the opponents (remind partner that I have 4 hearts, so partner will not play HA, HK, H for "known" ruff, but will give me a suit-preference signal to my HQ lead); I think that "making sure partner is on the same page so we can defend correctly and with the same ideas of what signals mean" is so obviously "player should have been aware [that it could damage]" as to not require evidence. Sure, on this particular hand, it *didn't* cause damage, but it is very likely to (which, of course, is the reason why defenders are not supposed to correct MI given by partner before the end of the hand, in spite of the additional problems it causes).

[campboy]

"Normal" isn't relevant to score adjustment - it has the same problem as looking at the traveller. It is certainly the normal contract to reach ab initio, but if, without the MI from the failure to Alert, we say that South will pass (reasonable), then the auction will go 1H-p-3C-X; p-p-3H-p (repeating myself, if West bids 4H, that is clear use of UI). Is East going to raise automatically? Is it "likely" per Law 12C? Can East prove that she knew that it was a Bergen raise, and just forgot to Alert it? Of course, if it is, then it's going to make 9 tricks. But I'm not sure that *at this table* it would be likely reached.

Depends on what East thought the 3♣ meant when he didn't alert it. If he thought it was natural and forcing (the only non-alertable meaning in the EBU or ACBL, but I don't know about Singapore) then they will get to 4♥.

[mfa1010]

"Normal" isn't relevant to score adjustment - it has the same problem as looking at the traveller. It is certainly the normal contract to reach ab initio, but if, without the MI from the failure to Alert, we say that South will pass (reasonable), then the auction will go 1H-p-3C-X; p-p-3H-p (repeating myself, if West bids 4H, that is clear use of UI). Is East going to raise automatically? Is it "likely" per Law 12C? Can East prove that she knew that it was a Bergen raise, and just forgot to Alert it? Of course, if it is, then it's going to make 9 tricks. But I'm not sure that *at this table* it would be likely reached.

 

Ok, I think I understand your point now. East's failure to alert creates UI and that UI may prevent EW from bidding a game they would perhaps ordinary have bid.

 

I think this is a tricky argument. I haven't heard such a thing before and I don't have an opinion about it yet. But I think that even with that, it would still be "likely" that EW end up in game:

 

Just because east forgot to alert 3♣, it doesn't mean that it is not "likely" (as per law 12C) that he either knows immediately what it means (and just forgot the alert itself) or that he will remember later when west bids hearts. So east is still "likely" to make the right bid, either directly over 3♣X or as a catch-up later in spite of the missing alert.

 

Opposite a bergen raise east will probably (very "likely") think his hand is worth an invitation or better.

 

So within being "likely", east's pass was (1) systemically invitational, leading to an obvious acceptance by west, (2) just marking time with the intention of bidding game later, or (3) temporary just a pass but when west removes to hearts he will feel compelled to raise to take insurance. In either of those cases (that are "likely") the game will be bid.

[Rossoneri]

EW don't have a convention card. Unfortunately, convention cards are not popular here. (Mostly for reasons jules101 gave above)

 

NS appear to have had a disagreement over what the X of a natural 3♣ mean. Again, difficult to ascertain who is right!

 

I know what I would give as a director, but I was actually playing in another team and sitting out this round when this happened. As it happens, two other directors were around and so the 3 of them considered the issue and gave a split score of 4♥-1 to EW and 4♠-2 to NS.

 

Comments on the ruling? Table result was 4♠X-2

[blackshoe]

Choices have consequences. If you choose to play in places where the culture (if that's the right word) says it's okay to ignore the rules, well, that's your choice.

 

I'd have to go back and reread the entire thread, as I've forgotten all the details spread across two pages of replies, but something about that ruling bothers me. Not sure what.

[mfa1010]

EW don't have a convention card. Unfortunately, convention cards are not popular here. (Mostly for reasons jules101 gave above)

 

NS appear to have had a disagreement over what the X of a natural 3♣ mean. Again, difficult to ascertain who is right!

 

I know what I would give as a director, but I was actually playing in another team and sitting out this round when this happened. As it happens, two other directors were around and so the 3 of them considered the issue and gave a split score of 4♥-1 to EW and 4♠-2 to NS.

 

Comments on the ruling? Table result was 4♠X-2

 

It would be nice to know the directors reasons since there could be a hidden devil in some detail.

 

Did they really correct 4♠X to 4♠, or is that a typo?

 

If, and that is a big if since I don't know their reasoning, they ruled that south's 4♠ was a sewog opposite a takeout double of ♥+♣ then I couldn't disagree more. I say this only because the ruling looks at first glance like a sewog ruling, but we don't know if it was.

[mfa1010]

Choices have consequences. If you choose to play in places where the culture (if that's the right word) says it's okay to ignore the rules, well, that's your choice.

True. If 'nobody' would have a CC then I would not ask for one. I don't like to be pedantic and go around and educate on people. Some do that, I really don't.

In our clubs CC are the norm, and pairs without one would feel that they should have had one.

[mgoetze]

(Post deleted - confused this with another thread.)