SEoW?

[Fluffy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq62h6dq7643cq984&w=sj983hakq72dk2cjt&n=sakh9dj985ck76532&e=st754hjt8543datca&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1c1h2d4hp(long%20hesitation)p5dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

 

5♦ went 3 off undoubled for a good score NS since most pairs scored 420 or 450 EW, not doubling seems poor bridge, but not wild nor gambling.

 

On the other hand to score 450, you need the spade honnors to crash since ruff&discard is not enough, yet a couple of pairs managed to

[Cascade]

Whatever else unless south is extremely inexperienced or very prone to extreme gambling actions 5♦ seems clearly to be trying to take advantage from their partner's break in tempo.

 

I mean who vulnerable against not rebids a queen empty five-card suit at the five level opposite a potential minimum opening hand?

 

I impose a procedural penalty against south on top of any other adjustment. I am inclined to make this one as harsh as I can.

 

It doesn't seem that either east or west have clear doubles. East has two bullets but partner isn't guaranteeing or necessarily likely to have a defensive trick and west's five card support to partner's overcall is hardly defensive.

[mrdct]

I'm definately not going to let north-south keep their table result as the 5♦ bid by south is blatant use of UI. I'll also give serious consideration to issuing a PP or at least a warning to south depending on his/her experience and form.

 

I think it's a moderately difficult hand for east-west to work out who is sacrificing and who is bidding to make. The TD should make some enquiries about the east-west one-level overcalling style at favourable vulnerability and what agreements, if any, they have about forcing pass situations. My preliminary view is that whilst letting north-south play 5♦ undoubled is poor bridge, it's not a SEWoG.

[Fluffy]

ok, but if correcting, are you corecting to 450 or 420?

[mrdct]

ok, but if correcting, are you corecting to 450 or 420?

If permitted by the relevant NBO, I would give a weighted score probably reflecting the portion of tables where the overtrick was achieved as there is certainly a non-zero chance that the ♠ honours will crash; but otherwise east-west will have to make do with 420.

[wyman]

is 5d actually demonstrably suggested by the ui?

 

south has clubs, north can be thinking about x'ing, bidding clubs, whatever.

[aguahombre]

E/W were put in the position of whether to double 5D because of South's use of UI. Gotta roll it back.

 

Would E/W have had the huevos to call the TD if they had doubled, gotten their 800, and wanted the PP ruling against N/S also? I hope so.

[Cascade]

is 5d actually demonstrably suggested by the ui?

 

south has clubs, north can be thinking about x'ing, bidding clubs, whatever.

 

Law 16 disallows logical alternatives that have been demonstrably suggested.

 

Law 73 has in my opinion a stronger requirement to carefully avoid taking advantage.

 

It seems clear here that south was attempting to take advantage of the additional information even if his final decision was a bad one. This needs to be discouraged.

 

Like David I would give a weighted score for east-west between 4H= and 4H+1. Given the information provided I would weight 4H more strongly. I believe that I am supposed to err on doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders. So if say 10% made 11 tricks then I might actually be inclined to give 15% or 20% for that result and the remainder for 10 tricks.

 

If a weighted score is not an option then I am inclined to give the non-offenders the most favourable result of 11 tricks. Otherwise I am necessarily punishing them as they have lost the opportunity to make 11 tricks as some declarers did.

[blackshoe]

If permitted by the relevant NBO, I would give a weighted score probably reflecting the portion of tables where the overtrick was achieved as there is certainly a non-zero chance that the ♠ honours will crash; but otherwise east-west will have to make do with 420.

 

You should never look at what happened at other tables in making a ruling like this.

[mrdct]

You should never look at what happened at other tables in making a ruling like this.

Says who?

 

The Laws require the TD to make an assessment of the probabilities of the various potential results. This can be done in a number of ways including:

 

- looking at the double-dummy analysis (Deep Finese, GIB, etc.) albeit with a large grain of salt but still a reasonable starting point;

- applying his own bridge skill and knowledge as to the likely leads, defences and lines of play;

- consulting with other other players and/or TDs as to how they may have declared or defended the hand;

- examining empirical evidence of what actually happened when the board was played at other tables.

[blackshoe]

Says me. And I'm not alone. B-) If you are certain that the bidding went the same way at all the other tables, sure, use it. If the bidding was different, then you have to throw that result out of your calculations. If the players at the other tables aren't peers of these players, again the results are not relevant to what these players might have done.

 

Eighteen clones of Meckwell play this board at nine other tables. Four clones of Mrs. Guggenheim play it at this table. Do you really think the results at the other nine tables bear any resemblance to the possible results here? Perhaps if it's a very easy and obvious hand. Maybe.

[Cascade]

Says me. And I'm not alone. B-) If you are certain that the bidding went the same way at all the other tables, sure, use it. If the bidding was different, then you have to throw that result out of your calculations. If the players at the other tables aren't peers of these players, again the results are not relevant to what these players might have done.

 

Eighteen clones of Meckwell play this board at nine other tables. Four clones of Mrs. Guggenheim play it at this table. Do you really think the results at the other nine tables bear any resemblance to the possible results here? Perhaps if it's a very easy and obvious hand. Maybe.

 

None of this suggests never.

 

There is valuable information in how the board is played at other tables. Sure the information is biased but why can't it be used? It seems throwing it out is throwing out valuable even if imperfect information.

[gnasher]

Says me. And I'm not alone. B-) If you are certain that the bidding went the same way at all the other tables, sure, use it. If the bidding was different, then you have to throw that result out of your calculations. If the players at the other tables aren't peers of these players, again the results are not relevant to what these players might have done.

 

Eighteen clones of Meckwell play this board at nine other tables. Four clones of Mrs. Guggenheim play it at this table. Do you really think the results at the other nine tables bear any resemblance to the possible results here? Perhaps if it's a very easy and obvious hand. Maybe.

 

It's still evidence. It's possible to use evidence without relying on it.

 

Suppose, for example, that the director judged that 4♥ would never make 11 tricks, regardless of the auction. The director could use the results from other tables to test that judgement. If he found that several players had made 11 tricks, he could then ask those declarers what the bidding and play had been. This might enhance his understanding of when and how it was possible to make 11 tricks.

[WellSpyder]

Would E/W have had the huevos to call the TD if they had doubled, gotten their 800, and wanted the PP ruling against N/S also? I hope so.

I remember asking once on these forums whether it was considered appropriate to call the TD if the only action they could take would be a PP (as postulated here, I thought oppo had blatantly used UI, but had got a worse score as a result). The consensus appeared to be that people did not agree with calling the TD if there was no damage.

[Cyberyeti]

This is a difficult one for me:

 

There is UI and it clearly suggests acting over not acting

 

To me the actions suggested are 4N and 5♣

 

5♦ is not suggested to me at all (why doesn't partner have 7, 8 or 9 clubs)

 

Not doubling 5♦ is certainly not a serious error

 

Having drawn these conclusions, I'm not sure where to go on the ruling.

[hotShot]

I'm often surprised what people think is suggested by a hesitation.

 

Are you sure that North opening together with South 2 level answer does not create a forcing pass situation for this pair?

Was North sure?

Did South knew for sure, that North pass was not forcing?

From South point of view, holding a single ♥ a penalty dbl by North is not unthinkable, and I don't think that North needs extra values to dbl since South volunteered to bid 2♦.

 

If North pass was understood as forcing, than pass was no option for South and 5♣ was suggested by the hesitation.

What would 4NT mean in this sequence for that pair? If it's pick a minor it has been suggested, if it's ♥ stopper and/or values it no option holding South cards.

 

I need to know more before I make a judgment.

[Fluffy]

for this concrete pair of godzillas, they never heard of forcing pass, and 4NT is always blackwood

[hotShot]

for this concrete pair of godzillas, they never heard of forcing pass, and 4NT is always blackwood

 

I guess that means they don't know much about bridge laws and ethics too.

[billw55]

Perhaps a split score is appropriate, if allowed in this jurisdiction. -450 for NS, +420 for EW.

[aguahombre]

I remember asking once on these forums whether it was considered appropriate to call the TD if the only action they could take would be a PP (as postulated here, I thought oppo had blatantly used UI, but had got a worse score as a result). The consensus appeared to be that people did not agree with calling the TD if there was no damage.

The same ones who preach that the director should be called when there has been an infraction?

[campboy]

Perhaps a split score is appropriate, if allowed in this jurisdiction. -450 for NS, +420 for EW.

Assuming this happened in Spain we are in weighted score rather than split score territory. A split score would be appropriate in the ACBL (which uses 12C1e rather than 12C1c), though, if you adjust at all.

 

Personally I think bidding on is suggested so I would adjust. It is true that 5♦ is not likely to work very well even with North's hesitation, but it is more likely to work than it would be without the hesitation.

[wyman]

I'd go so far as to claim that 5D is not a logical alternative for south.

[blackshoe]

The laws are pretty clear. Only the director can determine rectifications (Law 10). There is no obligation to draw attention to an irregularity committed by one's own side (Law 9A4), however, if attention is drawn to one, the director should be called (Law 9B1{a}). When a player has "substantial reason" to believe that an opponent has used UI, he should call the director when play ends (Law 16B3). Note that Law 16B3 does not say anything about the player's estimation of damage. When the law says a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction (Introduction to the Laws). All of this leads to the conclusion that if you believe there has been an infraction, and if attention has been drawn to it, not calling the director is itself an infraction, so call him. If no one has called attention to it, but you have "substantial reason" to believe it has occurred, you should still call him. Your best guess that "only a PP" could be applied is not relevant — even if you're the ghost of Edgar Kaplan. If it's not a UI situation, the law may be less clear, but I think the effect of Laws 9 and 10 is that if you believe an irregularity has been committed by an opponent, you ought to draw attention to it, and once that happens, the director should be called.

 

I'm not preaching, I'm simply following the logic of the laws.

[pran]

I remember asking once on these forums whether it was considered appropriate to call the TD if the only action they could take would be a PP (as postulated here, I thought oppo had blatantly used UI, but had got a worse score as a result). The consensus appeared to be that people did not agree with calling the TD if there was no damage.

 

The same ones who preach that the director should be called when there has been an infraction?

 

An infraction should cause a call for the Director whether or not there is damage.

 

No player should ever suggest to the Director that he imposes a PP, this is his (and only his) decision after he has been called because of an infraction.

 

So the alleged consensus quoted above is simply either just plain wrong or revealing contempt of the Bridge laws.

 

(And yes - I am fully aware of all the smaller, social-like clubs where most irregularities are sorted out in harmony without bothering any director)

[aguahombre]

So the alleged consensus quoted above is simply either just plain wrong or revealing contempt of the Bridge laws.

And the quote of me, which you included, was saying the same thing as you say --that failing to call the director is wrong. Where we might disagree is about "revealing contempt of the Bridge Laws". That has already been done quite nicely by South. Failing to call the director is an infraction, an error of omission, and probably a common occurence when the NOS has gotten a better result than they would have. Motive for the NOS, is probably closer to apathy or seeing nothing to gain ---not contempt of the Laws.