Law 12 in a specific case

[mjk43]

I'm looking at Law 12 and the White Book guidance and should be grateful for opinions on a ruling which I saw given at the weekend.

The hands were as shown.

N/S are red; E/W are green.

Dealer South. The bidding goes

P - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♠

P - 4♠ - 4NT - P

5♦ - P - P - ?

At this point, East asks South what the 4NT meant and is told "A minor 2 suiter"

After thought, East doubles, which is passed out.

Before East leads, North corrects the explanation of the 4NT bid - he explains that it is not a minor 2 suiter but simply a bid requiring his partner to bid again. (Yes, it sounds strange - but then so was the 2♦ overcall)

The play is straightforward, N/S making 12 tricks for a large score.

E/W reserve their rights. The Director is playing (this is teams of eight) so a ruling is given at the end of the match.

East contends that with a correct explanation he would not have doubled and the score should be adjusted to 5♦ + 1

The ruling given was "no adjustment. East's double of 5♦ if the explanation given of the 4NT had been correct was a bad bid and East got what he deserved".

I have to say, I'd have ruled differently.

East's bid made not be the best judgement but it seems to fall well short of serious error or wild action.

I'd be grateful for the views of more experienced directors.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s73hj8753da62caq8&w=saq8654hqdq7ck742&n=s2hak942dkt9843c5&e=skjt9ht6dj5cjt963&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1s2d3sp4s4np5dppdppp]399|300[/hv]

[gordontd]

Before East leads, North corrects the explanation of the 4NT bid - he explains that it is not a minor 2 suiter but simply a bid requiring his partner to bid again. (Yes, it sounds strange - but then so was the 2♦ overcall)

Neither of them seem particularly strange to me.

 

The play is straightforward, N/S making 12 tricks for a large score.

E/W reserve their rights. The Director is playing (this is teams of eight) so a ruling is given at the end of the match.

East contends that with a correct explanation he would not have doubled and the score should be adjusted to 5♦ + 1

That seems a perfectly reasonable argument.

 

The ruling given was "no adjustment. East's double of 5♦ if the explanation given of the 4NT had been correct was a bad bid and East got what he deserved".

I have to say, I'd have ruled differently.

East's bid made not be the best judgement but it seems to fall well short of serious error or wild action.

I agree. But even if it were judged to be SEWoG, that would only affect the adjustment of EW's score, not that of both sides.

[blackshoe]

I've hidden the topic on the appeals forum, pending deletion unless there's a hue and cry.

[pran]

I would not hesitated at all before adjusting the result to 5♦ + 1 effective for both sides.

 

If there is to be an appeal here it should definitely come from North/South.

[axman]

Neither of them seem particularly strange to me.

 

 

That seems a perfectly reasonable argument.

 

 

 

I'll offer a couple of comments [a] I find nothing in E's protest describing any reeason why there is a difference causing a X after the MI while no X after a correct description and it seems to me that the reason for the X had everything to do with W freely bidding game after pard's 3S preempt and not much [if anything] to do with the explanation of 4N

[wank]

I'll offer a couple of comments [a] I find nothing in E's protest describing any reeason why there is a difference causing a X after the MI while no X after a correct description and it seems to me that the reason for the X had everything to do with W freely bidding game after pard's 3S preempt and not much [if anything] to do with the explanation of 4N

 

a) does he need to spell it out? he's got a lot of clubs and no particular reason to think declarer's losers can be ruffed in dummy.

b) whenever i see anyone referring to 'freely bidding' it's 90% they don't understand how to bid.

[RMB1]

The ruling given was "no adjustment. East's double of 5♦ if the explanation given of the 4NT had been correct was a bad bid and East got what he deserved".

I have to say, I'd have ruled differently.

East's bid made not be the best judgement but it seems to fall well short of serious error or wild action.

 

The TD seems to have not ruled that Double was serious error or wild action; rather that in the judgement of the TD East would always double whatever meaning is given for 4NT, so there is no damage from misinformation. I disagree with the TD's judgement, for the reasons given in #6.

[axman]

a) does he need to spell it out? he's got a lot of clubs and no particular reason to think declarer's losers can be ruffed in dummy.

b) whenever i see anyone referring to 'freely bidding' it's 90% they don't understand how to bid.

 

Much noise signifying ……….???? That I am a lousy judge?

 

When judging damage the necessary point of reference is founded upon the agreements of the parties.

 

I read no report that E asserted a reason he would pass. You seem to believe that he does not need to do so. And I say that it is impossible to arrive sensibly at a judgment without some statement by east against with to make judgment.

 

You say that it is obvious that E will take three C tricks because ‘south won’t have enough trumps to kill the losers.

 

Well, given that D outranks C, would not 5C also give S the ability to make a preference without going to the six level? In other words 5C would be the call for a minor two suiter with long clubs [more than 4] while 4N would promise 4- in which case either n or S would soon be void of clubs making mute the assertion that S would run out of trumps.

 

Now, does 4N being a minor two suiter seem somewhat absurd? Probably. But E has made a life and death action based on that premise-, so he claims- and having given a dubious assertion that a minor two suiter makes defensive club tricks a certainty- then fails to elucidate why ‘general take out’ is different.

 

What is apparent to me is that the EW system is based upon the partners not knowing what the other has. Otherwise W would have passed 3S and probably defended 4D for a maximum score. But because of his system he judged to force the opponents to go right and his partner to go wrong.- and with that they get lots of action and lots of pain..

[campboy]

The point is that, while we would have asked East for a reason, since the table TD seems not to have done so we can only speculate as to what his answer might have been. It seems likely that he would argue that having more clubs than hearts makes a double more attractive if expecting North to have both minors than if it is possible that North has both reds. (The corrected explanation is itself rather poor so I would also have asked questions about that as TD; I imagine what was meant is that 4NT shows either two-suiter, and that he will correct 5♣ to 5♦ if he has the reds.)

 

As Robin says, the only legal reason for no adjustment for either side is if the TD considers that the MI did not contribute to the decision to double, so there is no damage. Ruling that the double was wild or gambling (which is an entirely separate question) would only mean that E/W keep their table score. I don't think either of these is the case here.

[gnasher]

Well, given that D outranks C, would not 5C also give S the ability to make a preference without going to the six level? In other words 5C would be the call for a minor two suiter with long clubs [more than 4] while 4N would promise 4- in which case either n or S would soon be void of clubs making mute the assertion that S would run out of trumps.

A common agreement is that 4NT shows a two-card disparity, such as 6-4 or 7-5, and 5♣ suggests 5-5 or 6-5. However, it's equally playable to reverse these meanings.

 

Now, does 4N being a minor two suiter seem somewhat absurd?

No.

 

Probably. But E has made a life and death action based on that premise-, so he claims

East based his decision on the information he was given. What do you want him to do? Ask for an explanation and then ignore the answer?

Edited January 17, 2012 by gnasher

[bluejak]

I have some sympathy with the TD's ruling. When a player doubles with no defensive tricks whatever and wants his double back because it makes my first reaction is to let the score stand.

 

Legally we have to decide whether there was any damage: if so, whether the double was SEWoG. A poll might help, though I wonder how many people would double on the actual sequence.

 

a) does he need to spell it out? he's got a lot of clubs and no particular reason to think declarer's losers can be ruffed in dummy.

My own experience of doubling for this reason is that I have to work out the score for doubled overtricks.

[barmar]

My own experience of doubling for this reason is that I have to work out the score for doubled overtricks.

Does he lose redress if he has poor bridge judgement compared to an expert bridge player like you? I think it has to rise to the level of SEWoG, doesn't it?

[bluejak]

Of course. I merely made a comment based on my experience, which was more in reply to others' judgement than whether it is SEWoG. In fact I think you will not find I have said whether it is SEWoG or not, so deducing something I have not said as what I meant seems wrong somehow.

[VixTD]

I have some sympathy with the TD's ruling. When a player doubles with no defensive tricks whatever and wants his double back because it makes my first reaction is to let the score stand.

 

Legally we have to decide whether there was any damage: if so, whether the double was SEWoG. A poll might help, though I wonder how many people would double on the actual sequence.

My view was certainly closer to this one than to those advocating an adjustment when I first read the problem, although I can see some merit in their arguments. Presumably if the poll is inconclusive you would rule that given a correct explanation East would double some of the time, and apply a weighted adjusted score.

[bluejak]

No, that's not the way I use polls. I make my own decision aided by the effects of a poll: I do not just add up numbers and decide.

[VixTD]

No, that's not the way I use polls. I make my own decision aided by the effects of a poll: I do not just add up numbers and decide.

I'm not suggesting you would do any such thing. What a fatuous comment.

[bluejak]

This is a forum for a lot of people. You made a misleading remark which some people might believe. I do not consider it fatuous to correct your misrepresentation. Please consider others when posting.

[VixTD]

This is a forum for a lot of people. You made a misleading remark which some people might believe. I do not consider it fatuous to correct your misrepresentation. Please consider others when posting.

It could only mislead the wilfully obtuse who go out of their way to find ways of misinterpreting other people's comments. I can think of only one person on this forum that applies to.

[blackshoe]

Vix, put yourself in the place of someone new to the game, who does not know the laws and regulations at all. They come here and browse threads looking for answers to the questions in their minds. They're not "willfully obtuse", just ignorant.

[AlexJonson]

No, that's not the way I use polls. I make my own decision aided by the effects of a poll: I do not just add up numbers and decide.

 

If you told me that you were polling me, but you might or might not be influenced by my answer, you would save both of us a small effort, because I would not take part in your poll.

[mjk43]

Many thanks for all of the helpful comments which came quickly in response to my query. I understand that East doubled when North "had shown" a minor two suiter but would not have done on a correct explanation because East's club suit was a positive factor in the former situation and would have been neutral or negative in the latter.

 

What I take from the comments overall is that although not 100% clear cut, most of the experienced people who commented would, like me, have awarded an adjustment.

[schulken]

Perhaps I have been spoiled by having the luxury of playing (and directing) in larger games with non-playing directors available. Irrespective of this, I believe that the director could reopen the auction and allow the pass to be withdrawn under L21B1(a). As others have stated, the adjusted score can be made, but I see no reason - save perhaps that the director wasn't available when the correction was offered.

 

Escaping scrutiny here is that through poor bidding, NS missed the ♥ contract for an even better score. Did other pairs find it?

[blackshoe]

What people did at other tables is not relevant to the ruling at this table.

[gordontd]

Perhaps I have been spoiled by having the luxury of playing (and directing) in larger games with non-playing directors available. Irrespective of this, I believe that the director could reopen the auction and allow the pass to be withdrawn under L21B1(a). As others have stated, the adjusted score can be made, but I see no reason - save perhaps that the director wasn't available when the correction was offered.

Allowing the final pass to be withdrawn wouldn't help matters - it was the final double that is under discussion, and it's too late to withdraw that.

[bluejak]

If you told me that you were polling me, but you might or might not be influenced by my answer, you would save both of us a small effort, because I would not take part in your poll.

Of course. But since I would be influenced by your answer, I would not say that, would I?