Strange bidding all round (EBU)

[VixTD]

Club teams-of-four competition:

[hv=pc=n&s=st9hq93dj854caqj5&w=sa32hkt85dakqck98&n=sq8764haj7642dc42&e=skj5hdt97632ct763&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h2dd2n3sp4hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

X was alerted; it shows 9+ points, any distribution

West thought for a long time before passing over 4♥

 

NS are a regular partnership and play in local leagues and sometimes for the county third team-of-eight. EW have played together only once or twice before, and play only at the club.

 

Result: 4♥X(N)-1, EW NS -100

 

North was the director, and wasn't happy about East's double of 4♥ after the agreed hesitation, so he asked me to give a ruling.

 

How would you rule? If you require any more information, ask and I'll try to provide it.

[ArtK78]

First thing I do as TD is request that the players put this hand aside and show me the one that matches the auction.

 

All kidding aside, East's double of 4♥ is UNBELIEVABLE! Are you sure the West hand was not exposed on the table?

 

I have no idea what East was thinking about when he doubled. To say that his double of 4♥ was influenced by West's hesitation over 4♥ would be an understatement to the nth degree. Quite frankly, I think that West had a loaded gun pointed at East influencing the double.

 

I would certainly cancel the double of 4♥.

 

By the way, why down only 1?

[blackshoe]

I rule that the hesitation could demonstrably suggest doubling over pass, that East's double is therefore illegal, and so adjust the score to 4♥N-1, NS -50 (I think your "EW -100" is an error, isn't it?)

[lamford]

By the way, why down only 1?

Because the defence cannot take more than two spades, one heart and one club, and, as the declarer contracted for ten tricks, and scored nine, he is down only one. And if the defence continue forcing in diamonds the contract actually makes!

 

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?

[blackshoe]

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?

 

A bit, maybe. I wouldn't quibble with a warning.

[PeterAlan]

Nothing to add about E/W, but there's also N's opening bid (you say they are a regular partnership) - illegal as an agreement if playing under EBU Level 4 (or less) since only 7 HCP. This is just to note - I'm not suggesting anything was fielded.

 

By the way, why down only 1?

Because the defence cannot take more than two spades, one heart and one club, and, as the declarer contracted for ten tricks, and scored nine, he is down only one. And if the defence continue forcing in diamonds the contract actually makes!

But -2 on a ♣ lead - declarer will either lose a third ♠ or a second ♥ (I've verified this with DF).

[paulg]

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?

Yes, assuming that the 2NT bid shows 19 points. But I would love to hear East's reasons for doubling.

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, assuming that the 2NT bid shows 19 points. But I would love to hear East's reasons for doubling.

Need to find out what 2N is.

 

Was 2N forcing/alerted or normal invite ? If they've agreed to overcall on crap like this such that the fitting 19 count doesn't automatically bid game, then the double is not ridiculous with all points outside your suit. It may not be bridge, but may not be a field.

 

If 2N is GF and my overcall is not completely systemically off planet but mildly substandard then partner's pass is presumably forcing, now I'm in a tough spot ethically.

[RMB1]

Not relevant to EW's infraction, but:

Is North's hand a permitted opening?

Was South's double for takeout?

If not was it alerted?

[jallerton]

North was the director, and wasn't happy about East's double of 4♥ after the agreed hesitation, so he asked me to give a ruling.

 

How would you rule? If you require any more information, ask and I'll try to provide it.

 

In these UI situations, it is always good practice for the TD to ask the player in receipt of UI to explain why he chose the disputed call or play.

 

And am I being a bit draconian in wanting to apply a PP to East?

 

Not on this occasion, but I'd like to hear what East has to say before assessing the size of any PP.

[ahydra]

Lol. So North opens a 7 count, East makes a 2-level overcall on a 4-count, West bids only 2NT with a 19-count, and then North bids a new suit at the 3-level! Good job one staff member from the mental hospital (South) was present to round them all back up!

 

If EW are B/I it would be very harsh to give them a PP. Just explain the rules and cancel the X. (To be honest, East's double is so insane in absence of the UI that the contract deserves to be "un-undoubled", for NS -25).

 

ahydra

[mr1303]

Quick question for someone with a not very solid understanding of the laws.

 

The laws state that a player with UI may not select, from logical alternatives, one demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?

[Vampyr]

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?

 

It apparently made sense at the time to the player in question.

 

The selected call was chosen by 100% of the player's precise peers. It is always considered a "logical alternative".

 

(I thought we just had this?)

[ArtK78]

 

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?

 

It apparently made sense at the time to the player in question.

 

The selected call was chosen by 100% of the player's precise peers. It is always considered a "logical alternative".

 

(I thought we just had this?)

Was this the weekly duplicate at the insane asylum?

[gnasher]

But double isn't a logical alternative here though?

It's not enough to read the the Laws: you also have to read the documents where they tell you what they really meant.

 

The WBFLC minutes of 8th October 2010 tell us that "the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1", which seems clear enough. In fact, that was obviously deemed too clear, so they followed it with "An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances."

[helene_t]

Was this the weekly duplicate at the insane asylum?

ha-ha maybe Vampyr should somehow have emphasized precise peers.

[Lanor Fow]

It's not enough to read the the Laws: you also have to read the documents where they tell you what they really meant.

 

The WBFLC minutes of 8th October 2010 tell us that "the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1", which seems clear enough. In fact, that was obviously deemed too clear, so they followed it with "An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances."

I assume in that latter case we can still use law 73 where applicable?

 

AS to the case in hand, do we know the agreement for 2♦? I originally expected this to be alertable if agreed to be this weak, but 5 G 3 "Players should not alert:" (d) "Any non-forcing overcall where the suit may contain only four cards, or the hand

shown is or may be very weak."

in the orange book seems to suggest otherwise. If the agreement is not to be this weak, then we may well be in the fielded misbid/psyche area. If so, how would one rule, on the fielded misbid/psyche or the UI, or is it dependend on which would give the better score to NOS?

[VixTD]

Need to find out what 2N is.

West just seemed to think she was showing a balanced hand. The notion of whether she was showing this sort of strength, or whether it was forcing or not, didn't seem to have occurred to her.

[VixTD]

In these UI situations, it is always good practice for the TD to ask the player in receipt of UI to explain why he chose the disputed call or play.

East just shrugged and said, "well, partner has bid no trumps so she must have something in hearts".

[VixTD]

Was South's double for takeout?

If not was it alerted?

It was alerted, as stated under the hand diagram. If "any distribution" really means what it says I don't see how North is supposed to know what to do opposite, i.e. on what basis he decides whether or not take it out. I imagine he didn't have a difficult decision with this hand, though.

 

Is North's hand a permitted opening?

Alan thinks not. OB11C9 states that the minimum strength for opening one of a suit at levels 3 and 4 is rule of 18, with the proviso that it must have more than 7 hcp. Under the heading "level 4 only" there is no mention of minimum strength, but OB11C15 states that:

An opening bid of 1♥ or 1♠ is only permitted if it shows at least four cards in the suit bid, forcing or not.

I wondered whether this supercedes the requirement for minimum strength set out in OB11C9 and opening bids in the majors are permitted to be any strength provided they show at least four cards in the suit, but the Tangerine Book (the idiots' guide to EBU regulations) makes it clear that the minimum strength requirement still applies at level 4. So perhaps OB11C15 is just reducing the restriction on permitted distribution at level 4, but how exactly it differs from the distributional requirements already given for levels 2, 3 and 4 in OB11C6 I don't know:

1♥ and 1♠ openings

These may be played as any one of the following:

(a) natural, 4+ cards, forcing or not

(b) canapé, 4+ cards, forcing or not

© possible canapé, 4+ cards, forcing or not

(d) natural, 5+ cards, forcing or not

I suppose it allows you to open a major on a four-card suit only if it promises another longer suit, but a five(+)-card suit otherwise.

 

I think I agree with Alan.

 

I asked North whether level 4 systems were allowed in the club, and he said he thought it allowed level 3 systems only, so that solved that problem.

 

I asked North and South separately whether they would routinely open the North hand one of a suit, and they both said they might pass but didn't think it was abnormal to open it 1♥, so I ruled they had an illegal agreement.

 

Where does that leave us with the ruling?

[blackshoe]

I think I remember an EBU reg that says if they have an illegal agreement, the TD awards an ArtAS, A+ to the non-offenders, A- to the offenders, but maybe my synapses are misfiring again. :ph34r:

[ggwhiz]

WOW.

 

I don't blame West for taking stock after an opening bid on his left (say 13) and 9+ on his right. Add that to his 19 and his pard bid on a -1 count.

 

How could East possibly be hung by his hesitation? I don't know the appropriate adjustment under EBU regs but East needs a very stern lecture at the least.

[gnasher]

I think I remember an EBU reg that says if they have an illegal agreement, the TD awards an ArtAS, A+ to the non-offenders, A- to the offenders, but maybe my synapses are misfiring again. :ph34r:

EBU TDs certainly do this, but I'm struggling to find a legal or regulatory justification for it.

 

The part of the Orange Book that deals with fields psyches and misbids prescribes A+/A-, but I don't think that applies here. Here NS have an agreement which is illegal, but disclosed, and nobody has fielded anything.

 

WB 90.4.2 reads "If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should be completed. If he attains a score of Ave– or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets Ave– and his opponents get Ave+." However, I don't believe that this is a regulation - it is in the section that contains "general comments that are related to particular Laws".

 

That leaves us with Law 40B5, which reads "When a side is damaged by an opponent’s use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty."

[RMB1]

WB 90.4.2 reads "If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should be completed. If he attains a score of Ave– or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets Ave– and his opponents get Ave+." However, I don't believe that this is a regulation - it is in the section that contains "general comments that are related to particular Laws".

I thought all of the White Book had the force of a regulation. If this is an "interpretation", then the justification is to apply Law 12C1d in the case of use of illegal methods. Since most of the regulation of permitted methods applies to initial actions (or at least on the first round of auction), it is not unreasonable to deem the outcomes of the hand without the illegal method to be "numerous or not obvious".

[c_corgi]

I asked North and South separately whether they would routinely open the North hand one of a suit, and they both said they might pass but didn't think it was abnormal to open it 1♥, so I ruled they had an illegal agreement.

 

What are the critria for deciding an illegal agreement? The wording of the example in WB40.1.6* suggests that it is illegal if both partners consider it to be the correct opening bid. Here it sounds more like both partners can see why opening 1H rather than PASS might be a successful action. Is this strong enough to constitute an illegal agreement?

 

*pertains to opening 2C with substandard hands