ACBL Portland Sectional

[CSGibson]

[hv=pc=n&s=st972h7dkj764c742&w=s843hkq8643dckq93&n=sa6ht95dat9852ca6&e=skqj5haj2dq3cjt85&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1cp1h2dp3d3h4dp(15-20%20second%20hesitation)p4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

ACBL. E-W are intermediate players, N-S are experts, but not regular partners. There was a 15-20 second hesitation before east passed 4♦. Table result was 4♥ making 5.

 

The initial director ruling was to award a split score, E-W receiving -130 for 4♦ making, N-S keeping -450. The basis of the decision for N-S to keep the 450 was that a top was available for them in 5♦ X -1, and that the two players of south's skill level that were polled bid 4♦ and 5♦ immediately instead of 3♦. The head director overruled the other director, and awarded matching scores for 4♦ making.

 

Thoughts?

[Mbodell]

The split score seems crazy to me. Who cares what S would or could or should have done before the infraction. And after the infraction N/S should be entitled to the result without the use of UI, and I don't think passing with the S hand is a failure to play bridge. It is a contested auction and nobody might be making on the 4 level, so 4 hearts might go down.

 

That said, I'm not 100% sure if pass is a LA for West. It probably is, even though it seems like one of those hands where pass can't be the best action. I'd probably double (assuming MP).

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&s=st972h7dkj764c742&w=s843hkq8643dckq93&n=sa6ht95dat9852ca6&e=skqj5haj2dq3cjt85&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1cp1h2dp3d3h4dp(15-20%20second%20hesitation)p4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

ACBL. E-W are intermediate players, N-S are experts, but not regular partners. There was a 15-20 second hesitation before east passed 4♦. Table result was 4♥ making 5.

 

The initial director ruling was to award a split score, E-W receiving -130 for 4♦ making, N-S keeping -450. The basis of the decision for N-S to keep the 450 was that a top was available for them in 5♦ X -1, and that the two players of south's skill level that were polled bid 4♦ and 5♦ immediately instead of 3♦. The head director overruled the other director, and awarded matching scores for 4♦ making.

 

Thoughts?

 

The initial director ruling is clearly wrong.

 

There is no rule on which to base a split ruling based on the non-offenders' actions before the infraction. Offenders are not entitled to redress for Serious Errors or Wild or Gambling actions subsequent to the infraction. They should not be judged for their actions prior to the infraction except in so much as they might affect logical alternatives etc for the opponents. It seems a little weird to me that a poll was taken on NS's actions but no report is made of a poll on the EW actions.

 

However I am not convinced based on the information presented that passing is a logical alternative for west or that it is suggested by east's hesitation.

 

1. From west's point of view with no diamonds east may well have been thinking of doubling 4♦. Indeed if you thought that was what partner was thinking about then pass rather than 4♥ would be suggested by the hesitation.

 

2. West has a very powerful hand opposite an opening bid. West has four cards in the suit opened by partner.

 

3. Against this west does appear to have been made a non-forcing bid on the previous round. However many players (especially weaker players) with this sort of distribution just keep bidding at the lowest level.

 

Weighing all of this up I am inclined to leave the table result but I might be persuaded otherwise by additional information.

[mycroft]

If you were to argue that it's "failure to play bridge" to not sacrifice in 5♦ opposite this auction, I might not agree with you, but it would be a valid ruling (but then wouldn't east bid 5♥? Or are we arguing that he's already shown his raise?)

 

But if you're letting the score stand, because pass is not a LA for West, which I can see, then it's through the auction 5♣(W) p 5♥(E) - surely showing 4-card support for partner's suit, given that you've failed to do so twice, is a LA which 4♥ was demonstrably suggested (the pause strongly implies heart support, I would think) against?

[aguahombre]

The decision of the original TD, IMO, was justice for the transgressions of each side ---for one side an infraction (use of UI), and for the other side playing bad Bridge.

 

However, as Wayne quite eloquently points out, we can't do that. The head TD made a ruling within the Laws as I read them, even though Wayne would have chosen differently.