LA

[schulken]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp2dp2np3nppp]133|100[/hv]

 

S's 2♦ bid was alerted as a weak jump shift. N hesitated before bidding 2NT. S, holding 14 HCP and a long ♦ suit, raised to game. Director summoned by defenders.

 

S says he did not hear his partner's alert and explanation. (I'm reporting this as it was explained to me, so down with the cat calls.) Director ruled at the table that weak jump shifts were marked on the card and was the partnership agreement. N had properly alerted his partner's call and defenders had received an accurate description of their agreement. He further rolled back the contract to 2NT (making 5), stating that S had no LA to pass given the auction and their agreement. The howls of protest began and everyone went home unhappy.

 

When this scenario was presented to me, I was inclined to agree with the director. I was not impressed that S "had not heard" his partner's alert, when both defenders had. It strikes me that this is a L16B.1.(a) "unexpected alert" that awakened him to his mistaken call and he should pass 2NT. With a typical 6-8 HCP hand with long ♦ that would be expected by his bid, I can't support his bidding again. On the other hand, had his bid not been alertable and he had realized his error before the auction had been completed (without any verbal cues from his partner), I would allow him to continue bidding as his partner and the opponents would be equally confused by his torpor (not exactly L75C., but more like L40C).

 

As always, I look forward to your learned counsel.

[Fluffy]

south has 14 HCP and you think playing a part score after partner opens is a LA? LOL

[Cyberyeti]

south has 14 HCP and you think playing a part score after partner opens is a LA? LOL

Exactly, never not bidding game. Need to ask what 2N means over a strong jump shift, if it's better than 3N, should be investigating a slam.

[barmar]

The UI suggests looking for a slam, doesn't it? Partner supposedly has enough to bid on opposite almost nothing, he should have something close to a 2♣ or 2NT opener. Just bidding game seems like properly avoiding the use of UI, no adjustment.

[Phil]

The UI suggests looking for a slam, doesn't it? Partner supposedly has enough to bid on opposite almost nothing, he should have something close to a 2♣ or 2NT opener. Just bidding game seems like properly avoiding the use of UI, no adjustment.

 

+1.

[gnasher]

Poor South. He had UI that told him they were in the slam zone, but he bid only 3NT, because that's what the Laws required him to do. Then he got one of the worst rulings in the history of the game. Then when he disagreed with the ruling, it was described as a "howl of protest" in a public forum.

[wank]

lol

[billw55]

I suspect that something was lost or mistranslated or something, in the communication of the events. As described, the ruling makes so little sense that I can hardly believe any director would make it. Well maybe online "directors".

[billw55]

Poor South. He had UI that told him they were in the slam zone, but he bid only 3NT, because that's what the Laws required him to do. Then he got one of the worst rulings in the history of the game. Then when he disagreed with the ruling, it was described as a "howl of protest" in a public forum.

Let's not rush to crown south Mr. Ethical. He claims not to have heard the alert or explanation. So either he is lying about that (not ethical, and also dumb) or he just did a normal thing (no special ethical applause due).

 

Furthermore, 14 doesn't sound like a strong jump shift to me, although we have not seen the hand.

[barmar]

The TD and opponents seem to be under the incorrect impression that when you're in receipt of UI, you're not allowed to land in the normal spot and get a reasonable result. But that's not how it works. Often the UI constraints will prevent you from getting to the best spot, but sometimes things work out and that's rub of the green.

 

Many players have similar thoughts about what should happen after other infractions, like those that bar a player or create penalty cards. If partner is barred, I will have to guess at the final contract, and we've all heard of opponents who get annoyed when this guess turns out to be right (especially when it's even better than the result that would have been reached through the normal auction or play).

[Vampyr]

 

He further rolled back the contract to 2NT (making 5), stating that S had no LA to pass given the auction and their agreement.

 

It does not help matters that the director has heard of LAs but doesn't know what the term means.

[billw55]

Many players have similar thoughts about what should happen after other infractions, like those that bar a player or create penalty cards. If partner is barred, I will have to guess at the final contract ...

This happened to us at a sectional a while back. LHO opened 2♣, partner 2♠, RHO 2♠. The director consulted RHO away from the table, and subsequently ruled that if I reject the insufficient bid, RHO may replace it with any other, but opener would be barred. Naturally I chose this, and righty took a stab at 3NT, finding the stiff ace with opener, and got home with nine cashers. No swing. Apparently, 2♠ would have been a conventional response and that is why director ruled this way.

[schulken]

Having had the opportunity to speak with some experienced TDs today, their concern was more with the OPENER continuing to bid. If opener noticed some indication in partner's manner that he realized his mistake, then opener has UI. The LA for opener with a minimum hand is pass. Any rebid must show a big hand. One example given to me was a rebid of 2♥ rather than 2NT. While 2NT is not forcing, 2♥ definitely would be. Showing a big hand like opener must have gives responder the ability to raise to game, even with a weak jump-shift type of hand that their agreement promises. I suppose the director and I have been focusing on the wrong participant.

[richlp]

Having had the opportunity to speak with some experienced TDs today, their concern was more with the OPENER continuing to bid. If opener noticed some indication in partner's manner that he realized his mistake, then opener has UI. The LA for opener with a minimum hand is pass. Any rebid must show a big hand. One example given to me was a rebid of 2♥ rather than 2NT. While 2NT is not forcing, 2♥ definitely would be. Showing a big hand like opener must have gives responder the ability to raise to game, even with a weak jump-shift type of hand that their agreement promises. I suppose the director and I have been focusing on the wrong participant.

I think this makes for an even worse ruling. If the director thought 2NT was bid based upon UI then the contract should be rolled back to 2♦.

[Cyberyeti]

What was the hand that bid 2N ?

 

Did the NOS suggest that there was body language that something had gone wrong ? If not then it's difficult to rule this happened, but if opener has bid 2N on some 13 count without a diamond fit then I think you can rule it has.

 

At what point was the 2♦ bid explained as a weak jump, I ask because some peoples' SJSs are alertable (mine are) because of some less than rock crushing hands with a club fit that are included, so unless it was explained as well as alerted there may not have been a problem.

[gnasher]

Having had the opportunity to speak with some experienced TDs today, their concern was more with the OPENER continuing to bid. If opener noticed some indication in partner's manner that he realized his mistake, then opener has UI. The LA for opener with a minimum hand is pass. Any rebid must show a big hand. One example given to me was a rebid of 2♥ rather than 2NT. While 2NT is not forcing, 2♥ definitely would be. Showing a big hand like opener must have gives responder the ability to raise to game, even with a weak jump-shift type of hand that their agreement promises. I suppose the director and I have been focusing on the wrong participant.

It's starting to sound as though you and the director have already decided what ruling you want to give, and now you're just looking for a rule that lets you do it.

 

The Law that allows you to adjust because of UI begins "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information ..." In order to consider an adjustment under this law, you have to be satisfied that this condition was met. If none of the players suggested that South conveyed UI to North, you can't just assume that he did. The fact that North didn't bid like you would have bid isn't sufficient evidence.

[ahydra]

This raises an interesting (hypothetical) question - what if North has fielded a misbid? Suppose he bid 2NT on a 15-count just in case partner's WJS turned out to be strong. That's a fielded misbid, so we do the usual 60/40 adjustment.

 

But South must bid as if North had responded 2NT to a SJS. Assume South has something like Axx x AKQJxx xxx - in my opinion, South should be going for slam (depending on what 2NT would show opposite a strong jump shift, I guess). Suppose we judge that after 2NT, going to slam (eg 6D) is the only LA, but 6D is down two. How do we cope with the siultaneous adjustments for fielded misbid and use of UI? Do we just pick the worse score, and possibly assign a PP for the other offence?

 

ahydra

[gnasher]

This raises an interesting (hypothetical) question - what if North has fielded a misbid? Suppose he bid 2NT on a 15-count just in case partner's WJS turned out to be strong. That's a fielded misbid, so we do the usual 60/40 adjustment.

The original poster is in Washington DC, so we can probably assume ACBL rules. What you describe is an EBU practice, and not applicable in the ACBL.

[c_corgi]

It's starting to sound as though you and the director have already decided what ruling you want to give, and now you're just looking for a rule that lets you do it.

 

It might be worth considering whether 3D is an LA for South. It is forcing from his perspective, but not from North's so may become the final contract. Better to consider the situation objectively though!

[ahydra]

The original poster is in Washington DC, so we can probably assume ACBL rules. What you describe is an EBU practice, and not applicable in the ACBL.

 

Interesting - what do they do for fielded misbids in the USA then?

 

Supposing we were in EBU-land, can anyone offer the correct answer to my question just in case I happen to run into the situation as a TD? (I hope not!)

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Interesting - what do they do for fielded misbids in the USA then?

Apply Law 40C1.

[ahydra]

Apply Law 40C1.

 

Right, but that's all we're doing in the EBU as well (adjusting the score and maybe awarding a PP)? It just says "adjust the score", not whether the adjustment is to an ArtAS or an "actual contract" AS.

 

ahydra

[aguahombre]

Interesting - what do they do for fielded misbids in the USA then?

Fielding a misbid, unless fielded via use of UI is called Bridge. Whether it really was a misbid rather than an undisclosed agreement is a different matter.

 

Compensating misbids are irritating, but it is hard to prove malice. Rulings/laws against lucky mistakes are not a good thing anywhere.

[gnasher]

Right, but that's all we're doing in the EBU as well (adjusting the score and maybe awarding a PP)? It just says "adjust the score", not whether the adjustment is to an ArtAS or an "actual contract" AS.

Yes. The difference (or one of the differences) is that the EBU regulations stipulate an artificial score, but the ACBL ones don't. So "the usual 60/40 adjustment" isn't usual in the ACBL.

[c_corgi]

Right, but that's all we're doing in the EBU as well (adjusting the score and maybe awarding a PP)? It just says "adjust the score", not whether the adjustment is to an ArtAS or an "actual contract" AS.

 

ahydra

 

 

I don't think so. 40C1 is concerned with damage to the opponents through poor disclosure. The EBU fielded misbid effectively assumes that there is sufficient likelyhood of unproven UI being present that the board is unplayable and an artificial score is required.