LA - Third Event

[schulken]

For those of you who have not read my caveat at LA - Second Event, please go back and do so. This is the second hand we ruled on.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sajthajdakjt54ca4&w=s98h9432d863cjt62&n=s742hkq865dq92ck8&e=skq653ht7d7cq9753&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2hp3dp4dp4np5cp5dp6dppp]399|300|2H shows that suit and more than minimum values.[/hv]

 

Opening leader called to question the auction and the ability of N to continue bidding. There was no extraneous information during the auction. We were perplexed by S's 4 NT call (the pair play 1430), knowing what the answer had to be, unless S intended to continue the inquiry by bidding 5 NT or cue bidding. We concluded that S intended to sign off in 5♦. N had accurately described her hand as including extra values, but that did not give her the ability to continue to bid.

 

I'm less enamored with this ruling than the previous one. There was no extraneous information from partner, so there shouldn't be any damage to the opponents if N decides to continue to bid.

[billw55]

6♦ is a bad bid, but still allowed if there was no unauthorized information. If bad bids were against the laws, we would need a lot more directors (in fact, this very auction would have multiple infractions)

 

When adjusting the score, I think the director has a duty to identify a plausible source of UI. If there is none, table result should stand.

[trevahound]

N's hand is AI. I suppose different folks have different styles for a 2c then 3d sequence, but stopping short of 6d isn't even vaguely a logical alternative in my partnerships. South could bid 5d, fold up his bid box and put it away and I'm still taking another call with N.

 

I am also confused about the UI here. I assume S maybe broke tempo prior to signing off in 5d?

[phil_20686]

I don't understand, if they play 1430, it looks like neither of them thought it was keycard? Was it alerted as keycard? Did anyone ask if it was keycard?

 

When one player has bid `keycard' with all of them already, and their partner responds in the wrong suit anyway, its hard to believe that it was intended as keycard. It seems quite plausible that north thought south was making a slam try and suggesting NT, in which case the raise is hardly surprising.

 

Also, you need evidence of an infraction in order to adjust. I don't see any of that here.

[ahydra]

There was no extraneous information from partner, so there shouldn't be any damage to the opponents if N decides to continue to bid.

 

You said it yourself. Table result stands.

 

If S had hesitated before 5D... well that's something different, but as phil_20686 pointed out you need to sort out the "what did 4NT mean" first.

 

ahydra

[RMB1]

If there is not even an allegation that there was UI how can we adjust?

 

Were the potential offenders asked what they meant by 4NT / 5♣ / 5♦?

 

But if these calls are not alertable (above 3NT?) and no questions were asked, then where is the irregularity?

[blackshoe]

As others have said, you have to have evidence of an infraction before you can rule there was one. Did anyone ask South why he bid 4NT, what 5♣ meant, and why he bid 5♦? One possibility (and like everyone else who's discussed these bids, I'm speculating) is that 5♣ shows the expected zero key cards, and 5♦ was intended as a queen ask.

[bluejak]

Why was the TD called? Because E/W did not like N/S's bidding? I often don't like my opponents bidding but that doesn't give me the right to get a ruling.

 

No infraction, no adjustment, next case.

[Zelandakh]

If the opponents called the TD just to say my bidding was bad without any UI, I might just ask the Director to apply a Law 74 penalty. This is certainly the kind of action that could cause annoyance or embarassment. There is also some potential UI - it is unlikely that West would summon the Director with good defensive values so there is a suggestion to their partner not to play them for too much.

[Cyberyeti]

As others have said, you have to have evidence of an infraction before you can rule there was one. Did anyone ask South why he bid 4NT, what 5♣ meant, and why he bid 5♦? One possibility (and like everyone else who's discussed these bids, I'm speculating) is that 5♣ shows the expected zero key cards, and 5♦ was intended as a queen ask.

Another alternative would be that over 4♦, 4♥ would be suggestion of a suit to play, 4♠ would be kickback, so 4N is spade cue, over this 5♣ is club cue, 5♦ says bid 6 with ♥ control so N does. Not saying I'm recommending this but unless you've asked you don't know.

[RMB1]

Another alternative would be that over 4♦, 4♥ would be suggestion of a suit to play, 4♠ would be kickback, so 4N is spade cue, over this 5♣ is club cue, 5♦ says bid 6 with ♥ control so N does. Not saying I'm recommending this but unless you've asked you don't know.

 

If North-South are ruled against without being asked about their bidding and they appeal and at the appeal they give a convincing (documented) explanation for their auction and there is still no evidence of unauthorised information, then the TD is not going to come out of this looking good.

[Cyberyeti]

If North-South are ruled against without being asked about their bidding and they appeal and at the appeal they give a convincing (documented) explanation for their auction and there is still no evidence of unauthorised information, then the TD is not going to come out of this looking good.

Exactly. What I visualised was "What sort of Blackwood do you play ?", "4130" and not realising which bid was ace asking so 4N wasn't.

[Zelandakh]

Exactly. What I visualised was "What sort of Blackwood do you play ?", "4130" and not realising which bid was ace asking so 4N wasn't.

Perhaps 4♦ was Minorwood, 4NT shows 2 or 5 without ♦Q, 5♣ asked for kings, and 5♦ denied any. Honestly though, if there's no UI and no MI, what basis can we have to rule against N-S? I stand by my earlier post that the only pair that could be ruled against on this board would be E-W. Perhaps the OP can provide some additional details as to why they apparently ruled against N-S here. On the face of it it appears to be a terrible ruling.

[mycroft]

sorry to shout, but:

 

WITHOUT UI, THERE CAN BE NO LAW 16B RULING.

 

If E/W can't point to any UI from South, North can bid like an idiot if he likes, and if he comes out smelling like roses, well, fertilizer does occasionally ensue.

 

They are entitled to call the TD because something seems odd (and especially if they've been on the wrong end of a Hesitation Blackwood ruling, or heard the conventional wisdom that Thou Shalt Not Override Blackwooder's Decision Without The Higher Keycard Count), but the ruling is "did South do anything to give the implication that they weren't off two keys? Squirm, hesitate, whatever? No? No infraction, result stands."

[Cyberyeti]

sorry to shout, but:

 

WITHOUT UI, THERE CAN BE NO LAW 16B RULING.

 

If E/W can't point to any UI from South, North can bid like an idiot if he likes, and if he comes out smelling like roses, well, fertilizer does occasionally ensue.

 

They are entitled to call the TD because something seems odd (and especially if they've been on the wrong end of a Hesitation Blackwood ruling, or heard the conventional wisdom that Thou Shalt Not Override Blackwooder's Decision Without The Higher Keycard Count), but the ruling is "did South do anything to give the implication that they weren't off two keys? Squirm, hesitate, whatever? No? No infraction, result stands."

I think everybody agrees with you, I think we're just trying to work out why N bid 6♦ if the auction means what we think it means.

[bluejak]

I think everybody agrees with you, I think we're just trying to work out why N bid 6♦ if the auction means what we think it means.

Now there's one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever heard! :unsure:

 

Opponents have little ideas in their heads. Goodness knows where they get them from. Let them keep them.

 

The bad news is when partner starts copying them. :(

[barmar]

Sometimes, instead of the proper logic: there was UI, it allowed them to get a good result, so we adjust

 

we have the alternate: there was an inexplicable auction, we search in vain for some excuse to adjust.

 

It doesn't come from the Laws, it comes from emotions.

[Cyberyeti]

Sometimes, instead of the proper logic: there was UI, it allowed them to get a good result, so we adjust

 

we have the alternate: there was an inexplicable auction, we search in vain for some excuse to adjust.

 

It doesn't come from the Laws, it comes from emotions.

Not quite, some people just assume (often wrongly) that there was some body language they missed, and that "it is impossible to make that bid without UI" although they don't say that, hence looking for the justification. I think it's fair enough for a director if called to ask N why he bid 6♦, although there's nothing the TD can do unless N hangs himself with his answer.