Revised explanation....

[McBruce]

[hv=pc=n&s=s952hjt762da832c8&w=sj64ha93dk94cqj62&n=sakqt73h5dj75ck73&e=s8hkq84dqt6cat954&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1sd2sdp3cpp3spp4cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Club game. North asked East about the second double. East told North the second double was a penalty double. North thought for a short time and chose to pass. East now did two things simultaneously: he placed the 3♣ bid-card on the table, saying "...or maybe responsive." Director (me) summoned. I should have rolled back the auction to let North rebid with correct information, but I allowed the auction to continue, and E-W eventually made 130 by refusing to take the club finesse in 4♣.

 

North objected that with correct information about the second double he would surely bid 3♠ and did not think either opponent would venture a vulnerable bid at the four level. 3♠ can be beaten with careful defense, but seems odds on to make against normal defense. East was adamant that he would bid 4♣ over 3♠, and argued that he would bid clubs at the three or four level whatever the double actually was. They did not seem to have an agreement about this, based on the look East gave West when he saw the dummy. Two East-comparable good players were given the East hand and chose pass over a hypothetical 3♠ call as a standout. I ruled +140 to N-S based on the misinformation. East-West wanted this to see the Internet for more opinions. I know I can count on you to provide them.

[sfi]

Adjusting seems reasonable. I am having a hard time working out how North is going to make 9 tricks though - it looks like declarer needs to play carefully to avoid down 2. You polled a couple of players for independent data and made a judgement supported by their answers. I can understand East being unhappy by the decision, but it's always easy to convince oneself that the successful action was always obvious. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

IMO East has a standout bid of 3 or 4 hearts and 4H looks like a nice contract. The play there is interesting. It can make if declarer plays for the 4-1 trump split (pitch on the second spade) but is likely to go down in practice.

[McBruce]

Adjusting seems reasonable. I am having a hard time working out how North is going to make 9 tricks though - it looks like declarer needs to play carefully to avoid down 2. You polled a couple of players for independent data and made a judgement supported by their answers. I can understand East being unhappy by the decision, but it's always easy to convince oneself that the successful action was always obvious. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

IMO East has a standout bid of 3 or 4 hearts and 4H looks like a nice contract. The play there is interesting. It can make if declarer plays for the 4-1 trump split (pitch on the second spade) but is likely to go down in practice.

 

My bad, sorry. East and South hands have been corrected in the original post.

[sfi]

My bad, sorry. East and South hands have been corrected in the original post.

 

That makes quite a difference. +140 looks like a normal adjustment.

[billw55]

I can't see how 3 ♠ can possibly go down two. (edit - ah, layout was changed)

 

Makes sense to roll back the auction, thus preventing any arguments by east about what he would have done, although I don't know if the laws allow for this. Having not done this, I agree with the ruling.

 

edit: aha, law 21B1, clearly north's pass could be withdrawn.

[jeffford76]

I think having failed to roll back the auction at the appropriate time you have to consider giving a Director Error ruling of 3S making to N/S and 4C making to E/W. I don't find East's claim that they would have bid 4C so unbelievable as to not give them credit for doing so when they weren't given a chance to make the decision at the table.

[McBruce]

I think having failed to roll back the auction at the appropriate time you have to consider giving a Director Error ruling of 3S making to N/S and 4C making to E/W. I don't find East's claim that they would have bid 4C so unbelievable as to not give them credit for doing so when they weren't given a chance to make the decision at the table.

 

I did consider doing something like that. But really, how difficult is it to simply say: oops, I may be wrong, let's get the Director, instead of bidding 3C and changing the explanation simultaneously? People do this all the time when RHO bids before they slow-alert partner's call, and it is well understood that RHO's bid can be changed. This is similar enough that I don't think East deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

[Zelandakh]

I do find East's insistence on bidding 4♣ unbelievable. They were not even sure whether their partner had a penalty double of spades or not.

[blackshoe]

I did consider doing something like that. But really, how difficult is it to simply say: oops, I may be wrong, let's get the Director, instead of bidding 3C and changing the explanation simultaneously? People do this all the time when RHO bids before they slow-alert partner's call, and it is well understood that RHO's bid can be changed. This is similar enough that I don't think East deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

You are constrained, in cases of director error, to treat both sides as non-offending. In the ACBL, this means that both sides get "the most favorable result that was likely" for them. There's nothing in there about "benefit of the doubt", afaics. Of course, one could interpret your position as "4C is not a likely contract", and that's not unreasonable.

[Cyberyeti]

You are constrained, in cases of director error, to treat both sides as non-offending. In the ACBL, this means that both sides get "the most favorable result that was likely" for them. There's nothing in there about "benefit of the doubt", afaics. Of course, one could interpret your position as "4C is not a likely contract", and that's not unreasonable.

Yup, this was my view.

 

I would have thought if N bid 3♠, E has no more and no less than he's shown already so should pass. With W's shape or the lack of it, I don't see any reason for him to do more.

 

I would expect 3♠ to be -1 a fairly large amount of the time (diamond lead for me, and I just don't see how declarer can make it without really poor defence) so 3♠= for one side and 3♠-1 for the other ?

[VixTD]

With W's shape or the lack of it, I don't see any reason for him to do more.

I don't know how they do things up in Canada, but I'm assuming that "club game" means matchpoint pairs, in which case wouldn't West double a 3♠ rebid by North at least some of the time? The vulnerability is all wrong, I know, but if 3♠ is one off it won't do any harm, and if it's two off it should win a lot of matchpoints. If it makes I'm guessing it won't cost much.

 

I would expect 3♠ to be -1 a fairly large amount of the time (diamond lead for me, and I just don't see how declarer can make it without really poor defence) so 3♠= for one side and 3♠-1 for the other?

How about 3♠X= for one side and 3♠X-1 for the other?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't know how they do things up in Canada, but I'm assuming that "club game" means matchpoint pairs, in which case wouldn't West double a 3♠ rebid by North at least some of the time? The vulnerability is all wrong, I know, but if 3♠ is one off it won't do any harm, and if it's two off it should win a lot of matchpoints. If it makes I'm guessing it won't cost much.

 

How about 3♠X= for one side and 3♠X-1 for the other?

In abstract I'm not sure at MPs that the double is pure penalties. To me it's "I've got a bit more than I've shown, you make the wrong decision" and I don't particularly want to hear partner bid again although it works well in this case.

 

Also I think enough of the time 3♠= is par, so I don't think I need to X this. I think 3♠ will make more often than it goes -2.

 

I'm not sure if in computing the most favourable likely result for each side you're allowed to weight the scores and say it would be doubled x% of the time or you have to pick one result. I think if 3♠ attracts an action double, EW play 4♣=.

[blackshoe]

Quickly reading the last couple messages, I have one quick comment, then I have to run: I don't think we should base rulings on our opinion of what a player in a given position should do, given his cards, but rather on what a player of his class might do. So even if we think he should pass over 3♠, we still have to consider whether he or his peers might do something else.

[Zelandakh]

If a player is bad enough they might do almost anything. Based on experiences on BBO, we may as well award both sides 7NTXX down whatever if this is the criteria.

[bluejak]

I did consider doing something like that. But really, how difficult is it to simply say: oops, I may be wrong, let's get the Director, instead of bidding 3C and changing the explanation simultaneously? People do this all the time when RHO bids before they slow-alert partner's call, and it is well understood that RHO's bid can be changed. This is similar enough that I don't think East deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

Sadly, the Law does not agree with you. And you should follow the Law book and roll it back, not your own view on what players should do.

 

What makes it worse, is that your explanation here is that because the offending side did a second thing wrong you did not give the non-offending side their rights under the Law! :(

[blackshoe]

Quickly reading the last couple messages, I have one quick comment, then I have to run: I don't think we should base rulings on our opinion of what a player in a given position should do, given his cards, but rather on what a player of his class might do. So even if we think he should pass over 3♠, we still have to consider whether he or his peers might do something else.

If a player is bad enough they might do almost anything. Based on experiences on BBO, we may as well award both sides 7NTXX down whatever if this is the criteria.

I don't think this is helpful, Zel. :(

[Zelandakh]

I agree but nor do I think is ruling based on what a player might do. Why can we not use a similar process to that used for gathering LAs in deciding what is reasonable for a player of the class involved?

[blackshoe]

I agree but nor do I think is ruling based on what a player might do. Why can we not use a similar process to that used for gathering LAs in deciding what is reasonable for a player of the class involved?

Who said we can't? B-)