quick ruling needed!

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&w=sak432hakq752dq4c&e=s7h3dakjt9652cj96&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp3dp4np5dp6hp7dppp]266|200|3D alerted[/hv]

 

Board a match.

East intended 3D as natural, North alerted it. No questions asked.

4NT was RKC and East has lied.

West thought 3D was some sort of Bergen ("8-11")

 

North-South want West to bid 7H opposite 2 aces.

7D makes 13, 6H makes 12 on any lead.

[Vampyr]

I agree with 7♥. I also consider a PP for East, after I receive an answer about what 5♦ was supposed to be.

[sfi]

West doesn't have any UI, so West's actions aren't constrained. East's actions deserve scrutiny though, and I would be very likely to adjust the score to 6H= with a PP for East.

 

And I too want to know what 5D meant. I would also like to know E-W's actual agreement and what East intended it to be (presumably invitational).

[chrism]

It depends on whether it is clear that over a natural 3D, 4NT is RKC for diamonds rather than for hearts or straight 4-ace Blackwood. If so, I agree; East has taken blatant advantage of UI and we should impose a 5H response leading with sufficient likelihood to 7H to make that the result (and a PP is appropriate).

 

If EW can demonstrate that 4NT is not RKC for diamonds then East did not lie, West has no UI and cannot be made to bid 7H. However East used UI to bid 7D so we roll back to 6H and award a PP for the flagrant 7D bid.

[aguahombre]

In addition, there aught to be a law against West's 4NT with both an uncontrolled doubleton and a void, in addition to unknown third-round control of Spades :rolleyes:

 

Aside from that joke (West's, not mine), we will probably discover that for this pair 4NT is always RKC for the last naturally shown suit whether a Major or a Minor and that without the UI East would have answered truthfully for Diamonds leading to 7H. Might be difficult to dig that information out of them, however.

 

And, yes, East has crossed the (my) line. IMO, PP's are suggested much too often here on BBF, but should be applied when the violation is flagrant/deliberate.

[Heron]

I have had auctions close to this, and bid much as east has, and I don't *believe* I was acting on UI. I make no representations about whether east has followed the same thought process in this case, but it seems at least possible. Thus a question:

 

Is it a use of UI to say "this is weird and I don't know what these bids mean so I will bid something natural and plausible and hope"? More specifically in this case, "This auction has gone off the rails so all I am going to do is repeatedly rebid diamonds at the cheapest possible level and hey, partner has shown some values so it might even fly"?

 

Or, more generally, is recognition of a broken auction UI? Given the apparent raise of the 3D response I can see West finding this perfectly normal-looking though the 6H bid, but I would expect most would react to 7D with bewilderment and a "PASS".

 

Incidentally, among my lot the 3D would be a weak bid showing diamond length, and still alertable. If I actually was E there I wouldn't smell something fishy until the 4NT call.

[ArtK78]

I believe that we all agree that West has no UI and can do whatever he wants.

 

And we also appear to agree that East's "lie" of 5♦ was based on the UI of the alert to 3♦.

 

To determine if West did anything wrong, we must first find out what the partnership's actual agreement is as to the 3♦ call. Then we must find out if 4NT is RKC for diamonds, RKC for hearts or something else - such as old-fashioned ace asking Blackwood.

 

If we decide to impose an 5♥ bid on East over 4NT to correct for his inappropriate use of UI, what is West going to do? Opposite a limit raise with two minor suit aces, does he have enough to bid a grand? He cannot know that there is no spade loser, unless the partnership has some asking mechanism to make that determination. So any ruling that would require West to bid a grand in hearts over 5♦ is too much.

 

What is West to do over 7♦? Assuming that West has no UI, he can do whatever he decides is appropriate over 7♦. Pass is certainly an option.

 

As for East, if an investigation determines that the 3♦ call by partnership agreement is natural, then I don't think you can even assign an adjusted score unless you also determine that 4NT is RKC for diamonds. If 4NT is RKC for diamonds, and East lied because of the UI, then his 7♦ bid cannot stand. But if East did not lie - the 4NT bid was not RKC for diamonds - then it is not so clear that the 7♦ bid cannot stand. East is allowed to bid any way he wants to bid if he did not use the UI. And if there was no lie and the partnership agreement is that 3♦ is natural and forcing, it is not clear that East used the UI of the alert in any way. You or I may disagree with the 7♦ call, but that does not mean it was based on UI.

 

There are a lot of ifs in the preceding paragraph. But I am trying to create a set of facts that would allow a TD and a committee to allow the 7♦ bid to stand. Basically, one would need to show that:

 

1. The 3♦ bid was natural and forcing by partnership agreement.

2. The 4NT bid was not RKC for diamonds, so East's 5♦ bid was not a lie.

3. East did not use the UI in making his final call.

[aguahombre]

I have had auctions close to this, and bid much as east has, and I don't *believe* I was acting on UI. I make no representations about whether east has followed the same thought process in this case, but it seems at least possible. Thus a question:

 

Is it a use of UI to say "this is weird and I don't know what these bids mean so I will bid something natural and plausible and hope"? More specifically in this case, "This auction has gone off the rails so all I am going to do is repeatedly rebid diamonds at the cheapest possible level and hey, partner has shown some values so it might even fly"?

 

Or, more generally, is recognition of a broken auction UI? Given the apparent raise of the 3D response I can see West finding this perfectly normal-looking though the 6H bid, but I would expect most would react to 7D with bewilderment and a "PASS".

 

Incidentally, among my lot the 3D would be a weak bid showing diamond length, and still alertable. If I actually was E there I wouldn't smell something fishy until the 4NT call.

If you were E there, and had bid 3D, the only thing "fishy" would have been your 3D call which doesn't match your description of your agreements. You have an 8th diamond and extra power of the suit ---much more than you have shown. Partner bids 4N and you wouldn't cooperate???? The TD should not accept the rationale you give.

[mycroft]

5♦ wasn't a lie. West keycarded for hearts, East showed keycards for hearts! Of course, what that means is that the Alert woke him up to his misbid. It would be nice to know what the agreement *was*, although I don't think it's relevant to the ruling (except that it always is). "I remembered before the Alert I misbid" - yes, we know you did (sure you did), but since everybody says that whether it's true or not, the Law is written so that it doesn't matter.

 

Assuming "lie" or something else, Turn the ♠A into a seventh heart, and West has just found the highest scoring contract, even if East is three hearts short. So 7♦ is not only right out, it's silly.

 

I think that we have to impose 5♥ on East (assuming that 1M-3m-4NT in a natural auction would be KCminor), at which point West could look for 7. 5NT gets 6♦ (no Kings (East) - Diamond K (West)), and the grand is bid - could partner have ♣A ♦AK, four hearts and treat it as an 8-11? If so, I think I'm ruling that auction.

 

I'm *not* forcing West to correct 7♦ to 7♥ - there's no legal justification for that (but it's what the players always want for some reason). I'm not disallowing the 7♦ rescue, either (but I probably would, as my argument above holds - wouldn't you hate to convert +1430 to -100, losing half a board if the opponents are as smart as your partner, and a full board if they're +1370?) because I think I'm disallowing the 5♦ call first.

 

In weighted score countries, I suppose I'd give a percentage of 6H= when west isn't as adventurous having heard two without with a 10-card heart fit. Probably a big percentage, given 8-11 - A AK is a magic hand, and it still fails on 34xx.

 

Yeah, if East is at all knowledgeable, this is PP territory (sorry West) - every call he took was either a misbid or taking advantage of the UI to try to save his misbid.

[barmar]

5♦ wasn't a lie.

It wasn't a lie from the perspectives of North, South, or West. But since East's knowledge of his misbid comes from UI, he was lying from his own perspective. Without the UI, he presumably should believe that 4NT is RKC for diamonds, and he gave an incorrect answer to that.

 

That's why this is a UI case, not MI.

 

BTW, for those who suggest that 4NT could be keycard for hearts even when 3♦ is natural, that seems unlikely absent pretty unusual agreements. Doesn't almost everyone play that if there's no room to agree a suit and also establish a game force below game, a jump to 4NT is keycard for the last naturally bid suit?

[blackshoe]

What "everyone" plays is irrrelevant. What matters is this pair's agreements.

 

Lots of speculation here, not much proper ruling. :(

[Finch]

What was the jurisdiction, and what meanings of 3D are alertable?

In the EBU (for example), 3D is alertable unless it is a strong jump shift. So if they play 3D as invitational, East would have no UI either (no questions).

[sfi]

What was the jurisdiction, and what meanings of 3D are alertable?

In the EBU (for example), 3D is alertable unless it is a strong jump shift. So if they play 3D as invitational, East would have no UI either (no questions).

 

In Australia 3D is alertable if it shows something besides diamonds. It's also alertable if 3D is natural and weak (which surprised me when I looked up the regs just now). If it's natural and forcing or natural and invitational no alert is required.

[shevek]

Thanks all.

I ruled 6H but think that was a bit gutless.

 

Agreement was unclear "I thought we agreed ..." "No we didn't" Convention card didn't help.

An established partnership. East said she thought 3D was "weak" a bit weird. Not a good player.

 

Was 3D alertable anyway? This was Australia, where natural jumps are a bit unclear.

Around here, most play 1D - 2S as weak and many don't alert it.

Regs are unclear "Alert unusual treatments (like pre-emptive jump raises)"

 

Anyway, East seemed to know that West was alerting as a heart raise, maybe by the body language, though I wasn't there.

 

West's 4NT was crude but perhaps he was thinking "I'll bid 6H anyway & 7 opposite the minor aces."

Seems fair enough, with spade shortage very likely.

 

Normal for them would be 4NT as RKC in last bid suit if a jump so clearly diamonds in this case. 3041.

 

Couldn't allow 7D. +1430 was enough to win the board since the other table was +1390 so awarding 7H would have swung the match.

[ggwhiz]

What "everyone" plays is irrrelevant. What matters is this pair's agreements.

 

Lots of speculation here, not much proper ruling. :(

 

Exactomundo

 

shevek, if you want a decent answer you need to provide details as to agreements, what the alert was about etc. It doesn't matter that no questions were asked, west alerted why? Did they have a convention card? An agreement on 4nt?

 

Please tell me a ruling was not made without any of this. :blink:

[blackshoe]

Agree with ggwhiz.

 

Shevek, why "gutless"?

[blackshoe]

Around here, most play 1D - 2S as weak and many don't alert it.

That doesn't mean it's not alertable. B-)

 

Couldn't allow 7D. +1430 was enough to win the board since the other table was +1390 so awarding 7H would have swung the match.

The outcome or potential outcome of the match is not relevant to your ruling. Follow the law, and let the chips fall where they may.

[sfi]

An established partnership. East said she thought 3D was "weak" a bit weird. Not a good player.

 

Was 3D alertable anyway? This was Australia, where natural jumps are a bit unclear.

 

Turns out it's clear. 3.3.2 contains this:

 

3.3.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz.

(a) The call is natural, but there is an agreement by which the call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that the opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples:

• Responder’s first round jump shift on weak hands.

 

I agree that practice is at odds with the regulations in this case, and would be very surprised if this meaning were alerted.

[CSGibson]

The key point which was not addressed in the OP, but which was addressed later, was whether 3♦ as natural and non-forcing would be alertable in Australia anyway. If it is an alert, then, based on the information at hand, there does not appear to be UI from either side - all the 3♦ bidder knows is that partner correctly alerted an alertable call. Sure, something strange went on with the keycard ask, but maybe he answered straight blackwood, or maybe he thought 4N was natural and expressed an opinion that 5♦ would be better; its hard to know based on the facts presented. After 6♥ he has the right to try 7♦ - the fact that it makes is rub of the green IMO.

 

Since 3♦ non-forcing is alertable, then I would rule that the presence of an alert is not enough to indicate UI, and that both sides were unconstrained unless other sources of UI were present. With the facts as presented, I would say result stands.

[Vampyr]

Is it a use of UI to say "this is weird and I don't know what these bids mean so I will bid something natural and plausible and hope"? More specifically in this case, "This auction has gone off the rails so all I am going to do is repeatedly rebid diamonds at the cheapest possible level and hey, partner has shown some values so it might even fly"?

 

This is definitely illegal, and anyway how has the auction gone off the rails?

 

Or, more generally, is recognition of a broken auction UI? Given the apparent raise of the 3D response I can see West finding this perfectly normal-looking though the 6H bid, but I would expect most would react to 7D with bewilderment and a "PASS".

 

Well, East has tried to hammer his point home after the Alert.

[barmar]

Thanks all.

I ruled 6H but think that was a bit gutless.

 

Agreement was unclear "I thought we agreed ..." "No we didn't" Convention card didn't help.

Does the CC say "Bergen Raises" or not? If not, then CC implies that it's natural, as this is surely an important agreement that should be documented on the CC.

 

Does the Australian CC have a checkbox for weak jump shifts, like ACBL does?

[blackshoe]

Does the CC say "Bergen Raises" or not? If not, then CC implies that it's natural, as this is surely an important agreement that should be documented on the CC.

 

Does the Australian CC have a checkbox for weak jump shifts, like ACBL does?

No, but it has specific places to list the meanings of jump shifts after minor and major openings.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sak432hakq752dq4c&e=s7h3dakjt9652cj96&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp3d(alerted)p4n(RKC)p5d(a lie)p6hp7dppp]266|200|Board a match.

East intended 3D as natural, North alerted it. No questions asked.

4NT was RKC and East has lied.

West thought 3D was some sort of Bergen ("8-11")

North-South want West to bid 7H opposite 2 aces.

7D makes 13, 6H makes 12 on any lead.

[/hv]

Presumably, East imagined the hand qualified for a weak jump shift(!) If so, (as FrancesHinden points out) West's alert provided East with no UI, since (sfi tells us) such bids are alertable and no explanation was requested. Provided that is the full story then, no matter what the EW card says, NS weren't damaged, although EW may deserve a PP for some other reason.

[ggwhiz]

If 3♦ was some sort of Bergen West has an auto 7♥ bid. Jxxx and AKxxxx(x) in the red suits? Maybe a spade void for the (unsound) reason for bidding on?

 

West didn't unalert the alert of 3♦ and is stuck with the Bergen interpretation imo and the slightest even imperceptible flinch by East would clue him in so all doubt should be resolved in favor of N/S.

[Cascade]

If 3♦ was some sort of Bergen West has an auto 7♥ bid. Jxxx and AKxxxx(x) in the red suits? Maybe a spade void for the (unsound) reason for bidding on?

 

West didn't unalert the alert of 3♦ and is stuck with the Bergen interpretation imo and the slightest even imperceptible flinch by East would clue him in so all doubt should be resolved in favor of N/S.

 

I don't think it works like this. You have to have an infraction before you have an offending side. Only then can you resolve doubt in favour of the non-offenders. If there is no clear infraction you can't say there is doubt about the infraction thereby presumptively nominating one side as the infractors and then ruling against them because they are the infractors which is simply your presumption and not an established fact.