"I'm getting a red card out"

[VixTD]

County pairs final, scored by matchpoints:

[hv=pc=n&s=sa654ha764dj92cat&w=shqjt83daq654ck82&n=skt98732h52dt73c5&e=sqjhk9dk8cqj97643&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=3c(alerted)p(after%20comment)3d(5+%20hearts)3sp4s5c5sppdppp]399|300[/hv]

3♣ = 11-15, 6+ clubs (alerted)

Before the stop card was put away, South said "I'm getting the red card out", then noticed the alert, asked for an explanation and passed.

3♦ = 5+ hearts.

 

Result: 5♠X(N)-2, NS -300

 

The TD was called at the end of play. EW thought the 3♠ bid could have been influenced by the comment. The facts are not in dispute. EW are a strong, experienced partnership, NS much less so.

 

What would your ruling be?

[mgoetze]

Might be worth a poll but I strongly suspect Pass will turn out to be a LA for North. In which case I'll need a thorough explanation of EW's methods uncontested, as I also suspect they might wind up in a rather unlucky 3NT contract...

[billw55]

Pretty clear that 3♠ is disallowed if there is damage. What happens instead, is a more complex question, as mgoetze discussed. Do we let EW bid 5♣ and make? If not, then no damage, since +300 is better than any partscore, or 3NT-4 obviously.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa654ha764dj92cat&w=shqjt83daq654ck82&n=skt98732h52dt73c5&e=sqjhk9dk8cqj97643&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=3c(alerted)p(after%20comment)3d(5+%20hearts)3sp4s5c5sppdppp]300|300| County pairs final, scored by matchpoints:

3♣ = 11-15, 6+ clubs (alerted). Before the stop card was put away, South said "I'm getting the red card out", then noticed the alert, asked for an explanation and passed. 3♦ = 5+ hearts. Result: 5♠X(N)-2, NS -300. The TD was called at the end of play. EW thought the 3♠ bid could have been influenced by the comment. The facts are not in dispute. EW are a strong, experienced partnership, NS much less so. What would your ruling be?

[/hv]

South's remark violated stop regulations as well as being deliberate UI. IMO the director should rule 5♣= and consider a PP for South.

[Cyberyeti]

At this point N points out he's colourblind and has otherwise poor vision, and S's remark allows him to more easily distinguish X/P, and he thought S HAD doubled. Now sort this out :)

[barmar]

If North is colorblind, I'd expect him to develop a habit of looking carefully at the writing on the cards, not depending on color that he can't see. It sounds to me like he's grasping at straws to justify his action.

[Cyberyeti]

If North is colorblind, I'd expect him to develop a habit of looking carefully at the writing on the cards, not depending on color that he can't see. It sounds to me like he's grasping at straws to justify his action.

 

Not wishing to divert this thread too far, I was suggesting that S always made this comment when he doubled, and failed to correct it so N assumed he had indeed doubled.

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that, colorblind or not, any player should be capable of distinguishing "X" from "P", and that extraneous comments do not relieve him of the requirement to pay attention to the actual bidding.

[barmar]

Not wishing to divert this thread too far, I was suggesting that S always made this comment when he doubled, and failed to correct it so N assumed he had indeed doubled.

I suppose anything is possible. I've played against visually-impaired players who request that we speak all bids and plays in addition to using the cards, but I don't think I've ever played against a color-blind player who expected his partner to always announce whether he's doubling or passing. Unlike players who are fully (or legally) blind, they don't really need the other players to say what card they're pulling, since the lettering is sufficient (coloring is just an additional aid).

 

If a player did this with a legally blind partner, I think the partner would be fully absolved, and the player announcing something different from what he actually bid would be fully at fault. I'm not sure what law would apply, though. But if the partner is only color-blind, I'd go by the normal bidding box regulations: the card that's placed on the table is the bid that's made, and any remarks made before or after are extraneous and irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

I suppose anything is possible. I've played against visually-impaired players who request that we speak all bids and plays in addition to using the cards, but I don't think I've ever played against a color-blind player who expected his partner to always announce whether he's doubling or passing. Unlike players who are fully (or legally) blind, they don't really need the other players to say what card they're pulling, since the lettering is sufficient (coloring is just an additional aid).

 

If a player did this with a legally blind partner, I think the partner would be fully absolved, and the player announcing something different from what he actually bid would be fully at fault. I'm not sure what law would apply, though. But if the partner is only color-blind, I'd go by the normal bidding box regulations: the card that's placed on the table is the bid that's made, and any remarks made before or after are extraneous and irrelevant.

When using spoken bidding (in effect what you do with a blind player at the table), the only proper way to double is to say the single word "double". See Law 19. So "I'm getting a red card out" is extraneous. In either case, if both spoken bidding and bidding cards are in use (I've played in this situation, with a blind player), if a player announces one call, and puts out another, I would rule the spoken auction governs on the grounds that in effect, at this table, the bidding box regulation is suspended, and spoken bidding is the rule.

[VixTD]

I think it's a moot point whether you consider South's comment a call which was made and corrected to a pass, accepted by West, or just an extraneous comment. Either way it is unauthorized for North.

 

Might be worth a poll but I strongly suspect Pass will turn out to be a LA for North. In which case I'll need a thorough explanation of EW's methods uncontested, as I also suspect they might wind up in a rather unlucky 3NT contract...

If we impose a pass on North (and surely we do), East will complete the transfer to show precisely two hearts, West will correct to clubs and they will finish in 5♣. West said he would not make any cue-bid or splinter in case partner thought he was agreeing hearts.

 

I adjusted the score to 5♣(E)=, NS-600. I didn't penalise NS for failure to avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information because they were inexperienced, and also because no one had called the director until it was too late for me to warn them of their obligations.

[mgoetze]

If we impose a pass on North (and surely we do), East will complete the transfer to show precisely two hearts, West will correct to clubs and they will finish in 5♣. West said he would not make any cue-bid or splinter in case partner thought he was agreeing hearts.

 

I adjusted the score to 5♣(E)=, NS-600. I didn't penalise NS for failure to avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information because they were inexperienced, and also because no one had called the director until it was too late for me to warn them of their obligations.

If completing the transfer shows 2 hearts then I am perfectly happy to adjust to 5♣=.

 

I would not penalise NS for bidding 3♠ because bidding some number of spades with the North hand is to me a completely obvious thing which only having UI could barely stop me from doing. But I would strongly consider penalising them for ignoring the stop card.