MI case from another forum

[Antrax]

[hv=pc=n&s=stht9852dt2ckjt43&w=sj732h743dak653cq&n=sk9854hk6dj84c962&e=saq6haqjdq97ca875&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=pp1c(Nat.)p1h(%21S)p2n(18-19)3c3d(*)4c4s5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

ACBL. 3♦ was alerted by E as showing 4+♥. The person supplying the problem didn't bother stating whether this was east/west's agreement, let's assume the agreement was 3♦ was natural. No screens were used.

S sacrificed expecting heart shortness in N and went for 1400. How do you rule?

(All players are experts if it matters)

[billw55]

Seems clear to roll back the contract to 4♠ by east. Assigning a result for that is more difficult. A systemic club lead seems inevitable, so I lean toward making - letting south lead the K would be too much.

[PhilKing]

South's argument holds no water.

 

North holding heart shortage does not increase the potential number of tricks - in fact it almost guarantees a telephone number. The only chance of not going for a mountain is to find North with a holding that helps us set up the suit.

[ArtK78]

I am not protecting South from the insanity of his action.

 

You state that all the players involved in this hand were experts. Therefore, South is under an obligation to protect himself. If I were South, I would ask about the one-level response. It was stated that the 1♥ response showed spades. What did it say about hearts? And if it is possible that West could have hearts, what kind of hand would he have where he would show hearts later?

 

Still, no matter what the answers to these questions are, South's 5♣ bid is insane. His 3♣ bid at least has some lead directing aspects if West becomes declarer (however unlikely that may be).

 

I don't like North's 4♣ bid, either.

 

If this was brought before a committee, I would be embarrassed if I were either North or South.

[mamos]

Expert what? plumbers?

 

If NS want to give 1400 away I see no good reason to interfere.

 

Mike

[barmar]

West showed at least 4 hearts, East showed at least 2. There's no good reason for South to assume that either has more than the minimum they showed. And even if partner is short, you're also assuming that he has enough trumps that you can ruff some heart losers, and still be able to draw trumps.

The only thing keeping South's from being committed to the asylum is that he was at favorable vulnerability -- sometimes even reasonable players think that this makes them INvulnerable.

[nige1]

Seems clear to roll back the contract to 4♠ by east. Assigning a result for that is more difficult. A systemic club lead seems inevitable, so I lean toward making - letting south lead the K would be too much.

South's argument holds no water. [sNIP]

I am not protecting South from the insanity of his action.

Expert what? plumbers? If NS want to give 1400 away I see no good reason to interfere.

[sNIP] The only thing keeping South's from being committed to the asylum is that he was at favorable vulnerability -- sometimes even reasonable players think that this makes them INvulnerable.

:) I agree with Billw55 that East's explanation implies a better EW major-fit than they have, making South's 5♣ more reasonable.

[ggwhiz]

[hv=pc=n&s=stht9852dt2ckjt43&w=sj732h743dak653cq&n=sk9854hk6dj84c962&e=saq6haqjdq97ca875&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=pp1c(Nat.)p1h(%21S)p2n(18-19)3c3d(*)4c4s5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

(All players are experts if it matters)

 

All the non-passes by North and South disqualify them and point to a serious substance abuse problem.

[Antrax]

Thanks, my personal sentiments were along similar lines. The director awarded a split score, so EW got 620 and NS kept their 1400.

BTW, south the plumber was XXXXX XXXXXX.

 

Thanks everyone.

Edited June 20, 2014 by barmar
Removed player's name

[Antrax]

double somehow

[Antrax]

Why? He doesn't play on BBO (okay, he does, but I didn't give his username), the hand is a matter of public record and no negative comments were made regarding him.

[nige1]

Why? He doesn't play on BBO (okay, he does, but I didn't give his username), the hand is a matter of public record and no negative comments were made regarding him.

He might defer to IBLF experts and fail to take offence if he really is an unreasonable, insane, masochistic, drug-addicted, plumber :)

[PhilKing]

He's been called worse.

[lamford]

Thanks, my personal sentiments were along similar lines. The director awarded a split score, so EW got 620 and NS kept their 1400.

BTW, south the plumber was XXXXX XXXXXX.

 

Thanks everyone.

Reasonable decision by the TD, but I cannot find a line of play to save the overtrick in Four Spades, so it should have been +650. South's 5C was wild or gambling, so even it was related to the infraction, he does not get redress, so -1400 is correct.

[nige1]

Reasonable decision by the TD, but I cannot find a line of play to save the overtrick in Four Spades, so it should have been +650. South's 5C was wild or gambling, so even it was related to the infraction, he does not get redress, so -1400 is correct.

Agree with Lamford about 650 rather than 620. IMO, however: South's 5♣ bid isn't close to a SEWOG (within the law). The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

[PhilKing]

South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

 

But how does that increase the chances of taking more tricks in 5♣? Magic?

[lamford]

Agree with Lamford about 650 rather than 620. IMO, however: South's 5♣ bid isn't close to a SEWOG (within the law). The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

The Law only allows you exemption for a serious error related to the infraction, not for a wild or gambling action.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Lamford about 650 rather than 620. IMO, however: South's 5♣ bid isn't close to a SEWOG (within the law). The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

 

 

The Law only allows you exemption for a serious error related to the infraction, not for a wild or gambling action.

I think what Nige is saying is that it isn't a serious error within the law. I don't see that he commented either way on whether its wild, or gambling. Yeah, he should have spelled out "serious error" instead of saying "SEWOG". Folks do take short cuts. I could be wrong of course - my telepathy range doesn't cross the Atlantic. :D

[nige1]

The 5♣ bid is related to the infraction because, from the explanation, South expects West to have more than 7 cards in the majors.

But how does that increase the chances of taking more tricks in 5♣? Magic?

South was led to believe that RHO had a balanced hand and LHO had both majors. Each extra major card held by an opponent implies an extra minor card in partner's hand, making 5♣ a safer bid, according to Joe Amsbury and Dick Payne "TNT and competitive bidding" (1981).

[nige1]

I think what Nige is saying is that it isn't a serious error within the law. I don't see that he commented either way on whether its wild, or gambling. Yeah, he should have spelled out "serious error" instead of saying "SEWOG". Folks do take short cuts. I could be wrong of course - my telepathy range doesn't cross the Atlantic. :D

SEWoG: serious error, wild or gambling action

[blackshoe]

Okay, I've edited that entry in the forum abbreviations to include the parenthetical expression that's in the laws - and which, as has been pointed out, applies only to "serious error".

[Cascade]

East appears to be unlikely to hold four spades or four hearts this suggests in most systems he will have four clubs given the 1c opening.

 

In addition South bid 3c in a live auction with a four count and took another free bid after just a simple raise.

 

To me these are extreme actions I think they are serious errors and wild or gambling. I don't think such extreme action is protected by law and I don't think it should be.

[blackshoe]

To me these are extreme actions I think they are serious errors and wild or gambling. I don't think such extreme action is protected by law and I don't think it should be.

If the actions are wild, or gambling, they not "protected by law". If they are "serious errors", then it depends on whether the error is related to the infraction. But I'm sure you know all that already. B-)

 

What's the difference between "wild" and "gambling"? To me, it's one of deliberation - a gambling action is taken knowingly — "I'm not sure whether this will work or not, I'll give it a try". A wild action is one that makes no sense whatsoever — "I have no idea why I bid that!"

[nige1]

If the actions are wild, or gambling, they not "protected by law". If they are "serious errors", then it depends on whether the error is related to the infraction. But I'm sure you know all that already. What's the difference between "wild" and "gambling"? To me, it's one of deliberation - a gambling action is taken knowingly — "I'm not sure whether this will work or not, I'll give it a try". A wild action is one that makes no sense whatsoever — "I have no idea why I bid that!"

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

Whether South perpetrated a SEWOG is a matter of judgement but we're told that in order to qualify, an error must be quite bad. Some contributors to IBLF appear to hold error-prone players to their own frightenly high super-expert standards :)

[gordontd]

Whether South is perpetrated a SEWOG is a matter of judgement but we're told that in order to qualify, an error must be seriously bad.

No, we are told that it must either be seriously bad (and unrelated to the infraction), or be wild, or be gambling. Both 3C & 5C strike me as wild bids.