silly auction, what's your ruling?

[han]

This silly auction happened last night at my local bridgeclub. What would you rule as director?

 

East opens 1C, South overcalls 1NT (natural), West bids 3C

 

East now hesitates, then alerts. When North asks for an explanation, East says that it is his understanding that 3C shows a gameforcing hand with a stiff diamond, but he is not sure.

 

North asks "so it is forcing?" East says "I think so, yes". North shrugs and passes. East interprets norths asking correctly and also passes, as does South.

 

Before the lead is made, West explains that 3C was not gameforcing but preemptive with clubs. North is angry and calls the director. The situation is eplained to the director, who looks in Norths hand, sees 8 HCP and says that North knew very well what was happening, no reason to complain.

 

Is the ruling correct?

[Flame]

The question is who was wrong, east or west, if west bid was according to thier system and east explanation was wrong then the rulling was definetly wrong. If their system cant be reached the default is to go with wrong explanation rather then wrong bidder.

Even if the bidder was right, its not 100% call either way, yes a player has a right to make conclusions of an opponent questions, but you can arrgue that those question were a result of non clear explanation in the first place.

[hotShot]

Well this is not that simple.

 

1) Check, if the explanation is correct.

Look at the CC and if it's not there, assume wrong explanation.

 

2) Is there any damage to NS?

 

3) Is 2) caused by 1).

 

And this is not the case. If 1NT is natural 15+ and north holds 8 hcp, than north knows that they hold at least 23+ hcp. So west cannot (normally) have a game forcing.

North has a right to know everything that east knows, and in this case he knows more, because he knows east is wrong.

So the ruling is correct.

[Walddk]

Is the ruling correct?

Let me quote from The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997:

 

Law 40C. Director's Option

If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score

 

Law 84E. Discretionary Penalty

If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal

 

......

 

So what do you think? Is there "even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged ..."? I know what I think.

 

Roland

[LH2650]

The Director should have been called when East showed uncertainty about the meaning of West's call. Perhaps he could have determined the actual agreement and avoided this mess. However, at this point an adjustment seems clear. North was effectively told that he would have the opportunity to double a higher contract than 3C, so he decided to do that. Is there any doubt that North would have taken a more successful action if he had been in possession of the (apparently) correct explantion that the 3C bid was preemptive? Also, when East based his bidding on North's question, he acted on Unauthorized Information, committing a second Law violation. The discussion should be about procedural penalties.

[hotShot]

The Director should have been called when East showed uncertainty about the meaning of West's call.  Perhaps he could have determined the actual agreement and avoided this mess.

 

This is why the non offending side can loose their rights.

 

LAW 11

FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO PENALIZE

 

A. Action by Non-Offending Side

    The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty.

...

 

However, at this point an adjustment seems clear.  North was effectively told that he would have the opportunity to double a higher contract than 3C, so he decided to do that.  Is there any doubt that North would have taken a more successful action if he had been in possession of the (apparently) correct explantion that the 3C bid was preemptive?

 

North in fact knew, that it's not possible for west to have a GF. So he should have acted right away. But he decided "to gamble" hoping east would bid on, so that north can score better. If not north is hoping to get a score adjustment by the TD. A classical double shot.

 

Score adjustment

 

The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent side (although the extent of redress to this side may be affected, see below, if it has contributed to its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling, action subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction.

 

"The Code of practice" is as importend as the bridge laws themselfs.

 

Also, when East based his bidding on North's question, he acted on Unauthorized Information, committing a second Law violation

 

LAW 16

UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION

Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

A. Extraneous Information from Partner

.... (The UI was not given by partner)

B. Extraneous Information from Other Sources

When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information.

.... (What the director should do.)

C. Information from Withdrawn Calls and Plays

... (Not the case here)

East has not received an UI as listed in 16B.

To think about why north might have asked, is legal.

 

 

So no score adjustment.

[david_c]

Well this is not that simple.

 

1) Check, if the explanation is correct.

Look at the CC and if it's not there, assume wrong explanation.

 

2) Is there any damage to NS?

 

3) Is 2) caused by 1).

 

And this is not the case. If 1NT is natural 15+ and north holds 8 hcp, than north knows that they hold at least 23+ hcp. So west cannot (normally) have a game forcing.

North has a right to know everything that east knows, and in this case he knows more, because he knows east is wrong.

So the ruling is correct.

This is missing the point. Yes, North can tell from his hand that West doesn't have a game force, but it's still possible that he has been damaged by misinformation. For example, suppose that N-S have agreed how to defend against 3C showing short diamonds. Then this defence probably doesn't have a way to show a random 8-count (because it's impossible!) and so North has no way to bid his hand. If North had been told that 3C showed clubs, then he would have been able to bid this hand, but he can't use that bid here because his partner would think he was invoking their conventional defence to a game-forcing 3C bid. So North may well be completely justified in claiming he has been damaged.

 

Having said that, I suspect that this isn't a misinformation case at all. Most likely is that E-W have agreed to play their usual 1NT system after 1C:(1NT). If they play something like Keri over 1NT, then that would involve using 3C to show a game-forcing hand with shortage in diamonds. The reason that East isn't sure is because he's wondering whether West thinks that 3C is an exception. If this is what's going on then it looks like we have a "fielded misbid"; in the UK that means N-S get ave+ I believe, I've no idea what happens elsewhere.

[hotShot]

Well in the posted text there is nothing about north saying that he has got no bid. So i don't need to think about that.

 

I don't have the time to check now, i think after west revealed the true meaning of the bid, south is allowed to change his last bid! So at that point the TD should have been called.

[david_c]

I don't have the time to check now, i think after west revealed the true meaning of the bid, south is allowed to change his last bid! So at that point the TD should have been called.

The TD was called at that point. But the fact that South can have his pass back isn't any use to him, because he's sitting there with a 1NT overcall - what else is he going to do?

[han]

It wasn't clear what the actual agreement was. East-West had indeed agreed to play their usual notrump system over 1m-1NT. However, West thought that this meant just stayman and transfers, East thought that the whole system was on.

 

I'm not getting any wiser from the posts here. Given that the setting is a local club (in the US), what would you do as director?

[han]

One more point, North told the director that he would have doubled has he known the call was preemptive.

[LH2650]

East has not received an UI as listed in 16B.

To think about why north might have asked, is legal.

 

 

So no score adjustment.

Better read that Law again. You are allowed to base your actions on mannerisms and calls, not questions. If it were otherwise, you would gain advantage merely by playing an unusual system that requires considerable explanation. This is a UI problem, not an MI problem.

 

Also, NS can't lose any rights by not calling the director immediately. There is no established irregularity until it is obvious that the explanation does not match the hand. EW might want to call, since they are likely to get into trouble.

[cherdano]

Depends on his partner (and his hand), of course, but North may well have assumed that the explanation was correct, and that his partner psyched with a weak hand and long diamonds.

[epeeist]

Walddk's explanation leaves me with one question (I assume, given his vugraph etc. duties, he's correct):

 

Even if there's no adjustment to NS, might there not be a procedural penalty to EW for misexplanation of a bid? That is, NS, score remains the same, but EW, score adjusted down or some other penalty?

[inquiry]

I am going to assume the explanation is either wrong (their agreement was not that 3C was game force) or that they had no agreement. Since there was a pass of an alerted GF bid, I will assume the explanation was wrong, perhpas the question made him realize his explanation was wrong, but that is immaterial.

 

First, the director was called when the irreqularity was exposed (when the 3C bidder corrected his partners explanation). This is the right time to call the director, and since the bidding was over, it is now too late to take back the bids and let's East change his pass.

 

Law 21.b.3 is written to handle this situation. It states:

   3.    Too Late to Change Call

       When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score

 

When the director "adjusts the score", he follows law 12...

 

2. Assigned Score

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

 

So play on this hand is over, and the director should assign the scores. The BEST result for the offending side seems to be 3♣ undoubled so EW do not get to play 3♣ undoubled. So if i was directing, i would rule for EW result, the contract as 3♣x down however many on normal play. If 3♣ makes, however, then I would rule the contract as 3♣ undoubled. We will address the NS score in just a moment.

 

Discrepancies between explanations given and the related hands... If the members of a partnership offer differing explanations, or if a conflicting statement on the convention card has caused an opponent to be confused, a procedural penalty for violation of Law 75 may be applied. As a separate issue, the score will be adjusted if opponents are damaged and the conditions for score adjustment are deemed to exist.

 

So procedural penalty is an option, but should it be applied. What does the WBF say about this?

Procedural penalties

A procedural penalty may only be applied where there is a violation of the laws or of a regulation made under the laws. If an appeal committee awards a procedural penalty it should specify what law or regulation has been violated. In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or

misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated. Score adjustment is the way to redress damage.

 

So it suggest adjust score and not do a procedural penalty, but i would have to talk to the players to assess if this "game force" explaination followed by a pass was a bit of coffeehousing or gamesmanship by East to avoid a possible penalty double. Obviously if I reach that conclusion, a heavy procedural penalty would be applied.

 

Now the non-offending side. Unlike others, I disagree with the idea that the pass was a double shot as a win-win. In a game forcing situation, it would be silly to double 3C. On the other hand, if hte explanation was correct, then east psyched his bid, and would probably pass 3C. So I would have to determine if north;s ability. Would he even consider the possibility that south might pass a forcing bid? But I come back to one simple premise. With a correct explanation, he WOULD HAVE DOUBLED. Law 21 requires the adjusted score for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. Clearly that is 3♣x.

 

Ben

[hotShot]

Depends on his partner (and his hand), of course, but North may well have assumed that the explanation was correct, and that his partner psyched with a weak hand and long diamonds.

If so, what harm would be in bidding dbl? If partner is strong, it's the right bid. If partner is weak with long ♦ he will correct to 3♦.

 

Why couldn't the east or west be psyching?

 

If north is bidding "pass" because he doesnot believe his partner, it's gambling. So no adjustment.

If noth is not bidding "dbl" because he is gambling that he can dbl a higher contract later, there is no score adjustment.

 

And by the way if east counts his points and adds what 1NT is promising, he can legaly have doubts on his partners game forcing.

[hotShot]

Now the non-offending side. Unlike others, I disagree with the idea that the pass was a double shot as a win-win. In a game forcing situation, it would be silly to double 3C. On the other hand, if hte explanation was correct, then east psyched his bid, and would probably pass 3C. So I would have to determine if north;s ability. Would he even consider the possibility that south might pass a forcing bid? But I come back to one simple premise. With a correct explanation, he WOULD HAVE DOUBLED. Law 21 requires the adjusted score for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. Clearly that is 3♣x.

 

Ben

It is perfectly legal (though rarely good) to pass a forcing bid.

East knows that his LHO has lots of points, so most of his values are badly placed.

 

Yes the explanation was wrong. Yes probably EW should get a split score not gaining from their infriction of the law.

But the cause for the NS result is not the wrong explanation.

If it was disbelief in south NT bid, it's his fault.

And to belief in the GF explanation means not to trust his partner.

[helene_t]

It was not so smart of North to ask "is it forcing?", since he was already told that it was GF. The question means "if it's NF I'll double but otherwise I'll wait and double in next round". He should have known that East knew that.

 

Anyway, I'd adjust to 3clX-n for both pairs, which is what would have happened if East had given correct explanation.

[LH2650]

I'm repeating myself, but the infraction that must lead to a score adjustment is not the misinformation, but the use of unauthorized information by East when he passed a nominally forcing bid, based on North's questions. The most likely contract without the infraction is 4 clubs doubled, but NS would be entitled to a higher scoring contract their way, if they could make a reasonable argument that they might reach it.

[hotShot]

Dear LH2650!

 

Each game every player is acting on unauthorised informations given by the opponents. We call it "table presence".

 

If you see your RHO smile when you play low to AQ, you get the UI that he holds the K. If you were not allowed to use this, the TD would have to force you to play the ace, because you are not allowed to use that UI.

 

Because it is impossible not to give UI's, there is no law against giving them. Giving unauthorised information is legal.

 

The LAW on unauthorized information is LAW 16, it states exactly what use of UI is illegal. It says you are not allowed to act on UI given by your partner or given by someone from another table.

 

So if you think there is a law against using UI's given by opponents please post it here. You can read the laws online e.g. @ the ACBL site.

[LH2650]

Dear LH2650!

 

Each game every player is acting on unauthorised informations given by the opponents. We call it "table presence".

 

If you see your RHO smile when you play low to AQ, you get the UI that he holds the K. If you were not allowed to use this, the TD would have to force you to play the ace, because you are not allowed to use that UI.

Authorized Information is defined in the first paragraph of Law 16. It specifically includes your example. Any use of Unauthorized Information is illegal.

[david_c]

Authorized Information is defined in the first paragraph of Law 16.  It specifically includes your example.

OK, so North's question is authorised information for East.

 

So, on what basis can you adjust the score if you decide that East gave a correct explanation and West has misbid? Here is a similar situation:

 

uncontested: 1NT:2♥,2♠:3♥,P.

 

In this auction, perhaps responder forgot they were playing transfers. Supposing he has lots of hearts and no spades, then we will have to allow his 3♥ bid. But what if opener knows that his partner is likely to forget, and therefore passes 3♥ rather than making his obvious 3♠ bid? Can a TD disallow the pass? As I said before, in the UK I believe this is called a "fielded misbid" (anyone here able to correct me? I'm no expert on this) and we adjust to A+/A- unless the non-offending side did better than that on the board. What would happen in this situation in the US? If you can answer that then I think you can rule on the original problem.

[LH2650]

Authorized Information is defined in the first paragraph of Law 16.  It specifically includes your example.

OK, so North's question is authorised information for East.

 

So, on what basis can you adjust the score if you decide that East gave a correct explanation and West has misbid? Here is a similar situation:

 

uncontested: 1NT:2♥,2♠:3♥,P.

 

In this auction, perhaps responder forgot they were playing transfers. Supposing he has lots of hearts and no spades, then we will have to allow his 3♥ bid. But what if opener knows that his partner is likely to forget, and therefore passes 3♥ rather than making his obvious 3♠ bid? Can a TD disallow the pass? As I said before, in the UK I believe this is called a "fielded misbid" (anyone here able to correct me? I'm no expert on this) and we adjust to A+/A- unless the non-offending side did better than that on the board. What would happen in this situation in the US? If you can answer that then I think you can rule on the original problem.

Per the first paragraph in Law 16, Authorized Information consists of calls, plays and mannerisms. hotShot's example involved a "mannerism". Try as you might, you can't fit “questions” into any of those categories.

 

However, put down your law book for a moment, step away from the problem at hand, and ask yourself “Can it really be right that I should be able to take advantage when my opponents attempt to obtain information, to which they are legally entitled, about my system?”. I believe that anyone experienced in the ethics of bridge will conclude that the answer is “No”. And that is what I find in the Laws.

 

As for your transfer sequence, if your action is based only on your hand and your knowledge of partner's propensity to forget, there should be no adjustment. The Director would certainly try to ascertain whether there was a “mannerism” that influenced your decision. Your opponents have a right to know about your partner's history in this area, so you might get into trouble for failing to adequately explain your agreements. In the NABC Casebooks, sometimes committees have accepted a “catch” of a non-transfer, and sometimes they have not. It depends on the circumstances. (The auctions were always more complex than yours.) If you decide that there was a use of UI, your score adjustment is incorrect. You need to ascertain the agreed meaning of the rebid, follow the systemically correct auction to its logical conclusion, and determine the score based on that.

[cherdano]

However, put down your law book for a moment, step away from the problem at hand, and ask yourself “Can it really be right that I should be able to take advantage when my opponents attempt to obtain information, to which they are legally entitled, about my system?”.  I believe that anyone experienced in the ethics of bridge will conclude that the answer is “No”.  And that is what I find in the Laws.

I disagree with your interpretation of the law (your quote of "mannerism" etc. is not meant as an comprehensive list, whereas the list of sources of UI is clearly meant to be comprehensive), but I also disagree with this point: If we followed your interpretation of the law, you could put opponents at a disadvantage by asking questions about their bids, and giving them information about your hands in other ways (in your interpretation, showing my hand to RHO would also be UI information to him).

 

To get back to Hannie's original question: I think if there was no misexplanation, and West just misbid, then it is pretty clear to let the result stand.

 

Arend

[dogsbreath]

North should X and lead a Heart .. i had ths hand recently at local club duplicate and score +500

Rgds Dog :P