Iceland - Misinformation

[vigfus]

Misinformation, wrong explaination = Yes. Damage... well - I am not sure

 

Pairs E/W wulnerable. Dealer South.

South - West - North are advanced+ East is Expert.

N/S is a regular parthership. E/W are not.

 

South - West - North - East

2c 2S 3D(1) 4S

5C pass 5D(2) Pass(3)

Pass(4) Double Pass Pass

5H(5) Pass Pass(6) Double

All pass

11 tricks made. 750 NS 95% score to N/S

 

10

KQ9432

987654

---

West ---East

KJ653 ---AQ982

75 ---86

KJ3 ---AQ2

A105 ---743

 

74

AJ10

10

KQJ9862

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2C = precision

 

1) = Transfer to Hearts. Explained as non forcing bid of diamonds.

2) = I have diamonds also.

3) = Partner. your decision. 5spades or double.

4) = Agreed heasitation.

5) = South remembers now about the transfer. But gives no explaination.

6) = North thinks the auction is over and explains that he has Hearts and Diamonds.

 

TD is called at the end of the auction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a) East will always bid 4♠, not matter about the MI.

b) In case of (3). Would east pass as forcing with right explainaton ? if having the correct meaning? Not sure, but likely.

b2) And if West had known about ♥and ♦, would have doubled the 5♦ bid ? = Yes likely

c) In case of (5). Would west have bid 5♠ with correct explaination ? - I do not think so.

 

E/W wanted to play in 5♦ undoubled. 9 tricks. 90% score to E/W

 

Well - My ruling was... no damage. Table Score stands.

 

Perhaps I am totally wrong. When there are so many quiestions with no clear answers, I should have adjusted score to 40/60, or tried to find some weighted score.

 

Greetings from Iceland

 

Vigfus Palsson

[vigfus]

I have serious problems creating this diagram - Can someone help me?

[sfi]

The only way for the score to be adjusted to 5D is for West to pass with the correct information. As you say, that does not seem likely given East's pass was forcing but I would give West a chance to convince me that would be the right action.

 

I would be inclined to adjust to 5H undoubled, since the double could easily have been influenced by the strange bidding. As director I would also warn South about their obligation to inform the opponents about alertable bids whenever they remember. South should also have called the director at that point, which would have given E-W additional options.

[sfi]

I think I have it right.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s74hajtdtckqj9862&w=skj653h75dkj3cat5&n=sthkq9432d987654c&e=saq982h86daq2c743&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2c(Precision)2s3d(Hearts%2C%20not%20alerted)4s5cp5d(I%20have%20diamonds%20also)p(Partner%2C%20your%20decision)p(Agreed%20hesitation)dpp5h(Did%20not%20mention%20agreement%20of%203D)pp(Explains%20MI%20after%20bid)dppp]399|300[/hv]

[blackshoe]

Vigfus, please use the hand editor (spade symbol with a red vertical bar on either side, right end of the second line of icons in the editor).

 

Sorry, if you'll post specific problems with the editor I'll try to guide you through it.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s74hajtdtckqj9862&w=skj653h75dkj3cat5&n=sthkq9432d987654c&e=saq982h86daq2c743&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2c(Precision)2s3d(xfer%20to%20H%2C%20explained%20as%20natural)4s5cp5d(second%20suit)p(up%20to%20you%2C%20partner)p(agreed%20hesitation)dpp5h(remembering%20that%203D%20was%20a%20transfer)pp(South%20explains%20he%20has%20the%20reds)dppp]399|300[/hv]

I don't see how you get to "no damage".

 

South violated a "must" law when he failed to call the director at the time he realized he'd mis-explained 3♦ and, in the director's presence, provide the correct explanation to the opponents. Rates a PP for players at this level.

North violated a "must" law when, thinking the auction over, he failed to call the director before explaining that he has diamonds and hearts. Also rates a PP IMO, although in this case he was trying to be helpful.

 

Did you give West the opportunity to change his final pass per Law 21?

 

Crossposted.

 

If you want to comment bids, you have to put the comment in (in the blank space that is *not* labelled "comments") before you enter the bid.

Edited December 31, 2014 by blackshoe
Missed a couple posts

[gnasher]

The auction that EW were told about at the table was very different from the one that actually occurred.

 

In the auction explained to EW, North made a non-forcing 3♦ bid opposite a limited opening, East bid game, and NS competed to the five level. In that sequence it's reasonable to play pass as forcing, because the bidding says that the opponents are saving.

NS's auction said that they had two one-suiters and no known fit, which makes double more appealing.

 

In the real auction, North was unlimited. Here there is much less reason to play pass as forcing. If EW say that they play pass as non-forcing in this sequence, I believe them (although I'd ask to see any documentation they might have).

A double of 5♦ is also less attractive if you know that North has a red two-suiter.

 

Given correct information EW might well have defended 5♦ undoubled, so I think they were were damaged. East's double of 5♥ after being given correct information might have been ill-judged, but it doesn't look like a SEWoG.

 

5♦ goes three or four down, depending on whether declarer plays for the trumps to break 3-3. I'd adjust to 50% of 5♦-3 and 50% of 5♦-4.

 

I'd also give procedural penalties to North and South.