SOS redouble

[lamford]

Interesting. I think we have two Lamfords, one on each side.

The two posts do not contradict each other one iota, and you seem to have as much trouble with English as this particular North. If West had explained the bid as "SOS", North would have passed, after looking up his dictionary of bridge terms, and collected 1000. When West explained it as "9+", North foolishly believed him and decided to bid 4H. He was misinformed; the misinformation caused damage; therefore we adjust.

[lamford]

But it is also possible that West accurately described the XX as showing 9+, and that East erroneously (or ill-advisedly) redoubled intending SOS that was not their agreement. In that case North would certainly have no redress, because there will have been no MI.

However, the TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Law 21B1(b). If the card had this sequence, or a similar sequence, with "9+" on the card, you would be right, but then we would have been told that in the OP, wouldn't we, James?

[1eyedjack]

However, the TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Law 21B1(b). If the card had this sequence, or a similar sequence, with "9+" on the card, you would be right, but then we would have been told that in the OP, wouldn't we, James?

Fine, that answers my question. In other words (2) does indeed take precedence over (3), all else being equal. That was all I asked. I am content.

[VixTD]

I wasn't very impressed with the actions of North, West or East either. I didn't think that North was stupid or gullible enough to be denied redress. I consider that allowing the score to stand and penalising West for giving an incorrect explanation would be a defensible ruling, but I also think that North was led to believe that SOS was not a possible meaning for the redouble, and so had been misinformed. Had he been given the correct explanation of "no agreement" he would still have been left to guess what to do, so I awarded 50% of the table result and 50% of 4♦XX(W)-3.

 

They were also all at fault for failing to call the director when a player was unable to explain their partner's bid, which is one of the situations in which players are advised in the White Book to always call the TD (WB1.1(a)). Had someone done that it would have saved all this trouble.

[blackshoe]

Is it really just "guesswork" if it's based on what they know of their partner's experience? Or extrapolation from similar situations in other auctions? Implicit agreements don't just come from experience within the partnership, they can also come from your knowledge of partner's experience in general, his style that you've observed when playing against them, etc.

 

If you have a good reason to believe that he might mean it as SOS, and can't expect the opponents to make the same inferences, is it unreasonable to give this explanation?

It is reasonable to explain the possibility. It is unreasonable to fail to explain that it's only a possibility. IOW, if partner makes a call for which you have no explicit agreement, but there is partnership experience or your knowledge of partner's experience, you say first that you have no explicit agreement, and then explain the possibilities and the source of them.

 

On another issue, if your opponent is rude enough to interrupt in the middle of explaining and tell you he doesn't want to hear any more, that's on him. Similarly if you hesitate because you need to think for a moment trying to remember if you have an agreement, or to arrange your thoughts, and he says "never mind," or the like, that's his problem. If (when) he later calls the director, just tell him what happened. IMO, if you try to comply with your disclosure obligations and your opponents shortstop you, you're not at fault if they screw something up. OTOH, if you truly don't know what the heck partner's doing, just say so. Don't try to come up with some explanation that may or may not bear any resemblance to the reality.

[lamford]

Had he been given the correct explanation of "no agreement" he would still have been left to guess what to do, so I awarded 50% of the table result and 50% of 4♦XX(W)-3.

An excellent compromise, and better than my suggested ruling.

[Vampyr]

West had GBK that SOS might have been a possible agreement, had they had an agreement (which they didn't). That's not the same thing as having an implicit agreement.

 

Looks more like GBI than GBK. Players do not often have a side suit when they have preempt end to the 4-level. Though I would love to know what East's call over 4♠ would be.

[Vampyr]

Interesting. I think we have two Lamfords, one on each side.

 

Lamford's cat is a keen keyboard-walker...

[barmar]

The reason that I ask the question is that some posters in this thread appear to have concluded that E/W had an agreement, that the agreement was SOS and that West mis-described it. That conclusion seems to apply greater trust in East's knowledge of their agreements than in that of West. It may be fair to discount West's opinion on the grounds that it was not confidently held. But it is also possible that West accurately described the XX as showing 9+, and that East erroneously (or ill-advisedly) redoubled intending SOS that was not their agreement. In that case North would certainly have no redress, because there will have been no MI.

I think they concluded that the agreement was likely from this part of the OP: "West admitted that it might have been asking her to bid a suit, but she didn't have another suit to bid."