Ruling question

[Chamaco]

Hi all !

 

I have a ruling question on the following hand.

 

Saturday I was playing a team match at the local club, between friends.

 

I was south, Red vs white.

 

RHO (East) was dealer, and opens 3S.

 

E.........S.........W.......N

3S.....4C(1)....4S......Dbl

p........5H.........p.......p

Dbl all pass

 

I held

x-AKQJx-Qx-QT9xx

 

My pard (North) had

x-xxxx-AJTxx-AJx

 

Playing in 5S doubled, i lost one spade and one club (CK was offside).

At the other table the score was 5SX-1.

 

Let's go back to the bidding:

- my 4C bidding was Nonleaping Michaels (55 or better in hearts+clubs). My pard had totally forgot, so this was unalerted;

- pard's double was unagreed;

- after I pulled pard's double, everybody thought a lot before bidding

- before the lead I told opps (and pard) that I had a 2-suiter: at this point East got mad "Ah that's totally different, I would not have doubled, and/or maybe my pard would have bid 5S!"

- I replied that, after all, I had bid in a close to natural way my suits: even without a nonleaping michaels agreement, my bid, if natural, should have shown some 65 2-suiters or so. Also, I had taken my risk to bid 5H by myself, risking to play in a 5-1 fit. Pard was unaware of my bidding just as opps.

- nobody in the 8-some had a convention card.

 

Everything endd there, because in was a team match between friends and unofficial, but I am wondering what would have been the proper ruling here.

 

Thanks all !

 

Mauro

[cherdano]

Hi Mauro,

 

I guess my ruling would be result stands, as I don't see how bidding 5♠ is more attractive with the correct explanation. However, if your opponents had complained about your 5♥ bid, this would be a tough problem. You have UI (partner did not alert) that partner has forgotten the convention. Since 4♣ has shown your hand, passing the double is a logical alternative IMO. Further, the UI clearly makes bidding 5♥ more attractive than passing.

 

So if THAT had been the complaint of your opps, I think there would be a good case to roll back to 4♠X, whatever the result would have been there. (Was the result at the other table really 5♠X - 1? Doesn't your side have 3 hearts and two minor aces against a spade contract?)

 

Arend

[Cascade]

I think that 5♥ is an illegal bid given the misinformation of the failure to alert. It is a bid that is designed to try and clear up the misunderstanding that you and your partner were having.

 

The law says that you may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could be suggested by this UI.

 

Basically in most situations this means you should make the most normal bid.

 

If you think that double is penalties then pass is normal since you have no extra distribution. If somehow you think that double is ongoing then 5♣ is more flexible than 5♥ on the assumption that you have already bid your hearts.

 

Personally unless you can convince me that you have a special understanding about double then I think that Pass of 4♠ X is clear-cut and would rule and adjustment back to 4♠X.

 

Why did you not get forced off? It looks like spade and spade shortens your trumps then when you lose the club finesse another spade promotes trump tricks for the opponents.

[Walddk]

Agree with Wayne (Cascade). Passing 4♠X is definitely a logical alternative, since you already showed your hand by bidding 4♣. The problem is not that you got UI when your partner did not alert 4♣, the issue is that you used the UI. Given the missing alert it is more attractive for you to bid 5♥ now. That is against the law.

 

I would adjust the score to 4♠X with a ? number of tricks, depending on what I see when I look at all hands.

 

Roland

[Fluffy]

-590 I would rule I think unless the play a tthe otehr table was really rare.

[Chamaco]

I think that 5♥ is an illegal bid given the misinformation of the failure to alert.  It is a bid that is designed to try and clear up the misunderstanding that you and your partner were having.

 

The law says that you may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could be suggested by this UI. 

 

Basically in most situations this means you should make the most normal bid.

 

If you think that double is penalties then pass is normal since you have no extra distribution.  If somehow you think that double is ongoing then 5♣ is more flexible than 5♥ on the assumption that you have already bid your hearts.

 

Personally unless you can convince me that you have a special understanding about double then I think that Pass of 4♠ X is clear-cut and would rule and adjustment back to 4♠X.

 

Ok, thanks.

The reasoning is clear to me now and I find it fair to opps.

 

 

Why did you not get forced off?  It looks like spade and spade shortens your trumps then when you lose the club finesse another spade promotes trump tricks for the opponents.

 

Sorry, my mistake in quoting pard's hand.

Pard had a SPADE singleton and xxxx as trump support in H.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree, 5H is suggested by partners failure to alert. Had he alerted and Xed your hand would really have no reason to bid over the X since you had shown your hand. I would also make sure this hand was recorded, what you did was really unethical (although im sure you didnt mean to be unethical, in situations like these you must go out of your way to not take advantage of the failure to alert.)

[Chamaco]

I would also make sure this hand was recorded, what you did was really unethical (although im sure you didnt mean to be unethical, in situations like these you must go out of your way to not take advantage of the failure to alert.)

Had I meant to be unethical, I would not have posted here.

 

I posted exactly to have feedback on this issue.

Now it is much clearer that the failure to alert by pard is in fact a UI, a thing that did not occur to me at the moment, despite the fact it may seem obvious that had partner alerted I would have passed her penalty.

 

And yes, I would have passed in that case, so I indeed took advantage of the UI.