TD ruling of damage

[pigpenz]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3hakqj9632dq5ca&w=sakj62h5datcj9876&n=s874hdk8763ckqt54&e=st95ht874dj942c32&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2c2hp(positive)3hd3spp4hp5dp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

TD was called on opening lead that there may have been a failure to alert. One was playing transfers and other was not.

TD ruled that there was damage and rolled contract back to 4♥ making instead of 6♥down two.

 

On the surface it looks like south is trying for a two way shot by bidding 6♥.

4 souths opened 4 ♥ west overcalled 4♠ then south rebid 5♥ so there is grounds for players bidding to 5♥

 

would options by TD be

1. misbid by west -result stand

2. roll back to 5♥ down one

3. let result stand for n/s 6♥-2 e/w 5♥-1 or 4♥ making

 

How would you rule and would you appeal TD's deciscion/

TIA

[pran]

With correct alerts and explanations I would consider the following relevant results:

4♥ S = +420

4♠X E -3 +800

4♠X E -4 +1100

 

so I think TD was very lenient on EW

 

(IMHO South is far too strong to open 4♥)

[blackshoe]

What was the actual partnership agreement regarding the 2♥ bid? What did North think 4♥ meant?

[Zelandakh]

More to the point, what would West think 3♥ meant if 2♥ has been alerted and correctly explained? Whatever it is, I doubt 3♠ is the only LA so we have to consider the UI case as well as the MI.

[lamford]

More to the point, what would West think 3♥ meant if 2♥ has been alerted and correctly explained? Whatever it is, I doubt 3♠ is the only LA so we have to consider the UI case as well as the MI.

I don't think East is going to bid again, so the UI issue is not relevant. And if 3H is anything it shows hearts and spades from West's point of view, when he will only bid 3S. So, the idea that EW will get to 4S is wrong. However, if 2H had been alerted (and we assume MI rather than misbid), North would have passed 4H as he would have known it was natural. I think 100% of 4H= is correct, the result which would have occurred without the infraction. So, I agree with the TD decision.

[Zelandakh]

And if 3H is anything it shows hearts and spades from West's point of view, when he will only bid 3S.

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts. Ask 100 club-level players about the auction (2♣) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥. How many do you think would say this was a FNJ?

[sanst]

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts. Ask 100 club-level players about the auction (2♣) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥. How many do you think would say this was a FNJ?

What's a FNJ?

[robert2734]

What's a FNJ?

 

Intuitive, feeling, judgemental.

[Zelandakh]

What's a FNJ?

Fit non-jump.

[lamford]

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts. Ask 100 club-level players about the auction (2♣) - 2♠ - (P) - 3♥. How many do you think would say this was a FNJ?

South has opened a strong 2C, and North has passed to show values, presumably forcing. That does not leave many values for East, and he would not bid if he did not have a spade fit as well (in the authorised auction of course). West doesn't want to play in 3H doubled, so he bids 3S. And 3H wasn't a leap. It was a non-leap!

[Zelandakh]

South has opened a strong 2C, and North has passed to show values, presumably forcing. That does not leave many values for East, and he would not bid if he did not have a spade fit as well (in the authorised auction of course). West doesn't want to play in 3H doubled, so he bids 3S. And 3H wasn't a leap. It was a non-leap!

I follow your logic. I just do not think many club-level players would think of it. More likely, something like 08(32) would be considered. If West knew that 3♥ was natural and denied any interest in spades, 3♠ becomes questionable to say the least. Maybe you are too good to be able to put yourself as a peer of such a club-level player but I daresay you have seen worse. But there is an easier way, we can ask the E-W pair about their agreements and see where that takes us.

 

And yes, non-jump and non-leap are synonymous but FNJ is by far the more common usage in bridge circles.

[lamford]

But there is an easier way, we can ask the E-W pair about their agreements and see where that takes us.

We already know that their agreement was (deemed to be) to play transfers over a 2C opener, but East forgot. So they won't have discussed 3H here. However, if East just had hearts, he would have passed 2♥.

[Zelandakh]

So they won't have discussed 3H here.

You have evidence of that? Why make assumptions rather than investigating? There is a UI case. It may turn out to be trivial and unimportant but we should check rather than ignoring it or assuming that the pair either have no agreement or some manufactured advanced agreement that we think would work well.

[lamford]

You have evidence of that? Why make assumptions rather than investigating? There is a UI case. It may turn out to be trivial and unimportant but we should check rather than ignoring it or assuming that the pair either have no agreement or some manufactured advanced agreement that we think would work well.

We are told by the OP that one side was playing transfers and the other was not. Therefore they have no agreement. And thinking they might have discussed continuations is Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. Far better to investigate what the authorised but undiscussed auction would mean to peers of West.

[Zelandakh]

Therefore they have no agreement.

Another assumption. It might be that West started using transfers on a whim but it might also be that they discussed and agreed the method and East simply forgot. What do you have against investigating?

[gnasher]

We should certainly ask EW about their agreements regarding 3♥. If, as seems likely, we determine that 3♥ was undiscussed, passing 3♥x was clearly an LA for West. If so, we should adjust to some large percentage of NS +2000, perhaps with a bit of something else to allow for North's pulling the double.

 

Has somebody hijacked Lamford's BBF account?

[c_corgi]

It is some leap to assume this 3♥ would be a FNJ rather than, for example, showing hearts....

 

Indeed, especially as OP makes no mention of it being alerted as such. It is also not clear whether N/S both knew that they were playing in hearts. If so then I agree with OP that 6H was wild or gambling. If not, and the lack of alerts contributed to this confusion, then I have more sympathy with the 6♥ bid.

[lamford]

We should certainly ask EW about their agreements regarding 3♥. If, as seems likely, we determine that 3♥ was undiscussed, passing 3♥x was clearly an LA for West. If so, we should adjust to some large percentage of NS +2000, perhaps with a bit of something else to allow for North's pulling the double.

 

Has somebody hijacked Lamford's BBF account?

Not that I am aware. While I am always keen to adjust to -2000 or more (less?), here the double of 3H was penalties, and assuming it is EBU-land, it should have been alerted. And if it is takeout, or North thinks it is, there is zero chance that North will pass it, having not alerted it. So, the "bit of something else" would be 99.9% of North bidding 4NT, presumably "pick a minor suit game or slam".

 

As you seem to think North would pass a takeout double of 3H a large percentage of the time, I suspect someone may have hijacked gnasher's account, as that is way short of his normal bidding judgement.

[lamford]

One was playing transfers and other was not.

What did the CC say?

[barmar]

We already know that their agreement was (deemed to be) to play transfers over a 2C opener, but East forgot.

We are told by the OP that one side was playing transfers and the other was not. Therefore they have no agreement.

Which is it -- they have an agreement but one forgot, or they don't have an agreement?

[lamford]

Which is it -- they have an agreement but one forgot, or they don't have an agreement?

I have no idea; it was not at a North London Club. The OP did not state which he had established. Maybe the CCs were silent on the subject. I refer you again to a definition of agreement:

 

agreement

əˈɡriːm(ə)nt/

noun

harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling

 

They are deemed to have an agreement rather than have misbid, under

21B(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

 

For the purpose of MI we deem them to have an "agreement", even though they did not "agree". For ruling on MI we assume they had an agreement. We know that they did not agree on the meaning of 2H, but even if West passes, North will takeout the takeout double.

[mycroft]

So, as West, I showed spades and partner bid hearts. I have no clue what that means (let's assume), and it got doubled. I actually have stuff for my disruption (I don't remember the last time I had an opening bid after p-p-2♣, assuming 2♣ wasn't "22 or 8.5 tricks, could be AKJT-ninth in a major"); and partner has a bid to clarify. Why am I not passing?

 

Oh yeah, partner didn't Alert. He thinks I have hearts. He's going to pass this, and it's going to go for its life. Better make the Unauthorized Panic call.

 

Sure, I'm assuming something like "bidding to forced level is the worst possible hand". But I can investigate that, too, right? I know if I poll this one out with my level of Flight Bs, I'm going to get lots and lots of "partner must have forgot. 3♠" and, if I make clear that it was alerted and asked, and partner told us all it showed spades, some of them will *still* bid 3♠. But I really hope that the poll will tell me that pass is a Logical Alternative.

 

Now, is North going to pass 3♥X? She's shown her game force, partner's suggested this is going down, and the colours are right. She has the minors, partner likely has the majors, and one only needs -2 for +500 into +460. I don't think she's going to do it 100% of the time, but it's not unreasonable. Remember, she's not entitled to the information they're having an accident, but she is entitled to their agreements which is that West showed spades, and East bid hearts - and I'm happy to sit for 3♠X too.

If 3♥X does get to East, it looks like an autopass.

 

If North pulls, South will then bid 4♥. Does that get the point across? Not sure, but I'll poll that one too. Let's assume so as they're the NOS.

 

So, unless I hear something with the questioning and polling, how about:

• 70% of 3♥x W N/S +2000 (♣K lead seems sane; 4 rounds of trump, North showing strength in both minors, and then a diamond. I'll let West cash out.)
  
• 30% of 4♥ S N/S +420

(or maybe 60-20-20 5♥S-1?)

 

Now, to the other questions in the OP.

• The fact that some Souths opened this 4♥ (or 4♣ for that matter) and got to 5 means nothing. This South didn't.
  
• Is 6♥ a doubleshot? The MI has denied me the chance to know there's a spade hole. 3♠ *should* show 7 spades or so as I know West doesn't have hearts despite the table auction. Do we play first or first-and-second cuebids by responder to 2♣? If first, partner could very easily have a stiff spade, stiff heart, and A of diamonds and a card and 6 is on; but it's putting partner on a magic hand. If first-and-second, then clearly either partner is running from 4♥ (which I hope she's not) or we're off two spades. 6 is a crazy bid. Frankly, in Flight B I can see 5♦ as "partner I heard you had hearts and hearts, my suit (that I didn't bother to bid the last two times) is better, because no suit plays well opposite a void." - and at that point, who knows what we can make? If, after several queries, we want to call it a Gambling Action, sure, give 'em a split score.
  
• misbid is an option for the TD, but we would have to have evidence that beats the presumption of Mistaken Explanation (over Mistaken Bid) that East was right, and they play natural. Having said that, the Unauthorized Panic call still needs to be justified or they're getting a big fraction of down 6.
  
• should you appeal it? I'd certainly ask the DIC to explain the ruling at least; after hearing what questioning and polling got done, perhaps I'd be convinced that I just got a bad, and not a wrong, ruling. I might also be so embarrassed about my bidding (from both sides) that I'll just let it slide. It might be a club game and I don't care. It might be that it was a split ruling - I don't think I'm appealing a Serious Error 5♦ or Gambling 6♥ ruling - and E/W aren't getting a good score either.
  

[Zelandakh]

The OP did not state which he had established.

Which is why I suggested that the TD should investigate the matter. I still do not understand why you are against this.

[lamford]

Which is why I suggested that the TD should investigate the matter. I still do not understand why you are against this.

I saw little point in it, as even if 3H was natural and non-forcing, despite the ability to pass 2H, and even if West were to pass this, North, who thinks double of 3H is takeout, would not pass.

 

Why not, while you are pursuing the wild-goose chase, ask EW if they have discussed 2NT, 3C and 3D or other non-completions of the transfer overcall of a strong 2C. Standard methods, for all the but the rabbits and zelandakhs of the world are to play that non-completion of a transfer shows a fit. Especially when the opponents have forced to game. But if you want to message pigpenz, you can find out if he or the TD asked.

[lamford]

partner's suggested this is going down

Rubbish. Double of 3H was not alerted and therefore takeout in the UK.