TD ruling of damage

[sanst]

I don't think that we have enough relevant information to give an opinion which isn't based on assumptions. We don't even know which jurisdiction is involved and what is usual there. Nevertheless I also will give my view.

It's clear that there is MI and thus an infraction. Is there damage? As far as I can make out, NS caim so, and the TD agrees. But is the damage caused by the infraction? Not in my opinion. Just forget for a moment the MI. N knows that S has a strong, maybe even a very strong, hand with hearts. Without knowing more than that N has shown values S bids 4♥. Nowhere in the OP is given a indication that N thought it was a cue, let alone a cue for what? From thereon things go wrong for NS, N bidding 5♦ based on what? S thinks it's a invitation for slam and pulls 6♥ from the box, but S can deduct from the bidding that W must have spades and values, bidding as he did vul vs nv. 6♥ is both wild and gambling in my book and I don't see any connection between this bid and the MI, so both sides should keep their score. And yes, based on the facts given I would say that NS could appeal.

Something else is the MI-case for EW. You could give them a PP or DP.

[Zelandakh]

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

Why do you think this took place in any part of the UK?

[lamford]

Why do you think this took place in any part of the UK?

I thought I had seen posts from UK events by pigpenz before, but maybe I am confusing him with pigtrader. Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted? I know they don't generally alert doubles in Holland, and we should be told the jurisdiction in the OP.

 

And if you think 3H is natural and non-forcing, then I presume you play 1NT-(Pass)-2H*-(Pass)-3H to be natural and non-forcing! The default agreement for that, even among lower level club players who have not discussed transfer continuations, is a transfer break with four good hearts. West is completely unsuitable for a spade game, especially with a strong 2C on his right and a singleton opposite partner's values and rightly signs off in 3S.

[Zelandakh]

Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted?

they are not alerted where I play for one. My guess is that would apply to several others.

 

 

And if you think 3H is natural and non-forcing,

It is irrelevant what I would play just as it is irrelevant what you would choose. What either of us might do in a completely different auction is even less of interest and it boggles my mind why you are choosing to hijack this thread with such nonsense.

[lamford]

It is irrelevant what I would play just as it is irrelevant what you would choose. What either of us might do in a completely different auction is even less of interest and it boggles my mind why you are choosing to hijack this thread with such nonsense.

It boggles my mind why you are choosing to suggest that a transfer break should be natural and non-forcing (from West's point of view using the authorised auction of course). That is the nonsense, and you are the one hijacking the thread. No doubt you think you are right just as with your comment on the Rabbit's Rithmetic where you thought the claim ruling was easy. Except that your ruling was just wrong:

 

The claim is easy - stated line is ♥A followed by 6 side suit winners, which results in 13 tricks. Dealing with the ethical side is another matter but there is no guarantee that that will even come to light.

Let us move on to the ruling here please. If you have something useful to contribute to that I am prepared to listen. But I don't want to have to respond to your suggestion that West should pass 3H any more. I disagree, and don't think Pass is in the ballpark.

 

And it seems that in the ACBL South's double is alertable if is penalties:

 

"1♥-Dbl or 1♦-P-1♠-Dbl

If either double is penalty or lead directing only, an Alert is required." are the only two examples given, but 2C*-(2H)-Pass-(3H)-Double where 2C is artificial must surely be similarly alertable as penalties would be a highly unusual treatment. The UK just makes it alertable in a blanket way. In Croatia, it would be alertable, and in Poznan (EBL) it would have been alertable too.

 

I do agree that it would be nice to state the jurisdiction in each post. I always post "North London club" to make it clear that it is the EBU!

Edited April 11, 2016 by lamford

[gnasher]

Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted?

There's Scotland, which is in fact part of the UK. Though it may not be for much longer if people keep annoying the Scots by conflating England with the UK.

 

I think it's normal for double to be penalty in this auction. With a "takeout" type, you make a forcing pass.

 

Furthermore, the auction auggests that Nroth thought it was for penalties. With xxx - Kxxxx KQxxx opposite a hand that was worth a 2♣ opening,a takeout double of hearts, and a 4♥ cue-bid, North has a grand-slam drive. The fact that he bid 5♦ suggests that he thought the auction meant something rather different.

 

Even furthermore, I don't understand why you assume that double wasn't alerted. The OP didn't indicate that the 2♣ opening was either alerted or announced. Should we therefore assume that North did neither, and hence that North interpreted 2♣ as some unalertable meaning (supposing that there is one in the is in the juristiction that you keep calling "the UK")?

[lamford]

There's Scotland, which is in fact part of the UK. Though it may not be for much longer if people keep annoying the Scots by conflating England with the UK.

 

I think it's normal for double to be penalty in this auction. With a "takeout" type, you make a forcing pass.

 

Furthermore, the auction auggests that Nroth thought it was for penalties. With xxx - Kxxxx KQxxx opposite a hand that was worth a 2♣ opening,a takeout double of hearts, and a 4♥ cue-bid, North has a grand-slam drive. The fact that he bid 5♦ suggests that he thought the auction meant something rather different.

 

Even furthermore, I don't understand why you assume that double wasn't alerted. The OP didn't indicate that the 2♣ opening was either alerted or announced. Should we therefore assume that North did neither, and hence that North interpreted 2♣ as some unalertable meaning (supposing that there is one in the is in the juristiction that you keep calling "the UK")?

I assume that the OP gives alerts if there were any. I always try to when starting an OP. A strong 2C we can forgive, but not an unalerted double, if it was indeed alertable or alerted. You are right about Scotland, as I find:

 

"Do NOT alert the following:

1. All doubles."

 

However, it is alertable in many other jurisdictions. North's pass was shown to be "a positive" and that was the only alerted bid in the diagram. Perhaps we should wait for pigpenz to tidy up the pig's ear that he made of the OP, by including the jurisdiction, and clarifying what the actual EW agreement was, and whether any bids were alerted, alertable but not alerted, asked about, or explained at the time. And I think it is just as good to play double as takeout and pass to show a strong balanced hand. With one partner I play that double is the lower range of the Kokish balanced hands and pass is the higher range where both are available. I doubt whether pigpenz investigated that either.

 

I am glad that you have not resumed the argument that East's 3H was natural and non-forcing!

Edited April 12, 2016 by lamford

[Pig Trader]

.... but maybe I am confusing him with pigtrader.

 

I confuse you even when I don't post anything? :P

[gnasher]

I am glad that you have not resumed the argument that East's 3H was natural and non-forcing!

Personally I don't think that internet discussions benefit from having someone repeatedly say the same thing. I realise that you may not agree with this approach.

 

But since you seem in some doubt as to my views, I still believe that it is a logical alternative to interpret 3♥ as natural and showing only hearts, and to pass 3♥x.

[sanst]

Is there a jurisdiction where a penalty double of 3H is not alerted? I know they don't generally alert doubles in Holland, and we should be told the jurisdiction in the OP.

Not just Holland, but all of the Netherlands ;). In fact the Dutch Bridge Union more or less follows the WBF Alerting Policy, which means no alertable doubles, but alerting when possibly an unexpected meaning.

[campboy]

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?

I don't think that question really settles the matter. Obviously if 3♥ is your only way to show long hearts, it shows long hearts. But if you have another way to show long hearts (by passing partner's heart bid, as here), then maybe it doesn't any more.

 

Of course, the following is even less relevant:

And if you think 3H is natural and non-forcing, then I presume you play 1NT-(Pass)-2H*-(Pass)-3H to be natural and non-forcing!

At the risk of stating the obvious, if you've already shown a balanced hand you don't really need a bid to show lots of hearts. That's basically the reason transfer breaks show support after a no-trump opening: because the natural meaning doesn't make sense. If the natural meaning isn't impossible (eg after a balanced-or-natural 1♣ opening and a transfer response) then that's a completely different story.

 

Anyway, I suspect both interpretations are logical alternatives here. But the only reason a FNJ is even plausible is that partner could have passed if he wanted to play in hearts. It's nothing to do with being a "transfer break"; 3m would clearly be natural NF.

[lamford]

3m would clearly be natural NF.

Here we disagree, and I gave the auction to a few top players, with 2H as a transfer. Given that NS have forced to game, effectively, they thought 2S would be normal, 2NT should be "I have a suit of my own", and 3C, 3D and 3H should be fit. Pass would, as you say, be just hearts, but maybe that is a bit avant garde for some.

[blackshoe]

I could be mistaken, but I believe Pigpenz is in the US.

 

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

 

"There was damage" is of course only one of the several criteria for adjusting the score.

 

Without knowing what 3♥ means in this partnership, I don't think we can rule here, save in the sense of "do something to let play continue" which isn't necessary.

[pigpenz]

sorry for all the confusion, yes i am in usa and thought this was appeals and committe forums for all just not ebu!

how this all happened was previous table we ran into preciscion pair and i asked if we play anything. partner said lets play mathe and transfers against their big club.

so partner thought it was all forcing clubs and i assumed only big one club.

 

there was no alerts at to 3 ♥ x as penalties or take out. if south had passed west would have to pass i assume. there was no understanding on the 3♥ call, mostly at the table what occurred was some table talk by north as to what is going on here

[gnasher]

Here we disagree, and I gave the auction to a few top players, with 2H as a transfer. Given that NS have forced to game, effectively, they thought 2S would be normal, 2NT should be "I have a suit of my own", and 3C, 3D and 3H should be fit. Pass would, as you say, be just hearts, but maybe that is a bit avant garde for some.

I gave the auction to some of the people I work with. They said they didn't know what it meant, or indeed what I was talking about. That's because none of them play bridge. Unless you have reason to think that West was in the same class as your "top players", the results of my poll are almost as irrelevant as the results of yours.

 

In any case, you didn't even ask your pollees the right question. The relevant question is not "What does 3♥ mean?", but "What would you do in this auction, facing an undiscussed 3♥, and what other actions would you seriously consider?"

 

Regardless of what you think 3♥ ought to mean, once South doubles it's obvious to pass 3♥. If he has a fit-bid he will bid 3♠; if he has a hand like xx KQ109xxx x xxx he will pass. He will know that his 3[he[ is undiscussed, and he's awae that he's just been penalty-doubled in 3♥, so there is no chance that he will interepet the pass of 3♥x as encouraging and bid 4♠.

 

Even if you don't accept that it's obviousl to pass 3♥x, it's surely a logical alternative.

[gnasher]

thought this was appeals and committe forums for all just not ebu!

It is. I expect Lamford will in due course apologise for his inadventent parochialism.

[gnasher]

And it seems that in the ACBL South's double is alertable if is penalties:

It seems to me obvious that its not.

 

"Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert."

 

There is nothing unusual or unexpected about a penalty double in a forcing auction, especially in North America, so plainly a penalty double does not require an alert. If you alerted this double in the ACBL and then explained it as penalties, you would at the least get some odd looks.

 

in Poznan (EBL) it would have been alertable too.

 

Which part of the EBL alerting rules do you think makes this call alertable? It's not conventional, it doesn't have a special meaning, and it's not based on or leading to a special understanding between the partners. It's also a double, which is explicitly not alertable in an event without screens. (I realise that your reference to Poznan might imply the use of screens, but it seems clear from the OP that screen-regulations are not relevant in this case.)

[lamford]

It seems to me obvious that its not.

 

"Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert."

 

There is nothing unusual or unexpected about a penalty double in a forcing auction, especially in North America, so plainly a penalty double does not require an alert. If you alerted this double in the ACBL and then explained it as penalties, you would at the least get some odd looks.

 

 

 

Which part of the EBL alerting rules do you think makes this call alertable? It's not conventional, it doesn't have a special meaning, and it's not based on or leading to a special understanding between the partners. It's also a double, which is explicitly not alertable in an event without screens. (I realise that your reference to Poznan might imply the use of screens, but it seems clear from the OP that screen-regulations are not relevant in this case.)

I was referring to an event with screens. Is it really the case that only the EBU requires an alert of penalty doubles of suit contracts where the opponents have bid and raised a suit and we have not yet shown a suit. And is there an ACBL director who can confirm or deny if a penalty double here is alertable? And even if it is penalties, and not alertable, I do not think North will pass it! And it is also worth noting that a US TD adjusted to 4H=, without giving the offending side -2000. Therefore, he, at least, did not view that result as at all likely, in non-weighting-territory.

[lamford]

there was no understanding on the 3♥ call

As I expected and predicted. We should therefore poll, say, ten peers to give them the auction (2C)-2H(alerted)-Pass(values)-3H(undiscussed)-(Dble)(undiscussed). This is the authorised auction and that is how we establish the LAs; I have just seen a post of gnasher's where he makes a similar point. We could put it as a poll in the expert forum, but I don't have time to do that. In fact I don't have time to post on this thread any more and will not respond to it again. No doubt gnasher will be pleased that I have had my say. One point to make is that Pass of 3Hx doubled is surely encouraging, as we have forced to 3S, and it is therefore not an LA. Campboy's point that 3H is not just hearts or partner would have passed 2H is the most convincing for me in this thread. And no, I don't think Pass of 3Hx is an LA.

[blackshoe]

sorry for all the confusion, yes i am in usa and thought this was appeals and committe forums for all just not ebu!

Yes, these forums are intended to deal with problems from all jurisdictions, but we do ask that any original post specify where it happened, since it often matters.

 

People here tend to react as if whatever is posted occurred in their home territory if you don't specify a jurisdiction, and sometimes even if you do. :-)

[Zelandakh]

As I expected and predicted. We should therefore poll, say, ten peers to give them the auction (2C)-2H(alerted)-Pass(values)-3H(undiscussed)-(Dble)(undiscussed). This is the authorised auction and that is how we establish the LAs; I have just seen a post of gnasher's where he makes a similar point. We could put it as a poll in the expert forum,

I am glad you have now come over to the idea that West's action (the UI case) needs to be investigated. However I would disagree that the Expert forum is the correct place on BBF to do this, there is no evidence that the players involved were experts and reason to suspect that the I/A forum would be more appropriate, possibly with a note that real experts should not respond. More to the point, the Expert forum is for expert-level subjects rather than expert opinions and I very much doubt this hand qualifies on that score.

[barmar]

In any case, you didn't even ask your pollees the right question. The relevant question is not "What does 3♥ mean?", but "What would you do in this auction, facing an undiscussed 3♥, and what other actions would you seriously consider?"

Imagine what happens when someone asks you the latter question. Isn't one of the first things out of your mouth (or in your mind if you don't think out loud) as you work this out "Well, I think 3♥ means X, so...". So they're very much the same question, since in situations like this the answer to the 2nd question is obvious given the answer to the first.

[gnasher]

Imagine what happens when someone asks you the latter question. Isn't one of the first things out of your mouth (or in your mind if you don't think out loud) as you work this out "Well, I think 3♥ means X, so...". So they're very much the same question, since in situations like this the answer to the 2nd question is obvious given the answer to the first.

No, the first thing I'd think is "There are two possible meanings: natural, and fit-showing". The next thing I'd think is "I can cater for both by passing."

[barmar]

No, the first thing I'd think is "There are two possible meanings: natural, and fit-showing". The next thing I'd think is "I can cater for both by passing."

So that's "I think it means X or Y, so...." That still fits my template.