how do I rule?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=s82hqj765dat982c7&w=sqt96hk8dkq6cqj94&e=sakjhat94d543c853&s=s7543h32dj7cakt62]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  Pass

 1♣    1♥    Pass  Pass

 1♠    Pass  3NT   Dbl

 Pass  Pass  RDbl  Pass

 Pass  Pass  

 

 

 

1♣ alerted as 10-11 (e/w polish club players, its an indy)

contract makes, opps cry foul.

 

How should I rule?

 

tyia

jilylbean

[guggie]

OK, i should the result let stand:

South made a silly double, when it didn t work out he called TD

 

Alert was not correct so EW should get a warning, but the double remains silly and NS have no right on an adjusted score

[mink]

It is highly unreasonable that anybody really limits his 1!C opening to 10-11 points. So if I saw that alert I would just conclude that this is a poor alert. On the other hand, it looks obvious that West has a minimum opener, if East is able to bid 3nt with a non-opener. Very likely that E-W have below 25 point, especially given the fact that partner overcalled. If they really had more than that it is hard to believe that partner overcalled on level 1. So there is some reason to double that is totally independent of the alert.

 

So if South double, he does that on his own risk, and no adjust shoud be awarded when N-S fail to set the 3nt.

 

Karl

[luke warm]

what was the basis for n/s complaint? that west had *more* than he said? i think north led south astray with the overcall, but i'd let the result stand

[Walddk]

NS have not been damaged even if the explanation may have been inadequate. Table result stands. Appeal without merit, deposit forfeited.

 

Roland

[jillybean]

Complaint was that W alert '10-11' was incorrect, correct count was 13.

I assume E would understand 1♣ to be 11-13.

 

Poor bidding, poor double maybe, should this alter the ruling? West has mislead the opps, partner has different, correct information.

I did let result stand but it didnt sit quite right.

jillybean

[Walddk]

Complaint was that W alert '10-11' was incorrect, correct count was 13.

It doesn't matter what West had. If 10-11 is the agreement it is perfectly legitimate to hold 20 hcp for that matter.

 

It's a common mistake inexperienced TDs make. West is not supposed to tell opps what he/she has, but what the partnership agreement is.

 

"It shows 10-11 according to our agreement, but I have 13 this time". Opps are not ientitled to that information. I don't know why some think that a player must tell what his/her cards are.

 

Roland

[shoeless]

The only question a director needs to be concerned with here is: "Does the explanation fit the partnership agreement or understanding of a bid's meaning?" Hands do NOT have to fit the partnership agreement for a bid. How is this an inadequate explanation????

[kgr]

This was a self alert 10-11 while he has 13.

Partner did bid 3NT and REDBL with only 12, while he knows his partner has only 11 HCP.

This bidding does not correspond to the explanations.

Opps are damaged by misexplanation, I think I turn it back to 3NT.

[kgr]

Complaint was that W alert '10-11' was incorrect, correct count was 13.

It doesn't matter what West had. If 10-11 is the agreement it is perfectly legitimate to hold 20 hcp for that matter.

 

It's a common mistake inexperienced TDs make. West is not supposed to tell opps what he/she has, but what the partnership agreement is.

 

"It shows 10-11 according to our agreement, but I have 13 this time". Opps are not ientitled to that information. I don't know why some think that a player must tell what his/her cards are.

 

Roland

Don't you think East bidding strange if the agreement is 10-11?

At least they would both have to show a conventin card where this is indicated. Otherwise I don't believe them.

[shoeless]

ah! Different info - the explanation was wrong in accordance with partnership agreement - guess I would adjust. Noth - south however poorly they handled it were in this auction based on max 11 points understood in west hand.

[Walddk]

ah!  Different info - the explanation was wrong in accordance with partnership agreement -

How do you know that the explanation was wrong according to their agreements? We have no such evidence. East is entitled to bid whatever he/she wants. If 12 hcp is enough for him/her to bid 3NT, there is absolutely nothing you can do.

 

South made a poor decision by doubling. It won't help to call the Law and ask for redress. The appeal is frivolous. I wish that more people would attend TD courses in order to give rulings according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

 

Roland

[shoeless]

Jilly said explanation was wrong that's how I know.

[Walddk]

Jilly said explanation was wrong that's how I know.

No, West had 13, that was "wrong" if you like. The explanation that the agreement says 10-11 has not been proven wrong.

 

Roland

[shoeless]

Sigh! Scroll back - Jilly said that the explanation was in error - agreement is actually 10-13

[Walddk]

Sigh! Scroll back - Jilly said that the explanation was in error - agreement is actually 10-13

Again no.

 

"I assume E would understand 1♣ to be 11-13", it reads. A TD is not supposed to assume anything. He/she is supposed to state the facts, nothing more.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

South's double is not outragesus on the bidding. This was an individual, it is therefore hard to believe that EW can have too specific agreements. But whatever 1C and 3NT was, the opponents rate to have close to 26 points (maybe as few as 24). What ever hearts they have, EAST will have.

 

The problem here wasn't the description of the 1C bid (move 2 points from WEST to EAST. The problem was the 1♥ overcall on a horrible suit and a very weak hand. Under these conditions, the result stands. Although in F2F I might, in fact roll EW result back to 3NT not doubled, but the fellow who doubled gets his result for sure.

 

Ben

[epeeist]

Sigh!  Scroll back - Jilly said that the explanation was in error - agreement is actually 10-13

Again no.

 

"I assume E would understand 1♣ to be 11-13", it reads. A TD is not supposed to assume anything. He/she is supposed to state the facts, nothing more.

 

Roland

If a TD is very, very suspicious that west mistyped, and thus misdescribed the bid (and didn't correct misdescription), or misalerted, what then? Lacking a confession, one does nothing?

 

I'm assuming, given the TD's comments, that there was evidence/reason to believe (knowledge of the Polish club system, or comments by east or west, or whatever) that west knew that east would interpret the opening as 11-13 HCP, but described it as 10-11. Whether by accident (mistyping) or not, that was a misdescription by west.

 

Which is very different from a bid that e.g. fools one's PARTNER as well as the opponents.

 

If in an individual, my opponents' profiles both show "sayc" and one of them bids 1NT and explains it when questioned as "12-14 HCP" and they later turn up with 16 HCP, is suspicion not justified? An adjustment if we were damaged by e.g. overcalling and going down for a big penalty? Or is absolute, total proof consisting of a confession or analysis of historical hands necessary to confirm misdescription of a bid?

 

Mind you, knowing sayc I'd be suspicious of a "12-14" description in an individual, but that's because I know something about it. When it comes to descriptions of Polish club or WJ2000 or whatever systems, I have to rely on opponent descriptions.

 

The "okay" situation you're talking about is when there's no reason to be suspicious. E.g. if p and I have "sayc" in our profiles, and I open 1NT having 19 HCP and alert it as 15-17, and get a good result, great for me and opps have no grounds to complain because my p was fooled also.

[shoeless]

Again no.

 

"I assume E would understand 1♣ to be 11-13", it reads. A TD is not supposed to assume anything. He/she is supposed to state the facts, nothing more.

 

Roland

Can't argue with you on that Roland - I looked at a different part of Jilly's message, missed the 'assumed'. My comments were based on a concrete case of misinformation. Individuals are likely a pain to direct in regard to understandings and agreements. In this instance N/S played with fire and got burned. I might cut them some slack if the opps had agreed at the table on polish club and systematically the range is 11-13.

[hotShot]

It's always the same:

1) Was there a wrong explanation?

2) Was there damage?

3) Is 2 related to 1.

 

Can anyone explain to me how 2 player can agree on 1♣ 10-11 in an indi?

You get a new partner, every few boards and opps are there.

 

I assume that EW agreed on a system where the minimum for a 1♣ opening is 10-11 HCP. So the explanation should have been (10-11)+.

 

The explanation was incorrect and incompleat. If EW did not post a CC that states otherwise (i wonder how you could have a CC ready for a pickup partner in an indy), TD has to assume wrong explanation.

 

So 1) is yes.

 

I would consider 3NTXX= a damage. So 2) is yes.

 

But 3)? South has 2 tricks for his dbl, West stated to have 10-11 HCP and East passed 1♥ and bid 3NT later. East should have 10-12 HCP and good ♥. So south knows that he and opps hold 28-31 HCP. So his partner should hold 9-12 HCP. So south double is not irrational, wild or gambling, as opps seem to have reached 3NT with only 20-23 HCP.

EW won't make it on the ♣ length, they should not make it on partners ♥, they won't have more than 4♠ so were are they going to make their tricks.

 

So i would answer 3) with yes too.

But i don't feel good about this, because i don't believe in agreement, in an indy at BBO.

But i would correct the score, but i believe that there was some misunderstanding here, and not a intentional misexplanation.

[hotShot]

deleted, was double transmitted

[epeeist]

....

Can anyone explain to me how 2 player can agree on 1♣ 10-11 in an indi?

You get a new partner, every few boards and opps are there.

....

But i don't feel good about this, because i don't believe in agreement, in an indy at BBO.

....

In an indy, if both I and my p for a round has "sayc" in our profiles, even if neither of us types anything, we still have a de facto systemic agreement. Then, if I explain a bid I explain it according to sayc.

 

Even if you disagree with that form of implicit agreement, some indys, I've typed "sayc w/your profile fine p" or "2/1 fine p" or "my cc already open p, looks like it matches your profile" or something which explicitly sets an agreement on the bidding system with a few words.

 

Similarly, two players could easily agree to use Polish club, either by both having it in their profiles or with a few words at the start of the round.

 

Given that situation, if the explanation of a 1♣ opening as 10-11 HCP doesn't fall in the range for what the TD knows is the "normal" Polish club description, but a 13-point hand would, then there seems to have probably been a misdescription -- accidental or not -- contrary to the de facto partnership agreement.

 

So if 10-11 HCP is default for Polish club (I don't think it is) or one of the players had it in his or her profile or cc, then they might have agreed. However, I'm skeptical, as I think you are, that they could or would have agreed on "10-11 HCP" as the range for an opening 1♣ in the Polish club system, and thus think it was a misdescription.

[kgr]

I agree 100% with hotshot.

Additionally I ask West what he understood of East's 1C opening. Probably the misdescription will be clear then.

I think it is very good possibly that South does not DBL if 1C is described as (10-11)+.

So I rule 3NT. (Should look deeper in the hand. If there is a good possibility that 3NT goes down when opps know that 1C can be stronger then 10-11 then that will be the result).

[david_c]

"10-11" is a very poor attempt at an explanation. I would probably decide this was misinformation - I doubt that East would ever be able to persuade me that they really had agreed a maximum of 11 for the 1♣ bid. Most likely, the explanation was intended to mean "a minimum of 10-11", but that's not what was said. So even if I decided not to adjust on this hand, I would warn West that his explanation was unclear.

 

I think there are two things that might have happened:

 

1. South thinks, "10-11? That doesn't sound right. I bet he's messed up his explanation, but I won't ask him to clarify it because I have a cunning plan. I'm going to double. If they really do have at most 11, opposite a passed hand, then this contract is unlikely to make. If they have more than 11 I'm going to call the TD."

 

2. South thinks, "10-11? That's unusual, I never did understand these Polish systems. Oh well, if he's got at most eleven, and his partner didn't open, that's not enough for game, so I'll double."

 

Very difficult to decide which of these actually happened. If it's 2, then I see no reason not to adjust (to 3NT undoubled). Most likely I'll be unable to find out what was really going on, so I will adjust anyway, because 2 is reasonable. E/W can have no complaints because West's explanation was clearly deficient.

 

The main thing which would cause me not to adjust is if it becomes obvious that South is a good player. In that case, I will tell him he should realise that "10-11" was unlikely to be an accurate explanation, and he should have protected himself by asking for clarification before making a double.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, there are three separate issues here:

 

Issue 1: (Probably) the most important. This incident occured during a informal "Indy" on BBO. The results in the event don't matter. The Director really doesn't have the ability to conduct a complete inquiry. Split scores can't be allocated. No one with any sense should care about the results.

 

Issue 2: Did West's explanation of their methods match the actual partnership agreement? There is no way to establish this wouthout asking East-West. My personal suspicion is that when West alerted 1♣ as 10-11, he was trying to explain the minimum strength for an opening bid. Regretfully, he didn't do a very good job. As always, there are issues related to language and alerting expectations in an online Indy...

 

Issue 3: Did West's explanation cause damage. Personally, I believe that South's double classifies as "irrational, wild or gambling". The perpetrator is taking a wold action and hoping to use the appeals system for redress if the double backfires. The double breaks the link between subsequent and consequent.

 

Ruling: No adjustment for N/S