Unauthorised panic?

[ahydra]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa943hjt3dj2cat84&w=sqt8765hk92dqt9c6&n=skh4dk8654ckqj953&e=sj2haq8765da73c72&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2s(weak)2n(see%20below)p3np4cp5cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

IMPs (teams of 8, converted to VPs). North's 2NT was alerted by South as showing the minors. After I (East) passed, South changed the explanation to "a strong balanced hand". I declined the option to change my pass, and then both partner and I checked the NS CC and found that the second explanation was correct.

 

After the auction I reserved my rights as I felt that North might have used UI (from partner's explanation) in pulling 3NT to 4C. 5C made when I led a spade rather than the HA, while 3NT is one off on the same lead.

 

The TDs (two of them) seemed to believe that there was nothing wrong here as EW eventually got the correct explanation. Despite partner and I pointing out that this was a UI case, not an MI case, they refused to even consider adjusting the score - though it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the match either way. I was somewhat surprised by this ruling, as I felt this was a classic case of "unauthorized panic" - did I miss something?

 

(If you'd have asked North why he pulled 3NT to 4C: at the table he said that he pulled 3NT to 4C because he felt partner must have "a very strong hand" to bid 3NT over 2NT, and was hence bidding Minorwood, asking for keycards in clubs. South however didn't seem to agree that 4C would be Minorwood there, as suggested by his 5C "response".)

 

ahydra

[eagles123]

(If you'd have asked North why he pulled 3NT to 4C: at the table he said that he pulled 3NT to 4C because he felt partner must have "a very strong hand" to bid 3NT over 2NT, and was hence bidding Minorwood, asking for keycards in clubs

 

lol what total bullshit, this is a clear cut UI case, adjust to 3N-whatever and give a PP to N/S

 

the ruling of letting score stand seems ridiculous

[ggwhiz]

lol what total bullshit, this is a clear cut UI case, adjust to 3N-whatever and give a PP to N/S

 

the ruling of letting score stand seems ridiculous

 

x2... That's the most obvious pass of 3nt without blatant use of UI I can imagine.

 

The minorwood excuse (really?) deserves a triple PP and a tattoo of the mark of Zorro on that player

[blackshoe]

After the auction I reserved my rights as I felt that North might have used UI (from partner's explanation) in pulling 3NT to 4C.

 

Law 16B2: When a player considers that an opponent has made such [unauthorized] information available and that damage could well result, he may announce… that he reserves the right to summon the Director later. The opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

 

Law 16B3: When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends*. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

 

* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

 

A minor nit, but you should have reserved your rights when the explanation was changed (and your opponent should have called the director before he changed it), because his change almost certainly passed UI to his partner. I don't know if the fact that the opponent with UI bid on over 3NT is "substantial reason" to believe he was using UI — after all, you haven't seen his hand yet. If it is, then rather than reserve your rights, you could have called the TD right away, or waited until after the hand. If it's not, then you certainly had substantial reason once the play was over.

 

I agree that the TD's refusal to consider the UI aspect of this case, especially after having it pointed out to them, is bizarre. Not to mention director error. B-)

[wank]

i'm quite impressed with north for having the speed of mind to come up with this minorwood line.

 

just as a technical point, your spade lead was pretty bad. against these 5-5 hands and pre-empts you lead from strength and/or cash aces. this hand being an example of why.

[jallerton]

x2... That's the most obvious pass of 3nt without blatant use of UI I can imagine.

 

The minorwood excuse (really?) deserves a triple PP and a tattoo of the mark of Zorro on that player

 

It would certainly be very reasonable to award N/S a PP for North's 4♣ bid (breach of Laws 16B & 73C). But which Law would the TD use to award a PP to someone for having given an implausible explanation to the TD?

[The_Badger]

What makes this even more bizarre is the 2NT bid is explained on the convention card! Most tournament directors have to rule on bids that are not so clear cut. North bid incorrectly, was told (via his partner) that he's bid incorrectly, and then has the gall to invent some Minorwood excuse to cover his tracks. If that's not UI, then I wonder what is?

 

Personally I would have had both TDs and North horsewhipped.

 

Ok, yes I agree, horsewhipping is a little bit extreme, but I wouldn't be buying any of them a pint in the bridge club bar in the foreseeable future.

[ggwhiz]

But which Law would the TD use to award a PP to someone for having given an implausible explanation to the TD?

 

The ruling seems to show that there are Directors inventing their own laws/interpretations. Judge Roy Bean would manage.

[Zelandakh]

It would certainly be very reasonable to award N/S a PP for North's 4♣ bid (breach of Laws 16B & 73C). But which Law would the TD use to award a PP to someone for having given an implausible explanation to the TD?

If by "implausible" you mean "an obvious lie" then "failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director" would seem to cover it.

[barmar]

A minor nit, but you should have reserved your rights when the explanation was changed (and your opponent should have called the director before he changed it), because his change almost certainly passed UI to his partner.

The law says he may reserve his rights when he believes "damage could well result". If he doesn't come to this conclusion until the end of the auction, that's an appropriate time to do it. Perhaps he should have realized it earlier, but I don't think players lose their rights just because they don't consider all the ramifications early enough.

 

If he didn't say anything, and then waited until he knew that he'd blown the defense to call the TD, that would indeed be a problem. But since he reserved his rights before play began, I think he acted early enough.

[weejonnie]

Mike & Sarah will probably use this at the next EBU County Directors' course :)

 

I don't think that 3NT -1 would be the final adjusted score - unless the OP has said he would lead a spade rather than just noting the result. Given a good 6 card suit of your own, the fact that N and S have shown something good in Spades and an outside entry some players might have played on hearts . . .

[Vampyr]

The law says he may reserve his rights when he believes "damage could well result". If he doesn't come to this conclusion until the end of the auction, that's an appropriate time to do it. Perhaps he should have realized it earlier, but I don't think players lose their rights just because they don't consider all the ramifications early enough.

 

If he didn't say anything, and then waited until he knew that he'd blown the defense to call the TD, that would indeed be a problem. But since he reserved his rights before play began, I think he acted early enough.

 

It seems that me that it is not necessary to "reserve your rights" ever. And the director will be there in any case, because she will have been called when the player realised he had given a "mistaken" explanation.

[Lanor Fow]

Whilst the laws say that the director should have been called earlier, as Vampyr says, assuming the director wasn't then there seems little point in 'reserving your rights' at any point. In hesitation cases this is normally done to get an agreement on the hesitation at the time without having to call the director. You don't lose any rights by not uttering the phrase 'reserving my rights', there is just the potential for time passing to obscure the situation.

 

In this case an explanation has been corrected, a pass offered back (all of this incorrect without a director, but happens often). If opposition are not going to remember this (or even lie about it) how would you rely on them remembering (or admitting) that you reserved your rights.

 

Blowing the defense in a UI situation doesn't remove any rights. If sufficiently bad, there may be a SWoG element to the ruling, but a competent director is not going to refuse to rule as you messed the defense up.

 

Abiding completely by the rules the director should have been called a the change of explanation. If they weren't, then reserving your rights is going to be pointless in this case.

[tgreek1]

This is a simple hand. Bidding 4♣ over 3NT was a logical alternative and was suggested by the UI. Howevver, the most favorable lead would be a ♥ lead, which is a likely lead (other than making a ♠ lead). On a ♥ lead, the contract is down 3 tricks. Adjust to 3NT by N down 3.

[mycroft]

I'd love to know before rolling back to 3NT what (1♠)-2NT-3NT meant for this partnership. Sure, it likely means "I have the majors stopped, and some cards for you", but I wouldn't guarantee it.

 

Sure 4♣ is demonstrably suggested over pass, but if pass is not an alternative logical or no for this partnership, then it isn't.

 

Colour me for at least some percentage of a heart lead into 3NT, too. When spades are "known stopped" over the bidder, and I have this hand, surely the heart lead is "at all possible", so there's got to be some weight attached to it.