Another Misbid - perhaps

[Chris3875]

[[hv=pc=n&s=sakt9764hdkt62ct7&w=s2h853daq983c8542&n=sj853hq764d7ca963&e=sqhakjt92dj54ckqj&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=ppp1h3s4h4sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

South hesitated for some time before making the initial Pass and after East's 1H opening bid, then bid 3S which was described as weak. East maintains she would not have doubled if she had known the hand only contained 5 losers and a void.

[StevenG]

[[hv=pc=n&s=sakt9764hdkt62ct7&w=s2h853daq983c8542&n=sj853hq764d7ca963&e=sqhakjt92dj54ckqj&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=ppp1h3s4h4sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

South hesitated for some time before making the initial Pass and after East's 1H opening bid, then bid 3S which was described as weak. East maintains she would not have doubled if she had known the hand only contained 5 losers and a void.

No infraction, therefore no rectification.

[weejonnie]

5 words is concise but not really helpful.

 

First of all: East isn't entitled to know what is in South's hand - only what agreement NS have as to what the 3♠ overcall means.

 

Secondly: North has UI in that South's hand is known not to be an obvious pass, however does the 3♠ overcall (AI) fully match the UI? Probably - and even if it didn't, is it likely that passing or doubling with the North hand is a LA had South passed in tempo. Well we'll have to poll on that. North has a pretty offensive orientated hand - 4 trumps support, an Ace, a singleton and knowledge that South must be very short in hearts (-1 is my guess).

 

Finally we look at law 74F

 

F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

 

It would appear that South does have a demonstrable bridge reason for pausing, so no redress under this law.

[sanst]

East maintains she would not have doubled if she had known the hand only contained 5 losers and a void.

Maybe E expects her OP's to put their hand on the table during the auction. South pause happened after the double, so that didn't influence the bid. 'Weak' is a matter of definition and dependent on the jurisdiction.

[ahydra]

South pause happened after the double

 

I think the OP says that South paused on all calls EXCEPT after the double! (Before his initial pass, and before the 3S bid.)

 

To cover the question of UI from the hesitations: what do they demonstrably suggest? The first pause suggests South is close to an opening bid of some sort, and North made an obvious pass - no problem. After the 3S bid you can probably deduce he was close to an opening of 3S or 1S or 4S... or maybe 2S... so overall it doesn't really demonstrably suggest anything. Likewise, the second pause could be because South is deciding between 2S and 3S, or 3S and 4S. Either way North has a raise to 4. So no problem there.

 

For the MI: this is a bit harder. Clearly the South hand is too strong to be called a "weak" pre-empt. We need to look at whether South has done this kind of thing before with the same partner and hence whether North's explanation was perhaps incomplete, e.g. "weak to intermediate" or "pre-emptive, but conservative at this vul" or whatever. If so, and if we believe East (perhaps we poll?), then we'll adjust to 4S undoubled; otherwise, result stands.

 

Even then, I think both the 4H bid and double are SEWoG or very close to it (e.g. put the DK in North), though EW may escape based on the fact that those calls aren't strictly unrelated to the infraction.

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

It would appear that South does have a demonstrable bridge reason for pausing, so no redress under this law.

 

Yes, particularly after discovering the ♠Ax which he had in with his hearts the previous round of bidding.

[barmar]

The title suggests this is about a misbid, not UI or MI. Who misbid?

[ggwhiz]

The double of 4♠ by east in front of their passed hand partner is unbelievably bad and it's obvious that north owned the 4♠ bid as soon as the dummy hit. Sour grapes..... next.

[mycroft]

This looks a lot like one of my local pairs' bidding. They can't open the South hand (although they won't pause before passing, they've been smoothly passing these hands for 30 years), because it's nowhere near strong enough for an opening 1♠ call (at least, not when partner hits 5♥, anyway), and an opening 3♠ call would have a heart in exchange for one of the spade honours. Of course that means that they have to come back in (and the jump means it's not just a random 5-card suit with 13 high).

 

As far as the explanations go, maybe there is a misexplanation, if partner expects this hand. If not, it could just be that South has never seen this hand before and doesn't know how to bid it. Also, everybody knows, or they should, that pass-then-preempt is not going to have a traditional preempt.

 

East is not entitled to the opponents bidding the same way she does, or evaluating hands the same way. It's also why I don't use the term "weak" opposite a passed hand, never mind by a passed hand. "Preemptive". Having said that, East won't be that much happier when South's hand is JT9xxxx -- KTxx Tx and North has ♠Kxxx and the same hand, is she? Similarly, she's not going to want to remove the double when the hearts are 2=2 instead of 4=0?

 

Sympathy, but there's nothing illegal here. -990, next hand, please. It won't be the last time.

[RMB1]

It's also why I don't use the term "weak" opposite a passed hand, never mind by a passed hand.

 

+1

[mr1303]

I called a director on a situation like this (partner had overbid wildly as usual) at the university bridge festival and got laughed at.

 

I deserved it then and EW deserve it now.