Multi-Landy over 1C opening forgotten

[Pig Trader]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj654hkqjtdaq4c63&w=s3ha543dk7ca87542&n=sakq982h87dt862ct&e=st7h962dj953ckqj9&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1c2dp3dp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

WBF Regs - BCL but assume F2F regarding alerting.

1♣ = Alerted. May have as few as two clubs. (Strong NT, 5 card majors)

2♦ = Multi Landy, showing a weak jump overcall in either major but South had forgotten and thinks it's a WJO in diamonds, so not alerted.

3♦ = No agreement systemically. If North had called 2♥/♠ showing that major plus a minor, then 3♦ would be inviting game in partner's major. Not alerted.

 

EW want a ruling as they think they might reach 5♣, probably doubled and two down, for a better score than the 4♠= as happened

 

How would you rule? :rolleyes:

[gordontd]

WBF Regs - BCL but assume F2F regarding alerting.

Does this mean North has UI from the lack of alert?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj654hkqjtdaq4c63&w=s3ha543dk7ca87542&n=sakq982h87dt862ct&e=st7h962dj953ckqj9&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1c(Could be short)2d(Multi not alerted)p3d(Not alerted)p4sppp]400|300|

WBF Regs - BCL but assume F2F regarding alerting.

1♣ = Alerted. May have as few as two clubs. (Strong NT, 5 card majors)

2♦ = Multi Landy, showing a weak jump overcall in either major but South had forgotten and thinks it's a WJO in diamonds, so not alerted.

3♦ = No agreement systemically. If North had called 2♥/♠ showing that major plus a minor, then 3♦ would be inviting game in partner's major. Not alerted.

EW want a ruling as they think they might reach 5♣, probably doubled and two down, for a better score than the 4♠= as happened

How would you rule? :rolleyes:[/hv]

Playing Multi-Landy, over 2♦ (alerted), most players would treat an undiscussed 3♦ bid as natural and constructive (at least) e.g.

♠ x x ♥ - ♦ K Q J x x x x ♣ A x x x

Hence, prima facie, North's 4♠ used the UI that South failed to alert North's 2♦ overcall. Thus, the director should adjust the score, perhaps to a redoubled slam. Before the imposition of alert and equity law, that was a typical result of such misunderstandings :)

 

I suppose that North might claim that over a natural 3♦. 4♠ is a fit jump but the director would need some convincing in an undiscussed auction. Especially as that logical alternative is suggested by the UI over other LAs (e.g. 4♦, 5♦).

 

(Anyway, as far as South is concerned, without tells from North, North's 4♠ is likely to be an auto-splinter, confirming a ♦ suit. Unfortunately, such tells are the rule rather than the exception after misunderstandings. Luckily, here, the director probably need not concern himself with such possibilities).

 

The director should also consider a procedural penalty, for a blatant and seemingly deliberate infraction.

[ggwhiz]

If south had alerted and then bid 3♦ I have a ton of sympathy for the 4♠ bid. South is an unpassed hand and with a quality diamond suit and not much on the outside 4♠ is a prohibitive favorite to make.

 

I would allow it somewhat reluctantly but if not would certainly think a pp is not called for. Remove a spade honour and a 3♠ bid would get a rollback AND a pp though.

 

If north admits they bid 4♠ for the wrong reasons I'll roll it back to 3♦ but instead of a pp I'll invite them to my next poker game. Anyway, it looks like a rollback to 3♦ or it's allowed but a 5♣ dive by e/w is out of the wild blue yonder.

[wank]

4S looks like the right bid opposite an alert and 3D bid. personally i wouldn't think of anything else, but i would be far from shocked if a poll threw up some other LAs.

[Pig Trader]

Does this mean North has UI from the lack of alert?

 

Yes, that's right. Alerting is exactly as it is F2F, and not as it is in BBO.

[gordontd]

4S looks like the right bid opposite an alert and 3D bid. personally i wouldn't think of anything else, but i would be far from shocked if a poll threw up some other LAs.

I'd expect a diamond raise to be an LA.

[lamford]

I'd expect a diamond raise to be an LA.

North did make a diamond raise. He showed a weak jump overcall in a major and when his partner bid a constructive 3D, he jumped to 4S. What is that if not a fit jump? If North gave an indication that a wheel had come off, then South might have had UI, but we are not told that.

[gordontd]

North did make a diamond raise. He showed a weak jump overcall in a major and when his partner bid a constructive 3D, he jumped to 4S. What is that if not a fit jump?

I think you forgot a smiley.

[Pig Trader]

If North gave an indication that a wheel had come off, then South might have had UI, but we are not told that.

 

No, you won't be told that, because it's from an online game. (It's actually from a Swiss Pairs match MP->VP and FWIW the players are all graded around 60%.)

 

I expect I may well need to poll players giving them the North cards. I was thinking as per Paul that 4♠ was an obvious call for North after 3♦ but maybe some would raise diamonds. In the event of allowing 4♠, I'm also having difficulty seeing EW getting back in with clubs if they had had correct information. In my match, I was West and did play in 5♣X-2 but when I opened 1♣, I was showing 4+ clubs, as well as the auction being significantly different.

[weejonnie]

I don't see how EW are going to reach 5♣. East didn't call 3♣ over a weak call in diamonds so why should he do the same over a weak call in either major. On the next round, would he bid 5♣ on a 4432 hand with 9 losers? So, on the basis of misinformation, I would not adjust.

 

However that leaves us with the UI that North has given South didn't alert 2♦. If NS are a regular partnership I am quite surprised that 3♦ isn't discussed over a call that must occur quite often. there, is, however, an argument that North has a pretty solid spade suit and if South has good diamonds then game in spades may be the best choice.

 

There is no doubt that North's 4♠ call 'woke up' South. That per se is not an offence PROVIDED there is no LA to the call. IIRC a call in the legal auction, if it fully replicates the UI, can be regarded as providing the same Information. These days, however, directors are starting to look for system notes that say categorically 'undiscussed' rather than just have the call omitted.

 

So, in a perfect world, I poll. No doubt some would regard 4♠ as a classic example of 'unauthorised panic'. It looks as if 4♦ is going 1 or 2 off, but in any case us going to be better for EW than any Spade contract (or 5♣* -2)

[barmar]

There is no doubt that North's 4♠ call 'woke up' South. That per se is not an offence PROVIDED there is no LA to the call. IIRC a call in the legal auction, if it fully replicates the UI, can be regarded as providing the same Information. These days, however, directors are starting to look for system notes that say categorically 'undiscussed' rather than just have the call omitted.

South has no UI (unless his 3♦ should have been alerted), so it's not an issue if he's woken up by North's bid.

[StevenG]

As it's an online game, how can either North or South have any UI?

[wank]

As it's an online game, how can either North or South have any UI?

 

because it's on a different site with different alerting procedures to BBO

[jallerton]

EW want a ruling as they think they might reach 5♣, probably doubled and two down, for a better score than the 4♠= as happened

 

How would you rule? :rolleyes:

 

In respect of the misinformation claim, I first need to establish the true partnership agreement. If I deem that there was MI, I ask East/West to explain how they might/would have bid differently and why. Then I review the plausibility of their claims.

 

Apparently the program in use permitted North to see South's alert of the 2♦ bid. This alert is UI, so I agree with other posters that a poll of North's peers (giving them the form of scoring - what was it, by the way?) should be performed to assess the logical alternative)s). Personally, I would not seriously consider anything other than 4♠ with the self-supporting suit and the hand improved by partner fitting the side suit.

[lamford]

Apparently the program in use permitted North to see South's alert of the 2♦ bid.

This is poor, and it should be relatively easy for the site to correct that.

[barmar]

This is poor, and it should be relatively easy for the site to correct that.

Maybe they did it intentionally, so that online play would be similar to f2f.

 

When I used to use OKbridge, they had partner-alerts.

[Pig Trader]

Yes, we did indeed do it intentionally, so that it is like F2F, and we think it is good! :rolleyes:

[barmar]

Yes, we did indeed do it intentionally, so that it is like F2F, and we think it is good! :rolleyes:

Do you also allow revokes, bid/play out of turn, insufficient bid, etc.? I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge is not "real bridge" because it prevents these irregularities -- the fact that the Laws prescribes rectifications implies that they're part of the game.

[Vampyr]

Maybe they did it intentionally, so that online play would be similar to f2f.

 

When I used to use OKbridge, they had partner-alerts.

 

They didn't have this when I played on OKBridge, if I remember correctly. But in any case you couldn't see what partner said to the opponents.

[Vampyr]

Do you also allow revokes, bid/play out of turn, insufficient bid, etc.? I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge is not "real bridge" because it prevents these irregularities -- the fact that the Laws prescribes rectifications implies that they're part of the game.

 

To be fair, a problem with BBO alerts and indeed with screens is that the declaring side may not correct misinformation before the opening lead is made, because they may not know that misinformation has been given.

[nige1]

Yes, we did indeed do it intentionally, so that it is like F2F, and we think it is good! :rolleyes:

Do you also allow revokes, bid/play out of turn, insufficient bid, etc.? I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge is not "real bridge" because it prevents these irregularities -- the fact that the Laws prescribes rectifications implies that they're part of the game.

To be fair, a problem with BBO alerts and indeed with screens is that the declaring side may not correct misinformation before the opening lead is made, because they may not know that misinformation has been given.

 

I suppose the software could reveal partner's alerts and explanations to the declaring side at the end of the auction and prevent an opening lead until they were endorsed.

 

IMO, one of the advantages of on-line play is that you can prevent some infractions, especially mechanical errors like illegal calls and plays.

 

It's understandable, however, that directors might prefer to allow players to break the rules. Thus keeping true to the spirit of the laws. For example, law-makers seem to have gone out of their way to reward some infractions. In particular, the use of unauthorised information.

[barmar]

It's understandable, however, that directors might prefer to allow players to break the rules. Thus keeping true to the spirit of the laws.

I've always maintained that the laws regarding irregularities do not imply that they are legitimate parts of the game, but are simply unavoidable so we need consistent rules to deal with them. No director wants players to make insufficient bids, lead out of turn, revoke, etc. (unless he thinks it's boring to run a game where he never gets called to the tables). And no player outside a certain North London club tries to make irregularities part of their plan to win a board (this is not the same as taking advantage of one when it occurs, e.g. the penalty card laws).

 

I'm not sure what you meant about rewarding infractions, unless you're referring to the situations where answering the TD's questions honestly will disadvantage of you, so cheaters can prosper.

[nige1]

I'm not sure what you meant about rewarding infractions, unless you're referring to the situations where answering the TD's questions honestly will disadvantage of you, so cheaters can prosper.

There are other contexts in which current equity law rewards it's infraction. For example suppose you use UI to choose the winning action over a losing logical alternative. Even if opponents notice your infraction, report it, and the director rules in their favour, a weighted ruling will usually leave you better off than if you had complied with the law.

 

Cheating is another matter. Misunderstanding and rationalisation provide an adequate explanation for most such infractions. In my example, the law-breaker might believe that he is conscientiously following the official ACBL Directors' Handbook advice to take the action he would have taken without UI.

 

Furthermore, until directors routinely impose PPs, they are of marginal relevance to this discussion.

[gordontd]

There are other contexts in which current equity law rewards it's infraction. For example suppose you use UI to choose the winning action over a losing logical alternative. Even if opponents notice your infraction, report it, and the director rules in their favour, a weighted ruling will usually leave you better off than if you had complied with the law.

It's worth pointing out here that a weighted ruling in a UI case is not allowed to include as any part of its weighting an outcome reached by way of a disallowed call.