Difficult ruling, would be interested in opinions

[timjand]

EBU county match. W is dealer. All red.

 

P-1C*-1D-X

2C-P-P-X

3D-4H-end.

*alerted as could be 2 clubs or more

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1c(2%20or%20more%20clubs)1dd2cppd3d4hppp]133|100[/hv]

 

4H went down 4 for -400 (though 8 tricks can be made on optimum play).

 

At the end of play W says her 2C, which was not alerted, is UCB showing a good raise in diamonds.

 

N/S complain to the director. South says that had he known of the misunderstanding he would have passed 2C, which is likely to be -5.

 

E/W is not a regular partnership. UCB is on their card, but the answer to the question "is a cue bid over a short club UCB" is "never discussed."

 

E, who holds Kx in clubs, says he was sure at the time that 2C was natural.

 

N, who holds a 7-card club suit, no doubt guessed that something was amiss.

 

Has there been an infraction?

 

Is there damage to N/S?

 

If there is, what is appropriate rectification?

 

At other tables, incidentally, 50% of the N/S pairs end up in a heart contract, most going down. E/W can make 4S or 4D. N/S can make 4C.

Edited April 8, 2017 by blackshoe
Add bidding diagram

[blackshoe]

Has there been an infraction?

You're asking if there was MI via a failure to alert 2♣. If there's a requirement to alert an unassuming cue bid in the blue book, I missed it. If there is such a requirement, and their agreement was that this 2♣ is a cue bid, then the answer to the question is yes, otherwise no. There may have been another infraction, albeit one often ignored: was there a director present at this match? If so, West should have called him before explaining his opinion that there should have been an alert — if indeed that was his opinion. IAC, given that the this particular auction was undiscussed, the correct explanation would have been "if 1♣ were natural, 2♣ would show a limit raise, but this auction is undiscussed".

 

2♣ showing a limit raise (or better) is, I think, fairly common and expected, so I don't think there was MI here. Law 21A may have relevance here.

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

If there was no requirement that East alert 2♣ when the bid was made, then it's on North (or South, or both) to clarify the meaning of the auction. I find it hard to believe North really thought 2♣ was natural, given how common "cue bid is a raise" is, and especially given the fact that North has seven clubs.

 

Is there damage to N/S?

Not if there was no infraction. Law 12B1 says, in part

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b) below.

The emphasis is mine. C1{b} deals with SEWoG actions by the innocent side.

 

At other tables, incidentally, 50% of the N/S pairs end up in a heart contract, most going down. E/W can make 4S or 4D. N/S can make 4C.

What happened at other tables is of little relevance. For one thing, how do you know the other pairs were playing the same methods as at this table, or that the auction went the same way?

[gordontd]

You're asking if there was MI via a failure to alert 2♣. If there's a requirement to alert an unassuming cue bid in the blue book, I missed it.

Unassuming cue-bids are alertable under the general rule:

 

4 B 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:

(a) is not natural;

 

It sounds as though the correct information is that there is no agreement about this sort of situation, so we would need to consider what might have happened if NS had that information. For that we need the hands. It's also worth mentioning that West is constrained by UI from the lack of alert from East.

[timjand]

It sounds as though the correct information is that there is no agreement about this sort of situation, so we would need to consider what might have happened if NS had that information. For that we need the hands. It's also worth mentioning that West is constrained by UI from the lack of alert from East.

 

I get an error trying to insert an image but this is the hand:

 

https://fygckw-ch3301.files.1drv.com/y4mf-712BhZI2uwBxQAB8TOJXsspjiJM6IAlI8Ck7fYKcsS5Rm0ITSPvb40x5XYBU3l-TAdSBa2b5xD7iHwx8M5Gfic46cwcO9PypdvUU__Vyf0k2cbisJ4S7fRHjewxo3w0ksqNqh8-0l_uL7tCtTqKGkAk8pC87czsZGFyDMabWbgb-Cq0F2jEp18NGq4wZ061yvUINlkSFdiF3uF0AhiDQ

 

Tim

[gordontd]

I'd be interested in the results of a poll of what players would do with the South hand with the correct information - "no agreement". It doesn't seem to add up to me, since North has neither bid 2H nor doubled 2C I doubt South is ever going to make much sense of what is going on but the second double does seem to be an overbid. West's 3D also has the feel of an "unauthorised panic" bid with 2D a logical alternative.

[nige1]

[hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&w=SAQ74HQ72DK742CT3&n=S8HKJ65D8CAQJ9642&e=SJT52HT9DAQJ63CK5&a=p1c(2%20or%20more%20clubs)1dd2cppd3d4hppp]300|300|

EBU county match. W is dealer. All red.

4H went down 4 for -400 (though 8 tricks can be made on optimum play).

At the end of play W says her 2C, which was not alerted, is UCB showing a good raise in diamonds.

N/S complain to the director. South says that had he known of the misunderstanding he would have passed 2C, which is likely to be -5.

E/W is not a regular partnership. UCB is on their card, but the answer to the question "is a cue bid over a short club UCB" is "never discussed."

E, who holds Kx in clubs, says he was sure at the time that 2C was natural.

N, who holds a 7-card club suit, no doubt guessed that something was amiss.

Has there been an infraction?

Is there damage to N/S?

If there is, what is appropriate rectification?

At other tables, incidentally, 50% of the N/S pairs end up in a heart contract, most going down. E/W can make 4S or 4D. N/S can make 4C.

[/hv]

IMO

East should have alerted 2♣. (If asked he should explain "no agreement", assuming that is the truth).

West used the UI from East's failure to alert, to choose 3♦ over logical alternatives.

South might have protected himself by asking. (I can't see why here).

North's 4♥ is not a SEWOG.

NS were damaged by the failure to alert and by West's use of UI.

The director should adjust, perhaps to 2♣X-5

and impose a disciplinary penalty on West.

Unfortunately, however, directors rarely rule that way :(

[gordontd]

IMO

East should have alerted 2♣. (If asked he should explain "no agreement").

West used the UI from East's failure to alert, to choose 3♦ over logical alternatives.

South might have protected himself by asking. (I can't see why here).

North's 4♥ is not a SEWOG.

NS were damaged by the failure to alert and by West's use of UI.

The director should adjust, perhaps to 2♣X-5

and impose a disciplinary penalty on West.

Unfortunately, however, directors rarely rule that way :(

By what route might they have played in 2Cx?

[timjand]

Note I am posting this for my own education and interest.

 

Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise?

 

Tim

[nige1]

Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise.

E/W is not a regular partnership. UCB is on their card, but the answer to the question "is a cue bid over a short club UCB" is "never discussed." E, who holds Kx in clubs, says he was sure at the time that 2C was natural.

Arguably, East should not be influenced in his alert decision by his own ♣ holding (although many would argue that it makes a cue-bid more likely)

[nige1]

By what route might they have played in 2Cx?

West described his hand with his 2♣ bid and East showed he wants to play in 2♣.

[gordontd]

West described his hand with his 2♣ bid and East showed he wants to play in 2♣.

Even if East has longer clubs than diamonds, West is always going to prefer diamonds.

[gordontd]

Note I am posting this for my own education and interest.

 

Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise?

 

Tim

East should alert it unless he believes they have an agreement that it is natural. Even if he believes that to be true, NS might have grounds for redress if that turns out not to be the case.

[timjand]

Arguably, East should not be influenced in his alert decision by his own ♣ holding,

 

I've got no reason to suppose that he was influenced by his club holding. I probably should not have mentioned it, sorry.

 

Tim

[timjand]

East should alert it unless he believes they have an agreement that it is natural. Even if he believes that to be true, NS might have grounds for redress if that turns out not to be the case.

 

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such.

 

Tim

[gordontd]

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such.

 

Tim

So how would you make an unassuming cue-bid?

[blackshoe]

It doesn't matter, btw, whether West "used UI" to choose his 3♦ bid. It only matters that he chose the bid, and UI was present that could demonstrably have suggest that bid over another. If in fact it is true that his partner's failure to alert obviously could suggest that he bid 3♦.

[m1cha]

It doesn't matter, btw, whether West "used UI" to choose his 3♦ bid. It only matters that he chose the bid, and UI was present that could demonstrably have suggest that bid over another. If in fact it is true that his partner's failure to alert obviously could suggest that he bid 3♦.

I doubt that there is UI at this point. Obviously when East [EDIT: West] bid 3♦ he knew that his partner had mistaken the 2♣ bid. But since he could derive this clearly from the fact that partner passed the bid, it was AI. That he could have come to the same conclusion from the fact that partner had failed to alert the bid, doesn't make it UI.

[nige1]

I doubt that there is UI at this point. Obviously when East bid 3♦ he knew that his partner had mistaken the 2♣ bid. But since he could derive this clearly from the fact that partner passed the bid, it was AI. That he could have come to the same conclusion from the fact that partner had failed to alert the bid, doesn't make it UI.

Alternatively, you might argue that the AI from partner's pass of 2♣ is that his 1♦ overcall was suspect and he has a poor hand with good ♣s.

(For example, assume that he alerted your 2♣ but passed it after correctly explaining your intended meaning).

 

m1cha's argument is pretty convincing, however.

[Vampyr]

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such.

 

Tim

 

Well, North did open the suit.

[timjand]

So how would you make an unassuming cue-bid?

 

Not available in this sequence. Similar to after weak NT open from N, say.

 

Tim

[gordontd]

I doubt that there is UI at this point. Obviously when East bid 3♦ he knew that his partner had mistaken the 2♣ bid. But since he could derive this clearly from the fact that partner passed the bid, it was AI. That he could have come to the same conclusion from the fact that partner had failed to alert the bid, doesn't make it UI.

It's still UI, even though the AI may mean there is no LA to rebidding diamonds. I do however think that re-bidding 3D rather than 2D is suggested by the UI since it clarifies that you have real diamonds and extra strength, rather than just showing preference.

[nige1]

I agree with GordonTD that West has LAs to 3♦. e.g. 2♦, 2♠ but I could well be wrong that Pass is an LA. You might need a poll.

 

When the director can't work out the ramifications of infractions, I suppose he can award Av+ Av-.

[Trinidad]

Not available in this sequence. Similar to after weak NT open from N, say.

 

Tim

After a weak 1NT opening you always have 2NT available as a "cuebid".

 

Rik

[weejonnie]

Doesn't it all come down to:-

 

What would South do if he knew that there was no partnership understanding of the 2♣ call? He has said he would pass if he knew that the partnership were having a misunderstanding. However he is not entitled to know that (see below). What he is allowed to know is "No partnership agreement: we play UCBs in many situations but haven't discussed whether it applies over a potentially short club".

 

He may very well pass, suspecting a misunderstanding, so some allowance for 2♣-5 should be made. If he doubles then surely West should pass - after all partner has said he doesn't mind playing in 2♣, even with Diamond support (he could be xxx-4-6 and 2♣ would be conventional) and now we have to decide what East will do. We assume he knows that North has converted a take-out double into a penalty double, so there is a reasonable chance that he will 'guess correctly' (East has no UI/MI) (when he will call the director and give the 'correct' explanation - although of course under the new rules he won't have to do that until the end of the auction). If he does then there is actually a chance he will bid 2♠ (a cost nothing bid, as he is prepared to play in 3♦), but we will assume that in most cases he will just bid 2♦ to show a minimum hand, South and West will pass and North will bid 2♥. West may bid 3♦ and North have nothing to say. If East does bid 2♠ then EW may end up on a spade partial.

 

So there seem to be various possibilities (all of which score better for NS so they have been damaged.

2♣ by West - NS +500 - most likely result.

2♥ by North (probably generally making - N would play 2♥ differently from 4♥)

3♦ by East

3♠ by East

 

Looking at the new laws (which have only been implemented in a certain North London Bridge Club), we would find that they will actually give guidance in these circumstances. 75D

 

D. Director’s Determination 

 

1. Players are expected to disclose their partnership agreements accurately (see Law 20F1);  failure to do so constitutes Misinformation. 

 

2. It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual  understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual  understanding does not exist.  If the Director determines that the misleading explanation  was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B. 

 

3. When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed  meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome  had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner.  If the Director  determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon  the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed. 

 

(Which IMHO is a better explanation than the previous one)

 

Obiter - the new laws say "likely outcome", they do not say "likely outcomes", probably a bit slovenly in writing as I assume law 12C still allows weighted scores in this case.

Obiter - presumably a PP for EW 'flagrant use of UI'

[blackshoe]

When the director can't work out the ramifications of infractions, I suppose he can award Av+ Av-.

Depends what you mean by "ramifications of infractions". Generally the director can award an artificial adjusted score (ArtAS) in three cases: 1) when no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (Law 12A2), 2) when the possibilities for a weighted assigned adjusted score (AAS) are numerous or not obvious (Law 12C1{d}), or 3) when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (Law 12C2). Note that Law 12A2 (option 1) refers directly to Law 12C2 (option 3). The director cannot, in a UI case, award any adjusted score if he cannot demonstrate how Law 16B3 (or Law 73C) was violated.

 

An ArtAS may be awarded in these other specific cases: 4) when a pocket of the board contains an incorrect number of cards, and a player has seen one or more cards of an opponent's hand (Law 13D2{b}), 5) when a player has UI from a source other than his partner, the director judges the information may interfere with normal play, and no call has yet been made (Law 16C2{d}) (note that an ArtAS here is a last resort), 6) when a player has made a call based on a hand he took from a wrong board, that call is cancelled, and he makes a different call after he sees his correct hand, or if his partner has made a subsequent call over the cancelled call (Laws 17D2 and 17D3).

 

Side note: IMO it is unfortunate that the laws do not define "normal play of the board" or "no result can be obtained", but maybe that's just my OCD talking. :D