Rate my Ruling: misinformation

[ahydra]

Matchpoints, none vul

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s65ha5dakt874ckj4&w=sj842h932d953c873&n=sq73hqj84d62caq92&e=sakt9hkt76dqjct65&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1c(polish%20club)d1d(see%20below)2hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

EW play Polish Club: 1C = 12-14 BAL, 15+ clubs, or 18+ any. Result 2H by N -1, N/S -50, lead DQ

 

I was called after dummy was displayed as it had come to light that the 1D bid should have been alerted, showing 0-7 points. It was not alerted during the auction and NS claimed they had arrived in the wrong contract as a result of misinformation. I instructed the table to play out the hand and call me back at the end if they thought there was damage, which they did.

 

I asked South why she had passed 2H on the actual auction and she said that she expected North to have a weak jump overcall type hand in hearts. She had decided her diamonds were not particularly useful opposite such a hand, having supposedly been bid naturally on her left. She was unable to advise whether the meaning of 2H would still be the case over 1D showing 0-7.

 

I judged that South was likely to bid 3D on the second round had she known 1D was not natural, thus showing a good single-suited hand (note that, for whatever reason, it's common for players to play double-then-bid as about 16+ here in NZ) and North would then bid 3NT. However, I also took into account the fact that NS clearly had a misunderstanding over 2H and there was a chance of that occurring, i.e. South still passing, even if 1D had been explained correctly. Applying the usual guideline of being favourable to the NOS in weighted scores, I therefore adjusted the score to:

 

60% of 3NT by North +2, N/S +460

40% of the table result (N/S -50)

 

which came out to be about 51% for NS.

 

E/W commented they felt not many would bid game on this board, which I felt was surprising, but actually was borne out by the results at other tables with only one other table reaching 3NT+2. Aside from one pair who scored 2200 defending 1NTXX, all others were in minor-suit partscores. Nonetheless, I felt after the given start of (1C)-X and the likely followup of 3D it was almost certain North would bid 3NT.

 

Any comments/suggestions on my ruling?

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Also N seems to have badly misplayed 2♥ as it appears it should make in comfort.

 

I'm surprised nobody played 1Nx-several as after a weak NT I'd expect people to play there much of the time, and after 1Nx you will either be taking a sizable penalty or bidding game.

 

After 1♣-x-1♦*- I don't know what N does, or what E does if he passes (I'd have overcalled 1♦ or 1N over the club), so it's difficult to judge the ruling, but making them keep a part of the poor score for not scoring 110 or 140 is right.

 

Overall a reasonable ruling in my opinion

[hrothgar]

Whole lotta of stuff going on here:

 

1. I am very surprised that a 1!D advance over the double shows 0-7 HCP

 

2. The N/S bidding is sufficiently bad to break the link between subsequent and consequent

[pescetom]

NS bidding looks all rather strange to me.

South's decision to double on that hand is odd, I too would prefer 1♦ or 1NT.

North's decision to bid 2♥ is incomprehensible to me, unless she knew the conventional meaning of the unalerted 1♦ and decided not to ask about it (for some reason) and to treat it as pass (but that would be quite a leap to make unless already agreed with partner).

South's reasoning that 2♥ must be some kind of weak jump is surprising too, as North already had the chance to bid a weak two on the first round of bidding.

 

All in all I find it hard to imagine that NS are up to finding 3NT should EW alert correctly, so maybe you were a bit generous. I think East deserves a penalty for the missing alert of artificial 1♦ however.

[jvage]

I agree that the N/S bidding was bad (at least South's bidding, 2♥ seems reasonable to me), but the number of tricks taken and the results from the other tables leaves the impression that the general level may not be very high. The initial double would not be my choice, but when that was chosen it does seem like it was misinformation that created South's final problem. I believe her when we are told she would have bid 3♦ if 1♦ had been correctly alerted and explained. An experienced/strong player may have found that something was wrong if East had shown 12+, West 6(?)+ and North 9-11(?) when she herself got 15, but this player didn't. While we can dislike the pass, she now got a bidding problem with no obvious solution. The link between subsequent and consequent doesn't IMO depend on how big an error that is made, but if the error is directly linked to the infraction, and that seems to be the case here. Also, if you consider this a "very serios error unrelated to the infraction" (§12C1e) then you shold normally award a split (non-balancing) score.

[Tramticket]

Also N seems to have badly misplayed 2♥ as it appears it should make in comfort.

 

I'm guessing that they played on trumps and lost control.

 

What is the N/S agreement concerning the initial double? I assume take-out? Did you ask South why they chose to make a t/o double with this hand? (a) If South was planning to show as a strong hand and follow up the a diamond bid (despite only holding a 15-count), then I would agree that 3NT is a likely end contract. (b) If their style is to double on all opening strength hands (with a 1♦ overcall showing a lesser hand), then I think it less likely that 3NT would be reached.

 

Assuming (a), I think that the ruling is reasonable. I might have a slightly different weighting - I wonder whether players of this caliber would really manage 11 tricks in NT - but the difference in the average would likely not be significant.

[barmar]

What is the N/S agreement concerning the initial double? I assume take-out? Did you ask South why they chose to make a t/o double with this hand? (a) If South was planning to show as a strong hand and follow up the a diamond bid (despite only holding a 15-count),

The OP says that this style is common in NZ. Double and bid shows "about 16+", and 15 is about 16, especially with a nice 6-card suit and other prime values.

[Tramticket]

The OP says that this style is common in NZ. Double and bid shows "about 16+", and 15 is about 16, especially with a nice 6-card suit and other prime values.

 

ok, missed that!

[Cyberyeti]

I'm guessing that they played on trumps and lost control.

 

What is the N/S agreement concerning the initial double? I assume take-out? Did you ask South why they chose to make a t/o double with this hand? (a) If South was planning to show as a strong hand and follow up the a diamond bid (despite only holding a 15-count), then I would agree that 3NT is a likely end contract. (b) If their style is to double on all opening strength hands (with a 1♦ overcall showing a lesser hand), then I think it less likely that 3NT would be reached.

 

Assuming (a), I think that the ruling is reasonable. I might have a slightly different weighting - I wonder whether players of this caliber would really manage 11 tricks in NT - but the difference in the average would likely not be significant.

 

Playing on trumps doesn't lose control and with the spades 4-4, you make at least 8 tricks

 

Have we checked EW's agreement, I would expect X/P to show the negative hands for most people.

[gordontd]

1. I am very surprised that a 1!D advance over the double shows 0-7 HCP

Herbert negative.

[Cyberyeti]

Herbert negative.

 

This isn't a Herbert negative situation for most people with a pass available where partner gets to bid again.

[hrothgar]

Herbert negative.

 

Last I checked, a Herbert negative applied after partner's double not the opponents...

[pescetom]

Have we checked EW's agreement, I would expect X/P to show the negative hands for most people.

 

To put it another way, what would pass instead of 1♦ show?

[FelicityR]

If you are playing against a system that you do not know, you should always ask what a bid means, especially in a competitive auction. Simple. North/South griping about a result where their own bidding and/or play is atrocious or has been misunderstood, but remaining deaf-mute throughout the auction is just a case of sour grapes.

 

My opinion on your ruling: You did the best you can given the ineptitude of North/South, though that doesn't excuse East/West for failing to alert.

[sanst]

If you are playing against a system that you do not know, you should always ask what a bid means, especially in a competitive auction. Simple.

That’s not true. If a bid is not alerted, you should asume it’s natural. Asking questions might give UI. Don’t blame the NOS for the irregularities of the OS.

[gordontd]

Last I checked, a Herbert negative applied after partner's double not the opponents...

Indeed. My error.

[sanst]

Of course I know as much about NS’s system as the others, but up till 2♥ I can’t blame them. S doubles and plans to bid ♦, showing a strong hand, N has to good a hand to bid 1♥ and puts 2♥ on the table, probably showing 4+♥ en 8+HCP. I can imagne S being in trouble because of the non alert of the 1♦, but I’m not going to blame her for not asking. That can never be considered a serious error. Passing, however, is and likewise not knowing what 2♥ is. Are NS weak players or beginners, then the TD’s decision is okay, otherwise I would let the result stand. EW deserve a PP for not alerting and something more than just a warning.

[Gerardo]

In Polish Club, after 1♣ (X), pass shows 0-7 and 4+♣, else as if opp had passed, so 1♦ show any 0-7, 8-11 w/o 4-card major unwilling to bid 1NT, or some big balanced hand [enough to go to slam opposite the 18+ hands included in 1♣)

[blackshoe]

That’s not true. If a bid is not alerted, you should asume (sic) it’s natural.

Maybe in the Netherlands. Not so sure that's a good idea in North America. But I think the point is that if you don't know what they're saying it's a bit hard to figure out what you should be doing. I would ask for an explanation of the entire auction, not pinpointing any particular bid. Sure, it's only two bids so far. So what?

 

In Polish Club, after 1♣ (X), pass shows 0-7 and 4+♣, else as if opp had passed, so 1♦ show any 0-7, 8-11 w/o 4-card major unwilling to bid 1NT, or some big balanced hand [enough to go to slam opposite the 18+ hands included in 1♣)

Is there only one version of Polish Club in the world?

[weejonnie]

Two points

 

1) It is NOT what you do when you play with the misinformation, it is what you would do when you have the right information.

 

2) Misplaying 2♥ is not an 'extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction'. North is quite likely to just bid 1♥ when they know that 1♦ is negative - in which case the meaning of 2♥ is moot.

[Cyberyeti]

Two points

 

1) It is NOT what you do when you play with the misinformation, it is what you would do when you have the right information.

 

2) Misplaying 2♥ is not an 'extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction'. North is quite likely to just bid 1♥ when they know that 1♦ is negative - in which case the meaning of 2♥ is moot.

 

I completely disagree, I think they're more likely to bid 2♥ than 1♥ if they know it's negative, as if it's not, you're much less likely to have game on so don't need to show your balanced 11 opposite what is probably another 11 or 12 and can just bid 1♥.

 

Hence I don't think it's related to the infraction. The play is 2 tricks suboptimal on most if not all defences, and I'm really struggling to see how you go off, but I know serious error requires ridiculous levels of idiocy (and IMO requires too much idiocy, as people who've played seriously badly and got a bad score because of that still get redress and apparently would have played 3N like a magician (not that you need to here), despite the fact that they played 2♥ like an idiot).

[ahydra]

In regards to "serious error", the NZ manual says:

 

In general, the following types of action qualify as serious errors.

(a) Failure to follow proper procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the Director after an irregularity).

(b) Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam or opening a weak NT on a 20 count.

 

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be serious

errors.

© Any call or play that would be deemed to be normal, even if inferior or careless.

(d) Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.

 

Although this is the club's strongest night it doesn't get above I/A level really. I don't think North's play is close to meeting the bar for a serious error. As for 3N, that plays itself when the DQJ drop.

 

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

In regards to "serious error", the NZ manual says:

 

 

 

Although this is the club's strongest night it doesn't get above I/A level really. I don't think North's play is close to meeting the bar for a serious error. As for 3N, that plays itself when the DQJ drop.

 

ahydra

 

I know the law says this, and it's probably the law I like least. 2♥ has 8 top tricks if the trumps are 4-3, the inability to take 8 cashing tricks should count as a serious error but clearly doesn't.

[blackshoe]

Hm. When was that written? I'm wondering if the author(s) took into account the current wording (since 2017) of the law, which refers to extremely serious errors (my emphasis).

 

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

[pescetom]

 

 

Is not calling the director after an irregularity an extremely serious error?

 

Is not your question seriously ambiguous ?

B-)