you make the call

[McBruce]

OK, so partner had made a call and the double of 2♥ cannot be taken back. My bad. So, instead, I determine that the alerts were late, have the table play it out to a result, and adjust to 2♥ making whatever it might make, unless the non-offending side gets a better result. It's clear to me that the double was not going to happen with timely explanations.

[Posleda]

An attempt to explain the bidding. I think they played polish club and wrote explanation about 1♣ to bad box.

 

1♣ 12-14 balanced, 15+ natural, 18+ any (need alert)

2♣ 15-17 5+♣-4♥ or 6+♣, 18+ 5+♣ and 0-2♠ (need alert)

2♥ 1st variant (alert not needed)

 

I am in doubt whether 2♥ means 3-card ♠ from system, but possible. Player was trying to tell all about his cards, but a bit later then needed. There was not great misinformation, because his bids were natural (incidentally).

 

I agree with the solution let the result stay, procedural penalty if possible.

 

Dusan

[McBruce]

Well, now that you've posted the hand, I have to say your double seems a bit odd. [in fact, thinking about it, any double after this sequence would be a bit odd: isn't it likely that the opponents have had a misunderstanding? Either that or it's a complete misfit.] So I'm not surprised that the director didn't adjust. Nevertheless, this shouldn't matter as long as the director concludes that the explanation makes the difference between doubling and not doubling. If I was directing, my first instinct would be to say it doesn't make a difference, simply because I don't understand the idea behind the double, but I would give you the opportunity to explain.

This is an important point missed by many experienced Directors.

 

The general case is:

 

1. Offending side fails to explain their agreements, by not alerting, or misexplaining.

 

2. Non-offending side takes some unusual action that goes for a big number.

 

The instinct of most TDs is to apply the prinicple that most NCBOs follow: after an infraction, the non-offending side must continue to play normal bridge, they must not try for a "double shot." Citing that principle, the TD rules no adjustment.

 

What the TD fails to understand is that to the non-offending side, there is no indication that there even HAS been an infraction. Without it being obvious that there has been an infraction, the "anti-double shot" prinicple cannot possibly apply.

 

Example:

 

♠ T 9 6

♥ J 9 7

♦ A K 9 7 2

♣ K 4

 

Nobody is vul and RHO opens 2NT, alerted as 0-11, both minors. You pass and LHO bids 3♠. Partner doubles this and it is passed to you. What is your call?

 

I chose 3NT, which was doubled by LHO. Partner now bid 4♦ and RHO now mentioned that he had forgotten to alert the 3♠ call. The Director was called and told us to continue. RHO passed, I asked about 3♠ and was told that it was artificial and showed a strong hand. I passed 4♦ and it got doubled. Partner, with a diamond void, retreated to 4♥, also doubled and down 500.

 

The Director ruled A- to the offending side, but made us keep our -500! His reasoning was that 3NT was an insane bid. My response that of course 3NT was insane, I had no idea whose hand it was because I was not given the information I was entitled to, fell on deaf ears.

 

Keep an eye out for this when you are about to rule that the non-offending side is trying for a double shot. Quite often they don't even know there is an infraction.

[sfbp]

lho opened 1C, partner passed, rho responded 1S, i passed, lho bid 2C, partner passed, rho bid 2D, i passed, lho bid 2H, partner passed, rho passed, i doubled ... at this point lho alerted 2H and wrote "15+ pts, 4 hearts, 3 spades" ... then he redoubled... partner bid 3D at which point lho alerted 1C and wrote "15+, 5+ clubs, 4+ hearts"...

 

Looks to me as if your PARTNER asked the opps what the bids meant, and the opponent simply explained, telling you (for whatever reason - ignorance, guilt &c &c) his hand. Also I reckon partner asked in reasonable time but the auction went quick and opp's first explanation didn't come until he had finished typing it, by which time more "stuff" had happened.

 

Face it, with a Polish club opening, noone has any clue what it means initially, and the hand is not described until at least the second bid by the 1C opener.

 

If his hand was the one he described then the biggest problem was for him not to alert 2C, giving your pd a bit more chance to come in with 2D. Yes of course he should alert all his bids, but it wouldn't have told you much more than it did. You are quite smart enough to know when the 2H bid was finally explained that they playing PC.

 

I like the way lho decided to tell you his hand. I agree that Polish club should be alerted but I wonder whether making the result depend on whether you can make exactly 2D might be a good idea. If 2D makes then adjust to 2D = otherwise leave the result as is... you are big boys and everyone at the table knew that the double was balancing.

 

Would you balance on a hand where opp had bid and rebid clubs and now produces a 2H bid, passed by opp's partner? Even if they were bidding standard, which it seems very unlikely that they could be...... :)

 

Stephen

[awm]

In this particular instance, it's not totally clear what the opponents agreements actually were, so perhaps best to let the table result stand unless the director can determine more information.

 

In general though, I've noticed a series of appeals rulings where one side commits some infraction (i.e. misexplanation or failure to alert) and then the other side makes some mistake which is deemed a "failure to play bridge" (i.e. misdefends aggregiously, or balances into a big number). The committee rulings here are consistant that the "failure to play bridge" nullifies the infraction and the table result stands.

 

I really think Luis is right on this, and split results should be the norm in these circumstances. If in fact the opponents here were playing some form of polish club, they should not benefit for their failure to provide timely alerts. It's certainly possible that if they had alerted/explained in the proper manner north would not have doubled. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to view this double as a "wild speculative action" and argue that it's so awful that N/S should not receive an adjusted result. So if, in fact, they were playing polish club or the like and not alerting, I'd rule the table result for N/S and 2♥ for E/W.

[McBruce]

As I stated earlier, there has to be some indication that the non-offending side knew there was an infraction. We should never be denying a non-offender an adjustment if he made a bad bid because he was not informed of a conventional agreement. A TD's job is to determine what would have happened if the Laws were followed, not to determine whether the non-offenders played perfectly under misinformation they did not even know about.

 

I fail to understand why so many TDs go overboard in looking for infractions by the non-offenders. A bad bid is not an infraction, especially when it is based on misinformation.