[jallerton]

IMPS. All four players are very experienced. East is a "bridge professional".

The auction starts:

No alerts at this stage

---

At his turn to call, West thinks for a few seconds and then informs North/South that he should have alerted 2♦. He explains that 2♦ is a transfer to hearts.

The TD is called by North/South. South says that, following the change of explanation, she wishes to change her call. East waves his arms vigorously and asks to talk to the TD in private. The TD refuses this request and asks East to keep quiet.

The TD allows South to change her call. She withdraws her 2♥ bid and changes this to a pass.

The TD instructs the players to continue with the auction. West now passes as well! North protects with a "take-out" double, which South removes to 2♥ and all pass.

So the final auction was:

---

South makes 10 tricks in 2♥, N/S +170.

N/S call back the TD, expressing surprise about West's pass over 2♦ and claiming that both East and West are in possession of UI.

How do you rule?

[mr1303]

My inclination is as follows:

1) West has UI.
2) The UI suggests pass over 2H
3) Therefore we disallow pass and impose a 2H call.

What happens here depends on N/S's methods. I imagine it will go pass pass to South, who, if he plays penalty doubles, will pass. So I imagine I adjust to 2H W making 4 tricks, which appears to be normalish at a first glance. NS +200.

I could imagine a small amount of 2H X W -4, but NS would need to do some strong convincing about that.

[mink]

mr1303, on 2013-August-04, 03:41, said:

I could imagine a small amount of 2H X W -4, but NS would need to do some strong convincing about that.

Problem with this is that East will never pass such a double by North, and the end in 3♦ doubled which is also worth 200.

Karl

[RMB1]

mink, on 2013-August-04, 04:32, said:

Problem with this is that East will never pass such a double by North, and the end in 3♦ doubled which is also worth 200.

But East also has UI (partner's explanation of 2D) - he has shown his hand with 2D - so bidding again (I suggest) is not permitted.

[PhilKing]

PP for East. I feels that West could tell what had happened, so I would let the result stand (North did well to double). This would be tougher had North passed it out or bid 2♠.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2013-August-04, 03:16, said:

• [SNIP] East waves his arms vigorously and asks to talk to the TD in private.
• [SNIP] West now passes as well!

mr1303, on 2013-August-04, 03:41, said:

I could imagine a small amount of 2H X W -4, but NS would need to do some strong convincing about that.

IMO it shouldn't be necessary to be an imaginative and plausible secretary-bird, to obtain justice.

mink, on 2013-August-04, 04:32, said:

Problem with this is that East will never pass such a double by North, and the end in 3♦ doubled which is also worth 200.

RMB1, on 2013-August-04, 04:57, said:

But East also has UI (partner's explanation of 2D) - he has shown his hand with 2D - so bidding again (I suggest) is not permitted.

Agree with RMB. A brave TD might also consider penalties on the "bridge professional" East and the "very experienced" West.

BTW, what's the distinction between disciplinary and procedural penalties? (I've looked up laws 90-91 but it's not clear to me).

[Fluffy]

West bids 2♥ this is obvious, but what next I am not sure, you said they play take our doubles, and they are pretty much screwed by their own methods.

That is, assuming all the noise made by EW is not AI to N/S. If N/S are allowed to know as everyone else that East doesn't have hearts and that 2♥ is a silly contract I think west correcting to 2♥, north doubling (mainly because he knows South won't try to play in diamonds since they know 2♦ was intended as nat) and south passing are legitimately the normal outcome, and something between +800 and +1100 is the final result.

I need to reread the rules because I don't remember if south's intention to bid 2♥ is UI or AI to north.


Also as Phil says it is easy to explain to East that: your gestures asking for private hearing have get rid of any chance left for getting a normal result on the board, therefore you get a PP.


EDIT: If East can prove that west has never open 1NT with 5 card major he has a case for correcting to 2♠ and reaching 3♦, I will however award 100% of +300 then, as 2 down seems easy.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2013-August-04, 06:44, said:

BTW, what's the distinction between disciplinary and procedural penalties? (I've looked up laws 90-91 but it's not clear to me).

Look up the definitions. I've probably deserve the latter by telling you to look it up, but when you hit me that's the former.

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2013-August-04, 06:47, said:

I need to reread the rules because I don't remember if south's intention to bid 2♥ is UI or AI to north.

It is AI for North (and of course for South), UI for both East and West:

Law 16D said:

1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

[RMB1]

nige1, on 2013-August-04, 06:44, said:

BTW, what's the distinction between disciplinary and procedural penalties? (I've looked up laws 90-91 but it's not clear to me).

Procedural penalties are for failures to follow the mechanics of the game.
Disciplinary penalties are for offences against other people in the game.

There is no hard line between the two:
If a player repeated fails to observe the mechanics of the game despite direct instruction from the TD this will become a disciplinary offence.
If a player's willful failure to follow procedure seriously inconveniences other players this will become a disciplinary offence.

In the EBU, the default disciplinary penalty is twice the default procedural penalty and a disciplinary penalty goes on record.

[wank]

obviously if east is a professional he should know to keep his gob shut during the auction, even if he thinks he's trying to help. stick him with a fine.

[mamos]

jallerton, on 2013-August-04, 03:16, said:

IMPS. All four players are very experienced. East is a "bridge professional".

The auction starts:

No alerts at this stage

---

At his turn to call, West thinks for a few seconds and then informs North/South that he should have alerted 2♦. He explains that 2♦ is a transfer to hearts.

The TD is called by North/South. South says that, following the change of explanation, she wishes to change her call. East waves his arms vigorously and asks to talk to the TD in private. The TD refuses this request and asks East to keep quiet.

The TD allows South to change her call. She withdraws her 2♥ bid and changes this to a pass.

The TD instructs the players to continue with the auction. West now passes as well! North protects with a "take-out" double, which South removes to 2♥ and all pass.

So the final auction was:

---

South makes 10 tricks in 2♥, N/S +170.

N/S call back the TD, expressing surprise about West's pass over 2♦ and claiming that both East and West are in possession of UI.

How do you rule?

Mindful that this may not be the whole story, it seems to me that not just East and West have done badly on this hand but also the TD. I believe that the TD should have drawn the players attention to the existence of UI and of their responsibilities following it. We tend to assume that experienced players know this but this assumption is not always well-founded. East should clearly have known better than to do anything that would draw attention to West's mistaken explanation, but the West player should also have been told that East's actions and request to talk to the TD in private were UI and that further calls by West must not take this into account. The legal position in relation to South's withdrawn 2♥ bid is clear. The TD should have read Law 16D and made sure that the players understood this also. West's Pass over 2♦ is not a Logical Alternative.

No way EW can do anything except bid 2♥ and no reason NS cannot use their AI to double it. No way E or W can pull except by using UI. About NS +800

In some sports, golf and snooker for example, professional players believe that they must display exemplary ethical and behavioral standards. If East wants to appeal, then the player will have the opportunity to explain why an attempt to correct West's erroneous explanation was made at an inappropriate time.

[mink]

If the bidding goes

---

pass is not an LA for East, provided that they do not open nt with 5 card majors or with singletons. Nobody wants to play in a 4-2-fit if opps double for penalty, and it is likely that West can never reach the dummy. I am quite certain that a poll would support my view.

Karl

[PhilKing]

Yep - missed the key element. South's 2♥ is UI to West, so it has to be 2♥-x down the max.

[Fluffy]

mink, on 2013-August-04, 14:10, said:

If the bidding goes

---

pass is not an LA for East, provided that they do not open nt with 5 card majors or with singletons. Nobody wants to play in a 4-2-fit if opps double for penalty, and it is likely that West can never reach the dummy. I am quite certain that a poll would support my view.

http://www.bridgebas...61701-now-what/

only 15% support you, you seems to know that opener has no singletons and no 5 card major but failed to give an explanation of why west doesn't like the 5-2/6-2 undoubled diamond fit and wants to try a moysan instead giving opponents more room to double.

[jallerton]

Thanks for the replies.

The TD adjusted the score to 3♦x -2 by East, N/S +300. His reasoning was that he had consulted three strong players, all of whom stated that they would have expected Opener, if he held 5 hearts, to remove the double of 1NT to 2♥ on the prevous round.

Do this ruling and reasoning make sense?

[ggwhiz]

jallerton, on 2013-August-13, 16:31, said:

Do this ruling and reasoning make sense?

No at least not to me. A balancing double of 1nt is just competitive (11+) for many pairs as opposed to a direct double so there is no reason to run for cover yet on most hands.

After the blatant use of UI e/w deserve the worst possible result not the most likely and I suspect the players polled were not given the UI factor. You don't abuse UI like this to achieve par.