[benlessard]

R vs W
east deal

(1S)-----2D-------(4S)-------pass with hesitation
(P)-------X--------(P)---------5H making

Scoring: MP

---

At an other table

(1S)-----X-------(3S)--------pass
(P)------pass

When ask about 3S East said limit. West didnt say anything before South led. Ive check on both conv card and Jordan 2Nt wasnt checked, but there was no indication that 3M is a limit raise.

[vang]

on first, the overcaller has a normal double imo, so the result stands.

on the second, i think S was damaged by misinformation and i change the result to 4H (over 3S explained as pree, the second double is normal and i guess N has an obvious 4H call)

[Codo]

On the first, you need to ask the peers of the players. When they all had doubled, result stands.

I think there are different approaches to claim what an alternative is, but as long as not most of his peers double, I will set the score to 4 Spade undoubled.

On the second: I cannot prove that 3 Spade was no limit raise. And as they do not play 1 ♠ X 2 Nt as limit raise, it is absolutely possible that 3 ♠ should be a limit raise. So I think score stands.

[hotShot]

On the first South has 17 HCP, 3 aces and the ♦K are 4 top tricks and it's his lead.
I don't think that pass is a LA here.

What does partners hesitation suggest?
He's got ♦ but no HCP. => ♦K might not make a trick.
He's got HCP but no ♦. => ♦K and Q might make tricks.
He's got long ♣ but no HCP.
He's got long ♥ but no HCP.
He's got long ♠ but is to weak for a penalty dbl.

Does this suggest dbl over e.g. 5♦? I don't think so.
Does it suggest to try 5♣? Perhaps it does. If Bidding something is suggested, and I'm not sure that this is the case, this might make a 4♣ interesting that otherwise makes no sense at all.

So I would let the result stand.

On the second: How strong is a limit raise?
What is the minimum strength and what is the maximum strength?
If the CC does not say that 1M => 3M is preemptive, I don't see any reason to assume that it's not a limit raise. I'll inform them, that they better add "could be preemptive" from now on, since they have just gained an implicit partnership understanding about it.
So there is no MI and therefore no case.
Result stands.

Even if there were MI I'm not sure that the damage is caused by the MI.
Both the limit raise and the preemptive raise are limited and nonforcing.
From the limited information give, I would guess that North will pass in both cases.
So South would be in almost the same situation again with the very small difference that it could be preemptive. Remember that even preempts can have maximum strength.

This post has been edited by hotShot: 2009-March-06, 07:26

[Codo]

A+AKQ+A = 19 HCP?

Red/white everybody will bid X?

You may think so.

[hotShot]

Codo, on Mar 6 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

A+AKQ+A = 19 HCP?

Opps... edited.

[brianshark]

On the first, of course the hesitation suggests double would be more succesful than pass. But I think dbl is clear and I would hope a jury of peers would agree so there should be no adjustment.

On the second, it hasn't been established that 3♠ was not systemically a limit raise. You were told it was a limit raise, and neither west nor the convention card disputed that fact. How can you rule misinformation?

[blackshoe]

"It's a normal double" is the wrong approach. The question is whether there's a LA to double.

Brianshark said:

On the second, it hasn't been established that 3♠ was not systemically a limit raise. You were told it was a limit raise, and neither west nor the convention card disputed that fact. How can you rule misinformation?

The answer to this is simple:

Law 75C said:

The director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

We have evidence to the contrary in East's statement. We have an absence of such evidence in the lack of comment on the convention card. If this happened in the ACBL (did it?) there is a set of boxes to check indicating forcing, limit, or weak raise. If none of these were checked, I'd ask them why not, and I'd consider the omission and their explanation for it (if they have one) in deciding whether to rule misexplanation or misbid.

[ArtK78]

brianshark, on Mar 6 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

On the first, of course the hesitation suggests double would be more succesful than pass. But I think dbl is clear and I would hope a jury of peers would agree so there should be no adjustment.

A "jury of peers?" Are we bringing him up on charges?

[david_c]

We haven't been told why the TD was called on the second hand. Did West's hand not match the explanation? We really need to know what West's hand was. It seems quite likely that there was no infraction.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

"It's a normal double" is the wrong approach. The question is whether there's a LA to double.

Brianshark said:

On the second, it hasn't been established that 3♠ was not systemically a limit raise. You were told it was a limit raise, and neither west nor the convention card disputed that fact. How can you rule misinformation?

The answer to this is simple:

Law 75C said:

The director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

We have evidence to the contrary in East's statement. We have an absence of such evidence in the lack of comment on the convention card. If this happened in the ACBL (did it?) there is a set of boxes to check indicating forcing, limit, or weak raise. If none of these were checked, I'd ask them why not, and I'd consider the omission and their explanation for it (if they have one) in deciding whether to rule misexplanation or misbid.

On the second hand, it would help to know what ruling is being requested.
Are NS saying that 3S was systemically a pre-emptive raise, while East says it's a limit raise, West says nothing and the convention card is silent?

If so, I agree it would be helpful to know what the West hand actually was.

[MFA]

1. I think that pass to 4♠ is just about unthinkable and not a LA.
2. Can't judge this one with so scarce information.

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 6 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

On the second hand, it would help to know what ruling is being requested.
Are NS saying that 3S was systemically a pre-emptive raise, while East says it's a limit raise, West says nothing and the convention card is silent?

If so, I agree it would be helpful to know what the West hand actually was.

I find it ... interesting... that NS might think they can dictate what system EW are playing.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 6 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

On the second hand, it would help to know what ruling is being requested.
Are NS saying that 3S was systemically a pre-emptive raise, while East says it's a limit raise, West says nothing and the convention card is silent?

If so, I agree it would be helpful to know what the West hand actually was.

I find it ... interesting... that NS might think they can dictate what system EW are playing.

If they can't express their opinion on the matter, then how would the director ever know to even consider whether there has been a mistaken explanation in situations like this?

[blackshoe]

"express opinion" ≠ "dictate what system..."

"Are NS saying that 3S was systemically..." (emphasis mine) doesn't sound like an opinion to me.

If the context at the table makes it clear they're expressing an opinion, I have no problem with that. I may, after investigation, even agree with them.

[xcurt]

Agree with MFA.

OP, if you are going to indicate that there was UI or MI, please post the 52-card hand. Once you indicate UI or MI, you are not posting a pure bridge problem any more, anyway. If you don't want to post the other hands, please pose what happened as a bridge problem, first, before indicating the UI or MI that was present.

Curt

[benlessard]

I think that north has a pretty clear cut X of 4S, so ive decided that 5H making stand and i dont think its that close. (but ive told them ill post them on the forum just to be sure).

I dont remember exactly the 4 hands but the 3S bid was made with 3 pts sorry for not telling (was pretty dumb of my part).

There is no place on the CC that says that 3M after a double is a limit or not, (there is just a box for Jordan) however since 3M as a preempt over a double is the standard treatment i give the responsability to the EW to prove that it was a mistaken bid instead of M.I

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

"express opinion" ≠ "dictate what system..."

"Are NS saying that 3S was systemically..." (emphasis mine) doesn't sound like an opinion to me.

If the context at the table makes it clear they're expressing an opinion, I have no problem with that. I may, after investigation, even agree with them.

I think you are reading too much into a sloppily written internet post.
I could have said

"Are NS saying that, in their opinion, the 3S bid was consistent with a partnership agreement to play 3S as pre-emptive and that they would like a TD's ruling, as they believe that they have been damaged by a lack of alert and/or lack of correction by West before the opening lead?"

(that's a much worse sentence grammatically and takes longer to write)

[blackshoe]

Sorry Frances. I should have left "are" out of my quote. It just seemed to me that you postulated a situation in which NS made an assertion about the meaning of 3♠ in EW's system, and I don't think they should do that. Josh objected that they (NS) were just expressing an opinion, and as I said I'm okay with that, as I am with "something doesn't make sense to me here, can I have a ruling, please?" In the hypothetical scenario I read you as postulating, though, a (perhaps overly) sensitive East might well ask NS "are you saying I lied?" I think NS should avoid that possible scenario.

As you say, maybe I read too much into it. I'l shut up now.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2009, 10:01 AM, said:

"It's a normal double" is the wrong approach. The question is whether there's a LA to double.

Brianshark said:

On the second, it hasn't been established that 3♠ was not systemically a limit raise. You were told it was a limit raise, and neither west nor the convention card disputed that fact. How can you rule misinformation?

The answer to this is simple:

Law 75C said:

The director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

We have evidence to the contrary in East's statement. We have an absence of such evidence in the lack of comment on the convention card. If this happened in the ACBL (did it?) there is a set of boxes to check indicating forcing, limit, or weak raise. If none of these were checked, I'd ask them why not, and I'd consider the omission and their explanation for it (if they have one) in deciding whether to rule misexplanation or misbid.

How can East's statement be evidence to the contrary? That's the very statement whose correctness is in question.

However, West's lack of correction may be evidence to the contrary. The explanation may have woken him up to the fact that he misbid, so he correctly kept his mouth quiet.

I believe that law is intended to be applied in cases where East and West are correcting each other, and the dispute cannot be resolved by reference to system notes or other evidence. In that case, you assume that the explanation by the one who made the bid is correct.