[VixTD]

---

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs -> VPs
1NT was 12-14
Double was penalties
3♣ was explained as natural and game-forcing, but was actually natural and weak
3NT was passed out, but East opted to reopen the bidding with a double after NS called the director to correct the mistaken explanation.
Result: 4♥(W)-3, NS+300

East recalled the director (at NS's insistence) to say that she would have bid 3♦ directly over 3♣ had she been told that 3♣ was weak. (Over a forcing 3♣ her 3♦ would have been forcing.)

What's your ruling?

[whereagles]

Result stands, deposit forfeited

[pran]

I would let the table result stand: You cannot both eat your cake and have it.

If East had just told the Director that she would have bid 3♦ directly over 3♣ with a correct explanation then EW would have had a case for adjustment on that basis (3♦ is no longer a legal bid). Now she executed her right to reopen the auction and that's it, particularly since she doubled instead of just bidding 4♦.

[RMB1]

Is no one concerned about South's 4♣?

As I read it, North corrected South's explanation of 3♣. North's explanation is UI to South. I think Pass of 3NTX is a logical alternative for South, and 4♣ is suggested by the explanation that 3♣ is weak.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2011-May-25, 08:05, said:

Is no one concerned about South's 4♣?

As I read it, North corrected South's explanation of 3♣. North's explanation is UI to South. I think Pass of 3NTX is a logical alternative for South, and 4♣ is suggested by the explanation that 3♣ is weak.

I agree that 4C is disallowed for South (I was North) but North will still pull to 4C, and presumably East will bid 4D, as she did in a similar auction. The 4H by West in the actual auction is clearly SeWoG. So the table result for East-West is clear, and I think it is correct to allow Pass of 4D and Double of 4C in some weighting in the (slightly) different auction. I am not sure why East should pass 4C when North bids it, but bid 4D when South does, but there we are. I thought that some percentage of the selected bid should have been included, but the TD decided not, and we accepted this.

I am not sure why South thought 3C was natural and game forcing, but she decided with West doubling 1NT and East doubling the final contract that this was unlikely, but she has UI and this has to make Pass an LA, even though the auction does not add up.

[campboy]

Can North (who also has UI) really still pull to 4♣? It's certainly worth a poll for that.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-25, 08:30, said:

Can North (who also has UI) really still pull to 4♣? It's certainly worth a poll for that.

It seems hard to construct hands where 3NT is correct. And both are two off, so it does not matter much.

[campboy]

Also I agree that 4♥ is WoG, but that doesn't mean E/W get table result: they lose redress based on the difference between 4♦, which looks like it's going one off, and 4♥-3, but that may well not be all the damage.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-25, 08:33, said:

Also I agree that 4♥ is WoG, but that doesn't mean E/W get table result: they lose redress based on the difference between 4♦, which looks like it's going one off, and 4♥-3, but that may well not be all the damage.

Yes, good point; I think that aspect might have been handled wrongly by the TD, who gave E/W 100% of -300. If East had bid 3D it would apparently have been forcing, and now the possibilites are numerous as they say.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-May-25, 08:32, said:

It seems hard to construct hands where 3NT is correct.

xxx, Axxx, Axxx, Ax seems to make 8 in 3N or 4♣, I agree it's difficult to find hands where 3N makes, 3 non spade aces and a finesse winning or led up to red Q is about it.

I reckon the auction would continue over 3♣ with 3♦-P-3N-P-4♦ without the misinformation probably -1 so EW have been damaged (or damaged themselves).

Assuming the initial double of 1N is what most people would double on, I have 6, opener has 12, partner must have at least 13-14, so what is this 8-9 point game force, shouldn't I be doubling this anyway without the misinfo ? The only reason not to is because they may run to 4♣.

I think people are being a little hard on W. I believe it's authorised to him that partner may not have made the obvious bid over a weak 3♣ because he thought it was a strong 3♣, so what does 4♦ show ? You are not going to have agreements about this so now you're on a complete guess, what's partner supposed to do with for example xx, QJxx, KJxxx, xx (not that dissimilar to what he actually has) where 4♥ doesn't make on a diamond lead but has good practical chances, or Qxxx, xx, KJxxx, xx where 4♠ may make.

South clearly should not be pulling to 4♣ and deserves a PP if he's good enough to know that (give partner 6 or 7 solid clubs and out), N in practice will always pull to 4♣, but with the way the law is framed, will he seriously consider passing ? I believe many Ns will seriously consider passing, but 90%+ of them will work out that it's extremely unlikely to be right, so virtually all will pull. With the wording of the law however, is this enough to make pass a LA ?

[nige1]

RMB1, on 2011-May-25, 08:05, said:

Is no one concerned about South's 4♣? As I read it, North corrected South's explanation of 3♣. North's explanation is UI to South. I think Pass of 3NTX is a logical alternative for South, and 4♣ is suggested by the explanation that 3♣ is weak.

Agree with this.

campboy, on 2011-May-25, 08:30, said:

Can North (who also has UI) really still pull to 4♣? It's certainly worth a poll for that.

And this

[aguahombre]

VixTD, on 2011-May-25, 06:56, said:

(Over a forcing 3♣ her 3♦ would have been forcing.)

Interesting concept. Forcing bids over forcing bids and non-forcing bids over non-forcing bids.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-May-25, 09:08, said:

N in practice will always pull to 4♣, but with the way the law is framed, will he seriously consider passing?

The TD decided Pass (of 3NTx) by North was not an LA, and I was not called upon to decide whether it was, and whether bidding was a L73 infraction. Looking at the authorised information: 1NT - (X) - 3C (pre-emptive) - (Pass) - 3NT does not exist, as dummy could have a one-count and seven clubs. So, if anything, it is a club raise, suggesting a sacrifice at these colours. Of course you know from the UI that it is not that, but if you make the same bid as you would make without the UI, jallerton would argue that you are not taking any advantage from it. The only question therefore is whether Pass is an LA. I, and the TD who consulted, thought not. The authorised information is that partner had either misinterpreted your 3C, or is making a club raise.

It seemed a little odd that part of the ruling included East passing over 4C by North, and West doubling it on the way out. I forget what percentage it was, but I was unclear why East would not bid 4D here, but did in the actual auction, or why West would double 4C, when he passed it with the same information in the actual auction.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-May-25, 07:28, said:

I would let the table result stand: You cannot both eat your cake and have it.

If East had just told the Director that she would have bid 3♦ directly over 3♣ with a correct explanation then EW would have had a case for adjustment on that basis (3♦ is no longer a legal bid). Now she executed her right to reopen the auction and that's it, particularly since she doubled instead of just bidding 4♦.

This is not eating your cake and having it. East was not informed of the misinformation in time to bid 3D over 3C. Having been informed of the misinformation in time to bid double over 3N, East is allowed to try and get a result which would remove the damage of not having been informed in time. But East is still allowed to claim for the damage of not having been informed in time, if the result obtained indicates damage from the late disclosure. If, for example, EW had allowed NS to play and go off, or better still doubled them for penalties, there would have been no damage. But EW are not required to have such prescience.

[AlexJonson]

I'd ask South what he was up to.

If he said that he didn't notice West's double, and then when the double of 3NT came back, he did, then I would believe him, because it would be an overwhelmingly probable story.

What EW do then is their problem at the bridge table, since they must also have known that South missed the double.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-May-25, 09:33, said:

The authorised information is that partner had either misinterpreted your 3C, or is making a club raise.

Or, of course, has opened 1NT with four aces having noticed only three when he first sorted his hand. The extent to which he will thank you for pulling to a no-play 4♣ instead of a laydown 3NT is a matter of conjecture, but...

It is not for you, who have described your hand in detail, to overrule partner when there is any question of UI. If partner (having given some wrong explanation of your actions) appears to have made an "impossible" bid, you are in duty bound to assume that he has some "impossible" reason for it, not to go around concluding that he "must have" misconstrued some bid that you have made. I thought we had abolished this particular cheats' charter long ago, but from the nonsense posted here I am forced to conclude that we have not.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-25, 15:57, said:

Or, of course, has opened 1NT with four aces having noticed only three when he first sorted his hand. The extent to which he will thank you for pulling to a no-play 4♣ instead of a laydown 3NT is a matter of conjecture, but...

It is not for you, who have described your hand in detail, to overrule partner when there is any question of UI. If partner (having given some wrong explanation of your actions) appears to have made an "impossible" bid, you are in duty bound to assume that he has some "impossible" reason for it, not to go around concluding that he "must have" misconstrued some bid that you have made. I thought we had abolished this particular cheats' charter long ago, but from the nonsense posted here I am forced to conclude that we have not.

It will always be possible to construct some non-systemic hand which he or she might bid in such a way. Why not surmise that partner meant to open 2NT but missed by 1? In the thread that went on for a long time where an unlikely 5-6 in spades and diamonds for partner was constructed, I agreed with you. Where you have UI you cannot take opponent's bidding into account in deciding on logical alternatives. If you could, then South would pull to 4C, as it is not conceivable that partner has a hand which is natural and game-forcing, West has doubled 1NT and East has doubled 3NT. Many would argue that this has told you that your original explanation of natural and game-forcing is flawed. I actually think that South has to pass, which is no doubt your view again. One must assume the opponents are loonies when you have UI.

However, when the auction gets round to North, he is allowed to use the authorised information to decide what is happening. If he passes and his partner has xx AKx xxx Axxxx, then his partner will be quite entitled to say, "How on earth can 3NT be natural, you are not promising any values at all; we were making 4C and you have gone for 1100 in 3NT doubled? I wanted you to sac in 5C if they bid 4H you idiot." And would you bid 3NT after 1NT - (X) - 3C (weak) - Pass with four aces. No, of course you wouldn't. So, far from following a cheats' charter, North should, indeed is obliged, not to bid lemming-like but to try to assign a systemic meaning to partner's unusual action. There is no obligation whatsoever to guess that partner has miscounted aces, or has psyched 1NT. Indeed it is illegal to assume that partner has opened 1NT with four aces and to pass 3NT, and if that were the case, it would be a routine adjustment for fielding a systemic misbid, not to mention suspicion of a CPU. That would be the infraction, not the proposed 4C bid. I agree completely with the decision of the TD that 4C by South was disallowed and there would then be no logical alternative to 4C by North, and your pass is actually illegal. I thought we had abolished this particular lemming's charter long ago, but from the nonsense you have written I am forced to conclude that we have not. Now it may be that North should bid 4C on the previous round ... but 3NT - 3 might well be a good result against a possible 4H for example. Not the 4H that West eventually chose mind you.

[VixTD]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-25, 10:03, said:

This is not eating your cake and having it. East was not informed of the misinformation in time to bid 3D over 3C. Having been informed of the misinformation in time to bid double over 3N, East is allowed to try and get a result which would remove the damage of not having been informed in time. But East is still allowed to claim for the damage of not having been informed in time, if the result obtained indicates damage from the late disclosure. If, for example, EW had allowed NS to play and go off, or better still doubled them for penalties, there would have been no damage. But EW are not required to have such prescience.

This is my opinion too. Worryingly, two senior EBU directors shared Pran's view. I hope I managed to dissuade them, or at least make them reconsider.

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2011-May-25, 08:33, said:

Also I agree that 4♥ is WoG, but that doesn't mean E/W get table result: they lose redress based on the difference between 4♦, which looks like it's going one off, and 4♥-3, but that may well not be all the damage.

I wasn't the director called to the table on this one, but I was consulted on the ruling. I thought South's 4♣ bid was illegal, West's 4♥ bid SEWoG, and I didn't think North would bid 4♣, even if he's allowed to, so I may have persuaded the director to reduce the proportion of 4♣(N) in the weighting.

I also didn't think that EW should have kept all their table score, but I struggled to work out how to calculate it. Should I have calculated the IMP damage caused by removing 4♦(E)-1 to 4♥(W)-3 and subtracted that from EW's score after the adjustment for the earlier damage caused by NS's preventing EW from bidding 3♦? This seems odd, because EW playing in 4♦ made up no part of the final adjusted score. (We actually adjusted to mixtures of 4♣, 4♣X and 3NTX by NS down one or two tricks.) This would make sense, I suppose, but it doesn't look as straightforward as examples given in the White Book.

Do you have any views on this, Robin?

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2011-May-26, 08:02, said:

Do you have any views on this, Robin?

This is a more complicated case but only because of the adjustment trying to account for MI and UI. The "middle" score in the 12C1b calculation is the score the non offenders could have got if they had avoided making the SEWoG. It will often be a result that does not occur anywhere else in the TD's considerations. It could also be a weighted score (for instance, if the number of tricks in 4D was uncertain).

So the non-offenders would score: weighted IMPs for the adjustement - IMPs(4D) + IMPs(4H-3)