[SimonFa]

Regular club night, handicap pairs. New partnership that night because both our regular partners were away. We had about 10 minutes beforehand to agree systems. Its fair to say that even as a regular partnership we would be around or just below average of this club field. Opps are a regular pair and relatively strong.

Playing Director and the first hand of the night. EBU jurisdiction.

Note: The vulnerability is wrong, should be none vulnerable

---

At the end of the bidding South said that the explanation given to the 2NT bid was incorrect and that it was for the majors.

I (West) called for the Director and explained that we had been given MI. This was accepted and Director asked if we thought we were damaged. I wasn't sure I could say that with the correct information I would have bid 4♣ as this could help ops and said that I wasn't sure.

North also explained that her 3♥ was to correct partners bid - I wasn't sure whether this was an LA and that she had used UI but let that go.

The Director said we should call him back at the end of the hand if we thought we were damaged.

3 Hearts went down 3 and we had to then decide if we were damaged. My sense was that we were and partner said that had I bid 4!c she would have definitely gone to 5 over 4!H and wasn't sure after a pass by North. North said she wouldn't have bid 4♥.

At this stage we were already well behind and some tables had finished their second boards and getting ready for a move. We could see that the Director wasn't dummy at his own table. In the end I accepted the result and moved on as partner was being passive and I could see there was a bit of agitation around.

OK, I accept that I was probably wrong to move on, but say I had insisted we wait for the Director what would have happened?

How could he tell if we were damaged as he couldn't look at the hands and he couldn't call for another Director who had played the hand?

If it helps the results of the night were:

N: 1 x 3♥ -3
N: 1 x 3♥ -2
E: 1 x 4♥ -2 (yes that's correct)
W: 2 x 5♣ -1
W: 3 x 5♣ =
W: 1 x 5♣ +1
W: 1 x 6♣ -1

In the end we had 9/20 and 5♣scored 16/20 but an adjustment wouldn't have affected Opps position and we would have moved up one place but still been less than 50%.

Thanks in advance,

Simon

[iviehoff]

I think you should have called the director back and said you were concerned by both the UI and MI aspects. The director doesn't need to rule on the spot, and indeed shouldn't, he should leave it until later. But he does need to collect evidence before NS leave. The most important evidence is what are NS's agreements.

If NS can demonstrate that N misbid, which I think is fairly likely, then you may actually have been correctly informed. It may be difficult for you to find a club contract in that case. It seems likely that N did abuse UI in bidding 3H; I would so rule unless NS could demonstrate to me that when partner bids a suit not advertised by the 2-suited overcall, they have an agreement that this is not a suit of his own.

In the case that you were misinformed, then there is still the UI, and North probably still misbehaved. We need to consider auctions in which you are correctly informed and North behaves himself, as well as auctions in which North does what he did.

[mrdct]

When there's a playing director, the usual procedure is for him to have a look at the hand at the end of the night. I think you should've called him back asked him to have look at it after he's played it, during the tea break or after the session.

It looks like an adjustment to 5♣= to me.

[Cyberyeti]

mrdct, on 2011-October-11, 03:18, said:

When there's a playing director, the usual procedure is for him to have a look at the hand at the end of the night. I think you should've called him back asked him to have look at it after he's played it, during the tea break or after the session.

It looks like an adjustment to 5♣= to me.

Isn't ... 3♣-X-3♥-X +500 also in the frame ?

First off, need to clarify their system, misbid or MI ?

N's 3♥ bid if 3♣ is natural is reprehensible, from N's PoV partner has said that opposite 5-5 in the majors, he wants to play 3♣, and you have nothing special. If 3♣ is alerted as pick a major it's a bit more murky, but when it isn't I think it's clear, and N's explanation smacks of using UI.

[iviehoff]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-October-11, 04:40, said:

Isn't ... 3♣-X-3♥-X +500 also in the frame ?

All sorts of things are potentially in the frame, even 3N making by EW. But it is a bit difficult knowing exactly what is in the frame without knowing a bit more about NS's actual agreements.

[campboy]

NS seem to have admitted that there was MI. I agree with Cyberyeti. Either 3♣ should have been alerted, in which case West will surely double and 3♥x is the likely final contract, or it shouldn't in which case North has no business bidding. West might well double 3♣ with correct information even if it is not conventional, so 3♣x-lots is a possible adjustment.

[gwnn]

Was it really S who corrected his own explanation? How did that happen?

[bluejak]

There seems to be some general misunderstanding as to what to do with a playing TD.

If you need a TD, you call for the TD. It is his responsibility not yours, as to what he does, how he does it, and so on. When a matter is urgent, few playing TDs make you wait until he has finished playing his hand. Nevertheless, whether he does or not is his decision not yours.

As to when he looks at the hand it makes very little difference whether he is playing or not: he is not going to be rushed and if he needs to consult - which is very normal with any judgement decision - he is likely to do it at the end even if non-playing. Anyway, if he plays the hand early he may get a chance to look at the hand. But the important thing again is that it is his decision not yours when he looks at it and what happens.

So if you need a TD, and the TD is a playing TD, call him, and let his mother worry.

As for the actual hand I have no idea whether I am damaged so I would call the TD, tell him what happened, and then forget it. Either we then get an adjustment or we don't. Note that I do not expect the TD to look at the results from other tables which are irrelevant to rulings.

[SimonFa]

gwnn, on 2011-October-11, 06:17, said:

Was it really S who corrected his own explanation? How did that happen?

Yes, he just blurted it out and the end of the auction.

[jallerton]

The TD was called following the correction of the explanation at the end of the auction as shown. The TD should have given West the chance to change his last pass and for the auction to reopen. It seems to me that West might well have bid 4♣ and that East would probably have raised that to game.

If E/W might/would have bid differently on the previous round, or if North's bid is deemed to be a breach of the UI Laws, then the TD can still adjust the score later.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-October-11, 04:40, said:

N's 3♥ bid if 3♣ is natural is reprehensible, from N's PoV partner has said that opposite 5-5 in the majors, he wants to play 3♣, and you have nothing special. If 3♣ is alerted as pick a major it's a bit more murky, but when it isn't I think it's clear, and N's explanation smacks of using UI.

South was a passed hand. Could he have a hand that wants to play 3♣ knowing that partner is probably short in clubs?

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2011-October-11, 23:57, said:

South was a passed hand. Could he have a hand that wants to play 3♣ knowing that partner is probably short in clubs?

He probably wouldn't exactly want to play in 3C, but given the alternatives of 2N, 3H or 3S, then 3C may have been preferred. Eg, a hand with long clubs unsuitable to open 3C.

[Cyberyeti]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-12, 01:35, said:

He probably wouldn't exactly want to play in 3C, but given the alternatives of 2N, 3H or 3S, then 3C may have been preferred. Eg, a hand with long clubs unsuitable to open 3C.

Exactly, some people have suit requirements (like 2 of top 3) for a first seat preempt. As an extreme example, what are you going to do with x, x, xxx, Q10xxxxxx if you couldn't open 3♣ and are playing Namyats for example.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-October-12, 02:03, said:

Exactly, some people have suit requirements (like 2 of top 3) for a first seat preempt. As an extreme example, what are you going to do with x, x, xxx, Q10xxxxxx if you couldn't open 3♣ and are playing Namyats for example.

Or ♠K ♥K ♦ 109xx ♣QJ10xxxx which many would consider too flawed, regardless of suit quality requirements. 100% of 3Cx-7 for me, -1700.