[antonylee]

At matchpoints, the auction goes

---

.
After the first two passes, N asks W about the 3♥ bid, it is explained as weak (and it is written so on the CC -- however in the absence of an overcall, EW play 1M-3M as invitational).
However, E shows up with a hand like xx Kxxx Axxx Axx.
Is E entitled to bid 4♥ here? Or has his action arguably been suggested by his partner's explanation?

Edit: vulnerability corrected to both.

[gwnn]

No he's not. Yes it has.

[ArtK78]

Of course he is entitled to bid 4♥. He is entitled to bid whatever he wants.

However, he will have to have a very good explanation for the appeals committee as to the rationale behind his 4♥ call. In all likelihood, any third party will view his bid as being influenced by partner's explanation of his 3♥ call.

[campboy]

If he does bid 4♥ then the TD can't do anything about it until the end of the hand, but that does not mean the player is entitled to bid 4♥. Law 16B restricts his right to choose a call when he has UI.

Incidentally, where did this take place? In the EBU, 3♥ (if weak) is alertable.

[RMB1]

 ArtK78, on 2011-October-12, 11:53, said:

Of course he is entitled to bid 4♥. He is entitled to bid whatever he wants.

No. He is required to follow the laws: Law 16 "may not choose from logical alternative", Law 73 "must carefully avoid taking advantage".

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2011-October-12, 12:12, said:

If he does bid 4♥ then the TD can't do anything about it until the end of the hand, but that does not mean the player is entitled to bid 4♥.

Indeed, there is no real way to gain by bidding 4♥. You will keep a poor score and have a good one taken away. A player in this position may end up with a decent score by letting 3♠ go; 4♥ might not make, after all.

[StevenG]

 Vampyr, on 2011-October-12, 12:31, said:

Indeed, there is no real way to gain by bidding 4♥. You will keep a poor score and have a good one taken away. A player in this position may end up with a decent score by letting 3♠ go; 4♥ might not make, after all.

Doesn't -100 beat -140?

[edit]
And doesn't the UI make it more advantageous to pass than to bid on, since partner's presumed minimum suggests less defence to 3♠?

[Vampyr]

 StevenG, on 2011-October-12, 12:46, said:

Doesn't -100 beat -140?

Not when -140 is assigned by the director and/or appeals committee.

[antonylee]

This happened in a club in the US (where a weak 3♥ over an overcall is pretty much standard I guess).

I was sitting North and my 3♠ bid was more than questionable, but in any case, the director ruled that "no law barred East from bidding what he wants". Result stands.

As it happens there would have been no matchpoint difference between 3♥ making any number and 3♠ off 1 or 2.

[wyman]

 antonylee, on 2011-October-12, 14:42, said:

I was sitting North and my 3♠ bid was more than questionable, but in any case, the director ruled that "no law barred East from bidding what he wants". Result stands.

Director need



retraining program

[gordontd]

 antonylee, on 2011-October-12, 14:42, said:

the director ruled that "no law barred East from bidding what he wants".

Maybe you could point him to Robin's post #5 above.

[bluejak]

 ArtK78, on 2011-October-12, 11:53, said:

Of course he is entitled to bid 4♥. He is entitled to bid whatever he wants.

No, he is not. Calls that are not permitted by Laws 16B and 73C, the UI Laws, are illegal: it is not just a question of whether we might rule them back, it is breaking the Laws of the game to make such a call. If done knowledgeably and deliberately it is highly unethical.

 ArtK78, on 2011-October-12, 11:53, said:

However, he will have to have a very good explanation for the appeals committee as to the rationale behind his 4♥ call. In all likelihood, any third party will view his bid as being influenced by partner's explanation of his 3♥ call.

Why AC? What happened to the TD?

 antonylee, on 2011-October-12, 14:42, said:

I was sitting North and my 3♠ bid was more than questionable, but in any case, the director ruled that "no law barred East from bidding what he wants". Result stands.

We get occasional horrific TD stories: this is one of the worst: a TD who has never heard of UI.

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 19:30, said:

hy AC? What happened to the TD?




We get occasional horrific TD stories: this is one of the worst: a TD who has never heard of UI.

Which answers your first question.

[antonylee]

Actually, discussing with another rather knowledgeable player (who is not a director, though), he suggested that a split score may be appropriate, i.e. that I should keep the bad result of 4♥X (because my X was "bacause I felt protected that TD would roll back to 3♠ if needed" -- which, if I understand well, is not the case?) whereas EW gets the score of 3♠ down whatever appropriate.

[wyman]

We don't know your hand, so we can't tell you whether X is appropriate.

[bluejak]

The basis for a split score is if you make a serious error, unrelated to the infraction, or commit wild or gambling action. So this would only be suitable if your double was pretty dreadful. The idea that your double is somewhat safer because of the possibility of a ruling is one thought up primarily by players who try to get away with things, but in general unless your double is clearly inappropriate it is just not right.

[antonylee]

I held something like (something like AQJxxx xx Kx Kxx). Yes, I know, even 3♠ is a terrible bid.
On the other hand I think X is just bad, not completely insane -- if I'm lucky partner will have some help in the minors...

Also, I don't really understand this sentence:

 bluejak, on 2011-October-13, 13:13, said:

The idea that your double is somewhat safer because of the possibility of a ruling is one thought up primarily by players who try to get away with things, but in general unless your double is clearly inappropriate it is just not right.

I understand the second half of the sentence as "the belief I held is wrong except if my X was clearly inappropriate", but of course this doesn't make sense at all. Sorry for my bad English, but what did you actually mean?

[bluejak]

You have the wrong basis for a split score. If you double, and hope that if it does not go off you will get an adjustment, you will get redress anyway so long as your double is not awful.

[campboy]

Even if the director judges that your double is awful, you should not be given the table score. The TD can only deny redress for that part of the damage caused by the wild action/serious error -- so he subtracts the matchpoints the double cost you from the number you would get for 3♠.