[shevek]

---

Australia, matchpoints, daytime club game. NS better than EW.

North did not alert 3♦, though preemptive jump raises are alertable in Oz.
Limit raises are "standard" in this club.
Director called when East bid 3♠. EW acknowledged.

Ruling please & would it change in other circumstances.

[blackshoe]

Without looking at this particular case in detail I would think the answer to "would it change in other circumstances" is "probably yes, but it depends on the circumstances".

[chrism]

Interesting because both sides seem to have committed infractions. You do not state the table result, but presumably 4S made otherwise there would be no discussion about the BIT.

The failure to alert is misinformation, assuming that the NS agreement is preemptive jump raises in competition. Given correct information West would probably have found a legal way of showing values and East-West would have at least a fighting chance of reaching 4S. I would give NS -420 for 4S making 4.

In the face of the MI, West still found a very effective way to communicate his values (assuming the BIT to be greater than the regulation skip-bid pause), which made it easy for East to find a rebid.

I am sure that Pass is an LA for East and would impose a result in 3D on EW. It looks like EW +100 to me.

[chrism]

Relevant circumstances that would change some part of the ruling:

* If NS can prove that 3D was a misbid and their agreement is invitational jump raises
* If played in a jurisdiction where preemptive jump raises in competition are not alertable
* If West's BIT was actually a pause of about 10 seconds

[StevenG]

How can you impose 3♦ on EW when that contract is purely the result of an infraction?

[Zelandakh]

chrism, on 2013-November-28, 21:09, said:

I am sure that Pass is an LA for East

Are you? Double and 3♠ are surely LAs but I am not so sure about Pass. Was there a poll? Had East selected double there would be a case for giving a penalty but we should ask the player why they chose 3♠. If they felt that Pass was not a LA then they presumably thought they were making the ethical call with 3♠.

I agree that West would surely have acted over 3♦ given the correct explanation so E-W have been damaged. That probably makes the discussion about East's actions moot assuming that we are not giving a fine.

[mycroft]

With the correct information, and without the UI from the pause, is anybody passing this as East? Well, possibly, yeah. After all, the 6,7 points South is supposed to have, North can have and have the same auction.

With the correct information, is West passing? Probably not. What is he doing? I don't know, but it will get to 4♠.

I don't know the "protect yourself" requirements in the ABF, and I don't know what the class of players are here (except NS better than EW). West's hand + 12 + 10 means that East has overcalled on at best KQJxx(+, but do they play preemptive jump overcalls?) and out. Would she? If not, is West good enough to realize that maybe they've been misAlerted? Also, it is stated that preemptive jump raises (even in competition) are Alertable. Do enough people play them preemptive, and enough people not Alert them because "everybody plays it" (in their fields, this one is different) that this is just one of those auctions you have to check on, just like the ACBL unAlerted 2♦ opener seems to be?

For N/S, this is trivial. With the benefit of a failure to Alert in a situation where that is *very likely* to improve the effectiveness of that preemptive raise, they almost succeeded in talking E-W out of a game. Even though it may be via infraction that they got there, without either infraction, it is "at all possible". N/S -420. Even in a world where weighted scores are normal, I think 100% N/S -420.

For E/W, it's very complicated; and I can see anything from +420 to +100 to crazy weighted scores to...depending on a lot of the questions above. Sure there was a BIT, but even getting to and working out "would partner really overcall on spades and a 6-count?" likely takes most of the 10 seconds for a weaker player - I would be comfortable assuming that there may not have been a BIT with the right information, and the extra pause was due to working out whether this auction makes sense (knowing full well that this hand is a bear after a properly Alerted auction, and working out what to do with it could trigger a BIT anyway (but not, one would hope, a "pause for a full 13 HCP" and then pass)).

[RMB1]

Everyone says West will not Pass if 3♦ is properly alerted but no one can say what he will do.

I think that any adjustment for misinformation should include some percentage of West passing and passing slowly, putting East in much the same UI position.

This is not an easy ruling: I am not sure East/West will reach 4♠ without the misinformation and without the use of unauthorised information.

A ruling that involves successive misinformation and unauthorised information by different sides does not belong in Simple Rulings forum.

[Vampyr]

StevenG, on 2013-November-29, 02:06, said:

How can you impose 3♦ on EW when that contract is purely the result of an infraction?

Yes, I think it would be highly unusual for the director to impose an insufficient bid in a 3-card fit! But one could, of course, impose 3♦ on NS.

I do not really wish to comment on whether that would be a correct ruling, but in general I agree with Mycroft, including his comments about the BIT, which could well be considered to be a direct result of NS's infraction. Also, West might have been waiting to see whether an alert was forthcoming.

In any case, if 10 seconds is the Australian standard, well, 10 seconds is longer than most people think it is. In Australia are the opponents required to hold the Stop Card for 10 seconds, or does the next player have to think AND try to work out how long 10 seconds is?

In the EBU, people typically do not hold or leave out the Stop card for 10 seconds, and when I do they will often bid before I have replaced it.

[blackshoe]

Multiple infractions make this a complicated ruling. Robin's right, it doesn't belong in this forum. I'll move it.

[ggwhiz]

It is complicated but would consider that the failure to alert may cause a significant portion of the bit, waiting for a possible alert, digesting the possibilities after not getting one etc.

The failure of north to accept the limit raise marks west with a little something making the 3♠ bid entirely reasonable in a clean auction so unless it was more of a coma than a bit I'm inclined to let the score stand. West had a dilemma they didn't deserve.

[nige1]

shevek, on 2013-November-28, 19:44, said:

Australia, matchpoints, daytime club game. NS better than EW.

North did not alert 3♦, though preemptive jump raises are alertable in Oz.
Limit raises are "standard" in this club.
Director called when East bid 3♠. EW acknowledged.

Ruling please & would it change in other circumstances.

---

Agree with Mycroft. For NS -420 for the failure to alert (Given correct information, West would probably double 3♦)
I suppose West could "protect himself" by asking but his slow pass, suggesting values, was not such a good idea. IMO pass is an LA for East, so EW should keep their +100.
Some regulating authorities require an alert for a weak raise and others don't. it would be great if RAs were to agree on consistent regulations (until the WBF plug such gaps in the law-book). I would prefer raises to be announced ("Weak", "Invitaional", or "Forcing").

[Bbradley62]

chrism, on 2013-November-28, 21:09, said:

I am sure that Pass is an LA for East and would impose a result in 3D on EW. It looks like EW +100 to me.

Vampyr, on 2013-November-29, 11:54, said:

StevenG, on 2013-November-29, 02:06, said:

How can you impose 3♦ on EW when that contract is purely the result of an infraction?

Yes, I think it would be highly unusual for the director to impose an insufficient bid in a 3-card fit! But one could, of course, impose 3♦ on NS.

I do not really wish to comment on whether that would be a correct ruling, but in general I agree with Mycroft, including his comments about the BIT, which could well be considered to be a direct result of NS's infraction. Also, West might have been waiting to see whether an alert was forthcoming.

In any case, if 10 seconds is the Australian standard, well, 10 seconds is longer than most people think it is. In Australia are the opponents required to hold the Stop Card for 10 seconds, or does the next player have to think AND try to work out how long 10 seconds is?

In the EBU, people typically do not hold or leave out the Stop card for 10 seconds, and when I do they will often bid before I have replaced it.

Vampyr: I think you misunderstood Chris' statement; it should be clear that he meant to say that he would impose defending 3D on EW.

Also, OP stated that both sides agreed to the BIT, which should make any questions about required pauses moot; whatever the break was, it exceed the "normal" pause.

[Fluffy]

First of all look after the BIT, it has been after a jump, and some players are not aware of the rules of the stop card, so look ask further questions.

Second, there is MI, so the contract of the table should be 4♠.

Third, there is a possible use of UI, it has no importance on the final result, but you might provide EW a PP for using UI, I agree with Mark that double is clearly suggested by UI, but 3♠ its not enterilly clear, I think pass is a LA but some poll would be needed.

I think that for a PP it would not be enough for pass to be a LA, it would have to be a clear LA making 3♠ a blatant use of UI but I am not completely sure.

Another question, if I have to make the poll among players who have already played the board and will be biased as we all know for knowing the full hand, In my opinion I would get more realiable results if I made a litle trick and asked them this question:

---

Is it allowed by the rules?

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-01, 13:07, said:

I think that for a PP it would not be enough for pass to be a LA, it would have to be a clear LA making 3♠ a blatant use of UI but I am not completely sure.

Another question, if I have to make the poll among players who have already played the board and will be biased as we all know for knowing the full hand, In my opinion I would get more realiable results if I made a litle trick…

Is it allowed by the rules?

Quote

…partner may not choose from among logical alternatives…

The emphasis above is mine.

Quote

Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

If you rule that a player has used UI in the face of this, you should almost certainly give a PP, absent extenuating circumstances. "I just started playing bridge last week" is such a circumstance. "I'm a perpetual novice" is not.

There is nothing in the rules, or in any guidance of which I'm aware, about what kinds of questions you can ask in a poll. If you think it's relevant and will help you make your ruling, go for it - but be careful to make sure it is relevant.

[Zelandakh]

"I did not think pass was a LA" is also an extenuating circumstance in cases where such a statement is believable. A player does not have the benefit of a poll at the time they choose their call.

[dburn]

I am not sure I have seen Robin's argument before, but it is an interesting thought that one should give some weight to the idea that East-West would break the rules just because North-South have. One can imagine "99% of 4♠ making, 1% of 4♠ down one because declarer would revoke one time in a hundred". But it is better not to imagine this.

[WellSpyder]

dburn, on 2013-December-02, 09:55, said:

I am not sure I have seen Robin's argument before, but it is an interesting thought that one should give some weight to the idea that East-West would break the rules just because North-South have.

That is not how I read Robin's argument. Giving UI does not break the rules. Using UI does. I think Robin is saying that West will still have a problem without the MI, and may need time to think before deciding that passing is the best he can do. So if you think this will constrain East from bidding, then a weighted score should include some percentage of 3♦.