[kfay]

Played a huge game in the STaCs this evening. Here's an interesting situation that came up.


Edit: Hand removed.


First an auction:

1♦-(P)-1N-(Dbl)* *Takeout
P-(2♥)-3♣-(3♥)
P-(P)-3♠

What does 3♠ mean, in your opinion?

In actuality the 3rd round of the auction actually went:

Dbl-(P)-3♠

What do you think 3♠ means here?

The reason I ask is that I (partner on this hand) actually bid 3♠, looked at the table and said 'Oh Shoot!' and reached my hand towards my 3♠ bid and then sat back in my chair.

If you hold this hand at the table are you obligated to pass 3♠ now? I'm proud to say my partner did. But how would you rule if this hand had pulled to 4♦?

Thanks.

[Elianna]

It might not be a good idea to post hands from STaCs while people may still be playing them (and they are on the West Coast). I am not saying that people would purposely cheat, but if someone had a sit-out and an iPhone and was bored, and couldn't tell by your title that they shouldn't look...

[kfay]

Elianna, on Dec 10 2008, 11:15 PM, said:

It might not be a good idea to post hands from STaCs while people may still be playing them (and they are on the West Coast). I am not saying that people would purposely cheat, but if someone had a sit-out and an iPhone and was bored, and couldn't tell by your title that they shouldn't look...

Very good point. My mistake. I think just the auction is fine to have, though.

[Elianna]

I just realized that you may be in a different STaC, anyway. I thought that you were in the midwest, and therefore the Western Conference STaC, but I now see that there are several others going on, so sorry that I said something before checking.

[awm]

It should be a three-card suit, likely with shortness somewhere, offering the opportunity to play there. I would expect a 3136 hand.

I think opener can remove it if not holding 4♠, but would be ethically obligated to pass holding a four-card spade suit.

[JoAnneM]

You have put a huge pressure on your partner as he is not allowed to take any inference from your remark or physical actions. For the director it would be much the same situation as in a hesitation. Is there a reasonable alternative to pulling to 4D? If the reasonable alternative is to pass then he must pass. And since your partner cannot have heard your remark or seen your action he must assign some sort of reasonable meaning to your bid and then make the decision.

It would be interesting to know what was happening at your chair, and the director would probably be asking you that. If the bid was a mechanical error you would have been allowed to change it. If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus. Making the remark and then doing nothing was a serious breach of proprieties, but it happens all the time. Unfortunately the director is seldom called so the players do not learn their rights and responsibilities, the first of which is to call the director.

[blackshoe]

JoAnneM, on Dec 11 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus.

This is no longer true.

Quote

  Making the remark and then doing nothing was a serious breach of proprieties, but it happens all the time.  Unfortunately the director is seldom called so the players do not learn their rights and responsibilities, the first of which is to call the director.

Making the remark was a breach of etiquette (Law 74B2). Serious? Well, that law uses the word should (in "should refrain"), so not refraining (from making an extraneous remark) is an infraction of law, but "one that will draw a procedural penalty only rarely" (or words to that effect - it's late and I'm tired). I don't know what "and then doing nothing" is about. What do you think he should have done?

The responsibility to call the director (except in one case that does not apply here) is on all four players at the table, but only after attention is called to an irregularity. Did someone do that?

[kfay]

blackshoe, on Dec 11 2008, 03:38 AM, said:

JoAnneM, on Dec 11 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus.

This is no longer true.

Quote

   Making the remark and then doing nothing was a serious breach of proprieties, but it happens all the time.   Unfortunately the director is seldom called so the players do not learn their rights and responsibilities, the first of which is to call the director.

Making the remark was a breach of etiquette (Law 74B2). Serious? Well, that law uses the word should (in "should refrain"), so not refraining (from making an extraneous remark) is an infraction of law, but "one that will draw a procedural penalty only rarely" (or words to that effect - it's late and I'm tired). I don't know what "and then doing nothing" is about. What do you think he should have done?

The responsibility to call the director (except in one case that does not apply here) is on all four players at the table, but only after attention is called to an irregularity. Did someone do that?

No one called the director and the auction was passed out without incident.

I'll tell you what was actually happening. I hadn't seen my partner's double and after placing the 3♠ call on the table couldn't repress my surprise when the red card seemed to have shot up from nowhere amongst my partner's bids. Maybe I don't say 'Oh Shoot!' but merely just 'OH!'. I think my partner knew what was going on, at least he said so afterwards. He also knows I almost never would pull this double since it is, in my opinion, clearly for business.

I believe there is a law that says you aren't obligated to accept what is obviously going to be a bad score for your side (i.e. if you bid 1N-4♥ naturally and partner takes it as a Texas Transfer... where you are then whacked you are certainly allowed to bid 5♥). Does this situation fall within those bounds? Or does the UI from partner preclude any sort of intelligent speculation as to whether 3♠ is a suggestion to play or not, etc.

[brianshark]

The only meaning I can think of for 3♠ is a suggestion to play with a 3 card suit (or a very bad 4 card suit if you are known to bid 1NT with such hands. But opener is certainly not obliged to leave it if he has a hand that is unsuitable. 3♠ can never be a sign-off, only a suggestion. Probably a 3-1-3-6 or 3-0-3-7 type hand.

If however opener has a close decision, I think he is obliged to leave it because of the unauthorised information that you aren't really happy with your 3♠ bid.

Edited.

[blackshoe]

kfay, on Dec 11 2008, 04:59 AM, said:

No one called the director and the auction was passed out without incident.

I'll tell you what was actually happening. I hadn't seen my partner's double and after placing the 3♠ call on the table couldn't repress my surprise when the red card seemed to have shot up from nowhere amongst my partner's bids. Maybe I don't say 'Oh Shoot!' but merely just 'OH!'. I think my partner knew what was going on, at least he said so afterwards. He also knows I almost never would pull this double since it is, in my opinion, clearly for business.

I believe there is a law that says you aren't obligated to accept what is obviously going to be a bad score for your side (i.e. if you bid 1N-4♥ naturally and partner takes it as a Texas Transfer... where you are then whacked you are certainly allowed to bid 5♥). Does this situation fall within those bounds? Or does the UI from partner preclude any sort of intelligent speculation as to whether 3♠ is a suggestion to play or not, etc.

You are mistaken. There is no such law. What the law actually says is that if you have UI, you are not permitted to choose amongst logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by that UI if there is another LA available. If you make such a choice, and the other LA would have led to a better score for your opponents, then they were damaged by the choice of call, and the TD should adjust the score. If you have no LA to the call you made, then there is no infraction of law, and no score adjustment.

Your partner has UI from your remark and reactions. That UI suggested to him that you weren't aware of his double. If there had been no UI, then he would have considered what call he might make on the basis that you pulled his penalty double. Now there is UI, he must consider what call he might make on the assumption he had not doubled, and what alternatives there would be. He must, if one (or more) of the possible calls is suggested over another, choose the call least likely to gain.

Without seeing the hands, we can't tell what the LAs are, so we can't tell what the ruling (if one had been requested) should be.

Your Texas Transfer example is interesting, since it came up for me just last Friday. Playing with a pickup partner, with little time to discuss system (I was also directing) we agreed strong NT and four suit transfers. We did not discuss Texas, nor what to do over interference. I had 6 hearts to the Queen, 3 spades, and 10 points. My partner opened 1NT, RHO overcalled 2 diamonds, and I bid 4 hearts. Partner alerted and (without being asked, which is a procedural error) explained my call as Texas. LHO passed, partner bid four spades. When it came back to me, after much thought, I passed. Maybe I was being overly ethical, but it seemed to me the right thing to do. Partner played well in our 3-3 fit, going down only 2. I never looked, but I suspect 4 hearts was making, and 5 hearts was down 1. If passing was not an LA with my hand (what would 4 spades mean over Texas?) then perhaps a 5 heart call was justified. Wouldn't have mattered - a bottom is a bottom.

[blackshoe]

Brian: I think you mean "unauthorized information" rather than "misinformation", no?

[shintaro]

Law 16 Unauthorised Information

A Extraneous Information from Partner

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information
that mat suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question,
a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed,
special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the
partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that
could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous
information.

That is the Law as in force in the UK (and I assume WBF)

Thus the Director is the one who decides whether offenders partner has his bid should he make one.

[Fluffy]

3♠ looks like both minors, 4-6 or 4-7, weak hand. You are of course free to remove it, it cannot be natural.

[blackshoe]

Don't forget Law 73C, which is directed at players:

Quote

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

Kinda hard for a director to make a decision if he isn't called to the table.

The law is international; it applies everywhere. Regulating Authorities may make certain elections, but none, I think, that apply to these particular laws.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on Dec 11 2008, 07:05 AM, said:

3♠ looks like both minors, 4-6 or 4-7, weak hand. You are of course free to remove it, it cannot be natural.

"Looks like"? "Cannot be natural"? Well, maybe. Maybe not. All I can say is, make your case to the TD, and see how he rules.

[Fluffy]

Maybe you are right brian, but I actually read the bidding, and before knowing about the UI I though of the meaning of 3♠, an my conclusion was something very shapy in clubs or both minors.

This is because on my partnerships, we use the impossible suit to show this kind of hands, I can understand that for people not used of this methods, 3♠ could be natural in some way and should be taken as that.

[Vilgan]

seems like passing 3♠ is only a LA if opener has 4 spades. If they do... not sure. If they don't, allowing a correction to a minor seems pretty easy.

[JoAnneM]

[quote name='blackshoe' date='Dec 11 2008, 08:38 AM'] [quote name='JoAnneM' date='Dec 11 2008, 01:34 AM'] If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus. [/QUOTE]

This is no longer true.



Thanks for that, I am still learning the new laws. I think the suggestion, in another thread, for a forum on director issues and bridge law would be well received.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so, JoAnne. OTOH, I remember a large number of responses to my statements of what the law says along the lines of "who care? it's online, not f2f. The laws are irrelevant."

In the meantime, there's IBLF.

[JoAnneM]

Bridgetalk is very nice but is mostly British and there is a lot of "not in ACBL" or "who knows what ACBL does". Has that changed?