[kenberg]

USA, club game, players all of reasonable standard.


I first give you the South hand.

---

My view: S has shown a preemptive bid in diamonds, N has said that opposite this preemptive bid in diamonds he would like to play 4♥, and so the natural call is a pass.

However: the 4♦ was alerted at the time it was made. After Pass-4♥. E asked fr the meaning and it was explained as diamond shortage and hear support.

Question 1: I am pretty sure that S must still pass, am I right? I cannot see why he would bid 5♦ if he believes that his partner understood his 4♦ bid in the way he intended it, so the only basis for 5♦ would be a belief that partner had a different understanding of 4♦ then he intended, and he knows this from the alert, not from bridge logic. Right?

I am assuming I am right so far. But next I believe i made an error.

Question 2: S did bid 5♦ and I (I am West) summoned the director. I have seen this movie before and I am tired of it, but in theory this could all be legit. So the question is: Just when do I summon the director? I am pretty sure that I did it too soon, but I fear it will go Pass-Pass-Pass and then we eventually learn that S has long diamonds and we have to try to figure out what should have happened.


Ok, now the full hands and the full bidding.

---

Off 1, good enough, so I am not stewing all that much. He has 7 diamonds tricks, 2 side aces, a club ruff, and he can establish a long heart. Nothing to be done about that.

There was a 5♣ contract our way, making, I have no idea how. There was a 3NT by W, making, which it does unless N starts with the ace and another diamond. I doubt we can hold 4♥ to three tricks, and 4♥, undoubled, down 3 or 4 or even 5, seems to be the same matchpoint score as 6♦ X down 1.

Had I not called the director when i did, I don't know if 5♦ would have been passed. The pair is not a regular partnership and I can imagine N wondering why on Earth his 4♥ has been pulled by a partner with no aces outside the trump suit and then placing a bet that it is because 4♦ showed diamonds. My objection was much more to the 5♦ call than any hypothetical Pass by N, had I just quietly passed the 5♦

So: In addition to questions 1 and 2, suppose I had kept quiet and suppose 5♦ had been passed out, making 5. Then I summon the director. The ruling would be?

Comments beyond my questions are welcome. This problem is more common than I would like it to be and I wish to deal with it correctly. As S, I would pass partner's 4♥ and I assume we are all supposed to. But it does not always happen.

[blackshoe]

1. North's presumably unexpected alert and explanation give South the information that North thinks South is forcing to game (at least) in hearts, with a diamond shortage. This information is unauthorized to South — he may not use it in determining his calls or plays (Law 16A, Law 16B1).
2. Law 16B3 says "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends*. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

*It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later."

The footnote is there because of the word "should" in "should summon the Director". Normally this would indicate that calling at another time than when play end would be an infraction (see the Introduction to the laws). Still, you should call when play ends, because there's nothing the director can do until that time anyway.

As you suggest, it seems that South, in the face of North's 1♥ opening, said "I have a weak hand and a lot of diamonds", and then North said "I want to play in hearts". It seems pass is a logical alternative to 5♦, and that UI suggested that South make that bid (David Burn called this "unauthorized panic"). So the TD should adjust the score, considering what would have happened if South had passed 4♥. I think West will pass, so 4♥ it is, down at least 2 and probably more. If the director considers that there might be two or three outcomes (down 2, down 3, for example) he may weight the scores for those outcomes in his adjustment (Law 12, in particular Law 12C1{c}).

Note: The actual score for EW at the table was +100. So 4♥ undoubled would have to go down 3 for you to have an expectation of a better score. That seems possible, so the TD should still adjust the score. If it were deemed not possible, down 2 is the best you could do, then there would have been no damage, and so no score adjustment. OTOH, it is the matchpoint score that matters, and if, as you say, even down 5 would be the same matchpoint score as the table result, again, no damage and so no adjustment. See Law 12B1.

Law 16B1 says that a player "may not" choose from amongst LAs one which could demonstrably be suggested by UI. Law 73C says a player who has UI "must" carefully avoid taking advantage of it. The quoted words indicate that these are serious offenses, and should receive a procedural penalty. But that's not going to happen, particularly in a club game, because it's just not done. I think this is a bad approach, and it is definitely wrong in law, but that's the way it is.

[kenberg]

We are vul and it is 6♦ X so we are +200 as it went. But I certainly would not have doubled 4♥ so we need down 6 to improve out matchpoint score, and then only by 0.5 because the 3NT was, I think, +630. The 5♣ was + 600. I must find out someday how that was done. I did not call for the director to come back. +200 seemed fine and it was.

Despite the asterisk and the footnote, I am still a little uneasy about my early director call. The problem being that, in terms of strict logic, I did not know at the time I called that the 5♦ was not a continuing slam try in hearts. It wasn't, and I would have welcomed the opportunity to bet large sums of money that it wasn't, but strictly speaking I did not know with ironclad certainty that it wasn't.

We have all been there. Passing 4♥ was not merely a logical alternative to bidding 5♦, it was the clear call without the guidance provided by the alert. One of those cases where you want to say "Really? Oh come on". I like and respect my rho, this surprised me. Hopefully feelings will mend.

Thanks for the references.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-16, 16:17, said:

Note: The actual score for EW at the table was +100. So 4♥ undoubled would have to go down 3 for you to have an expectation of a better score. That seems possible, so the TD should still adjust the score. If it were deemed not possible, down 2 is the best you could do, then there would have been no damage, and so no score adjustment. OTOH, it is the matchpoint score that matters, and if, as you say, even down 5 would be the same matchpoint score as the table result, again, no damage and so no adjustment. See Law 12B1.

I don't think this is correct. The results at other tables should not influence the ruling at this table. IMO, the correct view is:

• There is damage, since the table result is worse than the table result would have been without the infraction.
  
• There will be a score adjustment to e.g. 4♥-5.
  
• The MP score happens to be not affected by the adjustment.

The outcome seems to be the same, and it doesn't seem to matter. But that is not true. Just imagine that after your ruling there will be an appeal at one of the other tables: Their result is adjusted from 5♦-1 to 7♦-3. Now it does make a difference whether you adjusted to 4♥-5 at Ken's table or whether you ruled "No damage" since it seemed immaterial anyway.

Rik

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on 2016-April-17, 04:12, said:

I don't think this is correct. The results at other tables should not influence the ruling at this table. IMO, the correct view is:

• There is damage, since the table result is worse than the table result would have been without the infraction.
• There will be a score adjustment to e.g. 4♥-5.
• The MP score happens to be not affected by the adjustment.

The outcome seems to be the same, and it doesn't seem to matter. But that is not true. Just imagine that after your ruling there will be an appeal at one of the other tables: Their result is adjusted from 5♦-1 to 7♦-3. Now it does make a difference whether you adjusted to 4♥-5 at Ken's table or whether you ruled "No damage" since it seemed immaterial anyway.

Rik

I see the point. I (very) seldom summon a director and while I did do it this time I did not call him back afterward. Maybe I should have. Club game or regional doesn't matter in theory, but in practice it does. It is, largely, a friendly group.

The scores you cite such as 7♦ off 3 are of course hypothetical, but declarer took 11 tricks and I don't think we can stop him as long as he gets started early on establishing the fifth heart. GIB agrees. Club lead, won, heart, and now he can play diamonds toward the board twice, heart ruffs back to his hand, ruff a club, heart ruffed, spade to ace, cash a heart throwing a club or spade spot, leaving him with one more black suit loser. If I am clever enough to start a spade, we get a heart and a spade early, but he still comes to 11 tricks on the same general principle: Spade won on the board, lead a heart, we take it and cash a spade, he still has the entries to establish and cash a long heart, discarding his club loser on it. One club on the ace, one ruffed, one on the long heart.

I mention it because it is critical that a 5♦ contract be set back to 4♥, as I guess everyone agrees it should be. Else we get a 0, or close to it. 6♦X I don't worry about.

A long time ago I played against a pair of high level players who were not a regular partnership Lho opened 2♦ intended as weak, rho alerted and explained it as Flannery, lho made her subsequent bids exactly as if she had never heard the alert. As far as she was concerned, partner's 2♥ response was a forcing response showing long hearts and she treated it as such. They ended in a ridiculous contract of course, but she saw it as the right thing to do. I agree.

[ggwhiz]

Interesting that North apparently saved the day (adjustment wise) with the ethical 5♥ call.

It's not a big stretch to think south honestly thought they would pull to 5♦ without the alert but the next pull to 6♦ is even more clearly out of bounds. Should there be some consideration for 5♥ doubled?

[mink]

In a ♥ contract North will win his 3 aces and one trump trick. This is not only the double dummy result, but also the most likely result.

Like ggwhiz said, if 5♦ is an infraction, then 6♦ is an even bigger infraction. With the 5♦ South has already told his story more than once, and there is definitely no reason to bid the ♦ once more. The double by East is also no reason, as if North thinks that he better likes to play in 6♦, he can bid that himself.

I would therefore adjust to N 5♥x-7.

Karl

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2016-April-17, 04:12, said:

I don't think this is correct. The results at other tables should not influence the ruling at this table. IMO, the correct view is:

• There is damage, since the table result is worse than the table result would have been without the infraction.
  
• There will be a score adjustment to e.g. 4♥-5.
  
• The MP score happens to be not affected by the adjustment.

The outcome seems to be the same, and it doesn't seem to matter. But that is not true. Just imagine that after your ruling there will be an appeal at one of the other tables: Their result is adjusted from 5♦-1 to 7♦-3. Now it does make a difference whether you adjusted to 4♥-5 at Ken's table or whether you ruled "No damage" since it seemed immaterial anyway.

Rik

You may be right, but if so, then why does Law 12C2 speak of artificial adjusted scores in terms of matchpoints or IMPs?

[kenberg]

ggwhiz, on 2016-April-17, 08:46, said:

Interesting that North apparently saved the day (adjustment wise) with the ethical 5♥ call.

It's not a big stretch to think south honestly thought they would pull to 5♦ without the alert but the next pull to 6♦ is even more clearly out of bounds. Should there be some consideration for 5♥ doubled?

Written before I saw the Mink reply.

Well, maybe. But I don't think so. It matters (I think) that they are not a regular partnership. For example, suppose 4♦ was not alerted (probably a correct choice because in fact while they probably agreed to play splinters they probably did not discuss if they are on in this situation), that S passes the 4♥, and I double (I would not have done so, but suppose I did). Now suppose it goes Pass-Pass -?. I would not quarrel with the bridge logic of "I thought 4♦ showed what I have, but we have not discussed this and W doubled. I am placing a bet that I had better run". Of course his partner might shoot him if 4♥ is on ice and 5♦ is absurd, but I don't think I would call the director if in fact the run was right There is nothing to call about. They had a misunderstanding, S took a shot, landed on his feet. No UI.

Now it is true that pulling the 5♥ X to 6♦ is different, most particularly because of the alert, but I still would not be inclined to force them to play 5♥ X. It is probably clear on the cards and the bidding that a misunderstanding has occurred. I think it's right to roll it back to 4♥ undoubled, and Rik is right that while it made no difference it could have.

Exactly how many tricks declarer would make in a heart contract is unclear to me. I can think of various lines of play and defense and I think some lead to down 6. I would not push it. Gib could decide, assuming that both declarer and defenders are clairvoyant and brilliant. Unrealistic, but perhaps the best way. I would be happy to stipulate that my opening lead is a club, pard did bid them, [oops, in hearts pard is on lead,he probably leads a club]and then let Gib take it from there. Usually using Gib would be wrong because the brilliance/clairvoyance angle favors one side or the other. Here I am not sure who it would favor. I have not copied the hand and fed it into Gib.

Again I think, in practical terms, the setting matters. I don't want to get a zero for defending 5♦ when a pass of 4♥, unassisted by the alert, seems clearly indicated. But beyond that I am happy to concede that we are unlikely to set 4♥ by six tricks, even if Gib says we can. At a Regional, the more highly trained directors can do whatever it is that they think is right. Including letting us defend 5♥ X if that's what they think.


And yes, the 5♥ by N deserve commendation. Again, with a non-regular partnership, if there were no alerts I would not really quarrel with passing 5♦ on the logic that while he thought it was a stiff at first, now he will reconsider. These things happen in non-regular partnerships, and they sometimes happen in regular partnerships as we see by watching vugraph shows. As long as the re-thinking is not clued in by the alert system, no problem.


Misunderstandings are part of life, and often it is best to just let it go.
I was satisfied with not letting them play 5♦. I don't want to hang anyone, I want to avoid the zero.

[kenberg]

mink, on 2016-April-17, 09:45, said:

In a ♥ contract North will win his 3 aces and one trump trick. This is not only the double dummy result, but also the most likely result.

Like ggwhiz said, if 5♦ is an infraction, then 6♦ is an even bigger infraction. With the 5♦ South has already told his story more than once, and there is definitely no reason to bid the ♦ once more. The double by East is also no reason, as if North thinks that he better likes to play in 6♦, he can bid that himself.

I would therefore adjust to N 5♥x-7.

Karl

I will be making a contribution to your political campaign!!

I was thinking we might (I wasn't sure) be able to hold them to four tricks in hearts. I am less sure we would.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 09:51, said:

You may be right, but if so, then why does Law 12C2 speak of artificial adjusted scores in terms of matchpoints or IMPs?

Law 12C2 is applicable "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained". The Director may not award artificial adjusted scores in place of obtained results except when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious" (L12C1d).

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 09:51, said:

You may be right, but if so, then why does Law 12C2 speak of artificial adjusted scores in terms of matchpoints or IMPs?

As Sven said, Law 12C2 only applies "when no result can be obtained". In this case a result can be obtained": Äfter all, there is a result (if that doesn't prove that a result can be obtained then what does?) So, the applicable law is 12C1.

You probably confused Law 12C2 with Law 12C1d. A case can be made to apply Law 12C1d here, but IMO you should try to avoid using 12C1d as much as you can and only use it as a "desperate measure". But then too, you need to come up with a score that reasonably reflects the possible outcomes. (The standard 60-40 does not apply, even if many TDs think 12C1d gives them the right to do whatever they feel like. A TD is supposed to do justice to the situation as good as he can.)

Rik

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2016-April-17, 10:36, said:

Law 12C2 is applicable "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained". The Director may not award artificial adjusted scores in place of obtained results except when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious" (L12C1d).

You're missing the point.

Okay, I did a little poking around. In the White Book, and in Ton's Commentaries, while it's not explicitly stated, it seems clear from the examples given that adjusting the matchpoint score is what's intended. Or IMPs or VPs or whatever. We don't, usually, or at least I've not seen it done that way, but I'm in North America.

[robert2734]

I would adjust the score to 4♥-6 -600. South has no (authorized) reason to pull 4H. So you get your extra half a mp. I can see 5C making off three aces. Spade to the king winning and throwing the other spade on the hearts.

one time partner opens a spade. Four clubs by me splinter. No alert, five clubs by partner. Either tho I think she is supporting my clubs, what would I bid if she alerted and is now cue bidding the ace of clubs? Either 6♠ or 7♠ not sure. Since 7♠ is a logical alternative I think i have to bid it. Partner has the A♣ and the contract rolls home.

[kenberg]

I am a little stunned here. My long time practice is to do what I think is right, most situations are pretty clear cut, and let the system decide if I am wrong. I don't study the laws. This is a personality issue, and it applies throughout life, not just in bridge. I put a great value on simplicity. But things happen. Here, for example, I really was not sure if I should call the director at the time of the 5♦ bid or at some later time and if so when. In retrospect, my guess is that it was supposed to go like this. I do not call at the 5♦ bid. At the end of the auction, whether it ends in diamonds or hearts, S should explain before the lead that his understanding of the 4♦ bid differs from his partner's, or he should announce that they really had no agreement that he was aware of, or some such. At which point, the mechanics of the rules would settle what should happen in some unambiguous way. After all, this is a very common occurrence.: A bid is made and alerted, the bidder did not intend the bid to have the meaning described with the alert, and then he attempts to get back on track. Basically, he can't do it unless there is clear reason other than the alert to justify his action. So I expected that this situation is something where there is wide, almost total, agreement on how to apply the rules.

I am being critical of no one. But it is a little disheartening to think that this is not a completely settled matter. It is one of the most frequent situations where a ruling is needed. Experience suggests that had I kept quiet over 5♦ the bidding, with many pairs, would have continued Pass, Pass, Pass. Myself, I would be content with 5♦ being rolled back to 4♥ with some reasonable assessment of what the score would then have been. But, in a more serious setting than the local club game, (total point scoring played for money?) if 5♥ X down 7 is available to me, I'll take it. Oh, maybe I will even take it at the club game. Makes for a good story.

[kenberg]

robert2734, on 2016-April-17, 13:07, said:

I would adjust the score to 4♥-6 -600. South has no (authorized) reason to pull 4H. So you get your extra half a mp. I can see 5C making off three aces. Spade to the king winning and throwing the other spade on the hearts.

one time partner opens a spade. Four clubs by me splinter. No alert, five clubs by partner. Either tho I think she is supporting my clubs, what would I bid if she alerted and is now cue bidding the ace of clubs? Either 6♠ or 7♠ not sure. Since 7♠ is a logical alternative I think i have to bid it. Partner has the A♣ and the contract rolls home.

I like this!

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 12:29, said:

You're missing the point.

Okay, I did a little poking around. In the White Book, and in Ton's Commentaries, while it's not explicitly stated, it seems clear from the examples given that adjusting the matchpoint score is what's intended. Or IMPs or VPs or whatever. We don't, usually, or at least I've not seen it done that way, but I'm in North America.

Possibly.

The way I understand Law 12 is that an assigned adjusted score is expressed as the result of a contract with a certain number of tricks won or as a weighted average of several such results.

An artificial adjusted score is expressed directly in matchpoints, IMPs or even Victory points as the case might be.

[blackshoe]

Read the examples in the WB, Sven. They suggest that in weighting scores you figure the MPs for each of the possible aggregate results, and weight those MP scores. I'm not sure that it follows that you should determine damage on the basis of the MP scores (actual table result vs. expectation absent an irregularity) but I'm not sure we shouldn't do it that way either. OTOH, as someone I think suggested upthread, the MPs may change based on rulings at other tables, and then I suppose you have to start over.

[Trinidad]

Ed,

You are confusing weighted adjusted scores with artificial adjusted scores.

In weighted adjusted scores you are supposed to:
- assign a score and its weight (e.g. 4♥ = 620, 25%; 4♥-1 -100, 75%)
- assign an MP (or IMP) score (e.g. 620 -> 12MPs, -100 -> 2 MPs)
- weight the MP scores (25%x12 + 75%x2= 4.5 MPs)

This is to clarify that you are not supposed to calculate an average bridge score (75%x620 + 25%x(-100) = 430) and MP the 430 (as if the contract had been 1♥X with 2.7 overtricks ).

Still, the adjustments themselves are assigned in table scores (4♥= and 4♥-1). Should the result at an other table change (e.g. because of an appeal or a discovered scoring error) then the adjusted scores in table scores will remain the same (4♥= and 4♥-1). The assigned MP score might change (just like the MP scores for all other tables might change) because the MP scores for these contracts might change (e.g. 4♥= -> 12MPs and 4♥-1 -> 0 MPs for a weighted adjusted score of 4MPs).

If you assign an artificial adjusted score in MPs (usually given as a percentage, e.g. 60-40), then no matter what happens to the rest of the field, that will be the MP score at this table.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I know the difference, Rik.