[kenberg]

Club game. I cannot give you the exact hands, usually they are up online by now but today they are not. But I think I can accurately give the essence.

Matchpoints, I am W, S is the dealer, N puts a stop card on the table, but before she places a call on the table my partner tells her that it is not her bid. We summon the director. The director is busy, apparently it is a day of glitches, he has S open the bidding, tells her she has unauthorzed information, and invites us to call bacl k at the end of the hand.


The uncontested auction:
2C - 2D
2S - 3S
4NT - 5D
5H - 5S
6NT

The auction is pretty much what you probably think it is. 2D was waiting, 3S was a fit, 4NT was rkc, 5H was the Q ask, 5S was denying the Q, 6NT was to play. Dummy comes down with a weak 2 bid in diamonds, 6NT was cold, 6S goes down.

I summon the director. It takes him bit to arrive, meanwhile S is explaining that her 6NT call was a natural choice once she found that her partner did not have the spade Q. She has both red suits stopped once and, w/o the UI, no reason to believe she can run anything in dummy.

Director is initially unimpressed with my argument that she cannot bid 6NT. He phones someone who also sees no problem. I have been playing too long to get really worked up over such things but I suggested to him that at the end of the session he look at the results. I predicted that everyone else will be playing in spades at some level. Apparently this is the case, and he changes our score to average plus.

Ok, what's the question, I hear you ask.

Simply put, what is the proper ruling when a stop card is laid on the table but the error is discovered before the bid was put on the table? I think if the 2D call had hit the table the penalty is fairly draconian. S is barred from the auction, N can bid 3NT as she chooses, is that right (I am no laws expert by any means)? Maybe N would then bid 3NT, but I doubt she would bid 6NT. 3NT making 6 is a pretty decent resul beating 5S making 5, losing to 6S down 1. Even 2D gets he some mps, I can live with that., sometimes the laws lead to unexpected results, that's life.

Anyway, I doubt many would play in 6NT rather than some level of spades w/o the out of turn stop card. What should have happened? Upon reflection, it seems to me that a sensible rule would be to treat the opening stop card with the same penalty as an opening bid out of turn.

I think that S felt I was being ungentlemanly. Maybe that can't be helped, but I am interested in what should have happened.

[gordontd]

It's correct that a stop card is not a call so can't be treated as a call out of turn. Correct also that it provides UI. As the auction unfolds it becomes clear that North had been about to make a pre-emptive bid in a suit other than spades. This may well suggest looking for a different final contract than in spades but I think we need to see the hands to comment more meaningfully.

[ahydra]

The ruling is exactly what the TD says it is - bidding reverts to dealer, but partner of the person who displayed the premature Stop card has unauthorized information.

As with all UI cases, the TD should poll others of a similar standard to South (but not mentioning the UI, of course) and see if they pick 6S or 6NT. If it looks like 6S is an LA then we adjust; if not, we don't. It sounds like the TD carried out a poll of one person who thought 6S was not an LA (and/or 6NT was not demonstrably suggested by the UI), but then treated the results as a subsequent "poll" showing that 6S was an LA. This latter methodology is dubious for a number of reasons, not least because the other tables are likely to not have had the same auction.

If you wanted to do a "poll" of sorts here on the forums, we would need South's hand.

Edit: is the AV+ ruling not slightly dodgy as well? Surely if there is at least one other less successful LA such as 6S, the result should be (a weighted a combination of) the likely outcome in those contract(s) rather than an ArtAS.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

I don't believe that there is any penalty in the laws or in whatever regulations apply to the use of a STOP card for a STOP card being placed on the table out of turn. But it clearly conveys unauthorized information. The TD and the person that the TD consulted with should certainly take that into account in making the ruling. If they did so, nothing more can be done.

In this case, it seems that North conveyed the fact that North had some unspecified preemptive opening bid, and South may have taken that into account in deciding whether to play the hand in spades or in NT. Seems like Ave+/Ave- would have been the correct ruling, as I don't believe that the board is playable once the UI is present.

As for South feeling that you were being ungentlemanly, you didn't create the problem at the table. Being gentlemanly does not require you to accept being a victim.

[barmar]

What is the partnership's agreement about bidding something other than 2♦ in response to 2♣? If North would bid 3♦ with a suit headed by two honors, rather than a waiting 2♦, then doesn't South have UI suggesting that North's suit isn't running?

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on 2017-March-31, 08:38, said:

Seems like Ave+/Ave- would have been the correct ruling, as I don't believe that the board is playable once the UI is present.

The board was played to its conclusion, so clearly not unplayable.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2017-March-31, 08:56, said:

What is the partnership's agreement about bidding something other than 2♦ in response to 2♣? If North would bid 3♦ with a suit headed by two honors, rather than a waiting 2♦, then doesn't South have UI suggesting that North's suit isn't running?

We never got to that, but my guess is that they have not discussed it. It was a club game and while they probably were not complete strangers I doubt that they play together regularly. So probably they know more about probable agreements than in a typical BBO pick-up, for example 5H was understood as the Q ask that it was intended to be, I doubt that they have discussed exactly what 2C-3D would be. At any rate, nobody asked them this.

[blackshoe]

An artificial adjusted score is inappropriate in this case. Aside from that, what score was given to the declaring side?

[kenberg]

The hands have now been posted.

---

The score were also posted. The hand was played eight times. The contracts:

6NT (our table)
6S
5S
4S (three of these)
3NT
7D

So my prediction that everyone else would be in spades was off by a bit. One pair was in Ds and one was in 3NT. But nobody else was in 6NT. As it happens, the 6S made. The small club can be ruffed, the diamonds finesse is on. But of course 6NT, running the Ds, is a better bet.

I have a hard time seeing 6NT as a plausible call over the 5S.

However.
Although the original post was simply because of the unusual feature of a stop card out of turn rather than a bid out of turn, the more I think about it the odder it seems that these two events are treated so differently. Had N opened 2D or 3D or whatever she had in mind, the penalty is severe. But the stop card has largely the same effect. It's true that S did ot know if she was planning on some number of hearts or some number of diamonds, but is this sufficient for the substantial difference in treatment? Apparently the rules say yes,, but I find it hard to grasp the logic of it.

Anyway, I got my question answered. Yes the auction should revert to S, no preset penalty, and then we should examine the auction later if there is any question about it. We really need to keep our mouths shut until the 2D/3D bidding card hits the table.


Consider a slightly altered dummy.

---

We still make 6S if spades are 3-2 and the diamond K is onside. I don't claim 6NT is impossible, but it's considerably less likely to come in I think.

I am prepared to believe S thought 6NT to be the right call. But we all can be led to such conclusions by events that we do not consciously take into account but which nevertheless play a strong role. For 6NT to be right, we really want a good source of tricks in the dummy, and a long suit fits the bill.

[akwoo]

Ignoring anti-field concerns, I think 6N is a better call than 6S at MPs without the UI. It's hard to see where you can get an extra trick in spades that you won't get in NT. It is true that, when both go down, the 6N is likely to go down more, but if you think both are going down, then you should pass 5S, or consult partner more before driving to slam.

But - I don't think 6N is better than 6S by enough to allow it with the UI.

[kenberg]

akwoo, on 2017-April-01, 08:40, said:

Ignoring anti-field concerns, I think 6N is a better call than 6S at MPs without the UI. It's hard to see where you can get an extra trick in spades that you won't get in NT. It is true that, when both go down, the 6N is likely to go down more, but if you think both are going down, then you should pass 5S, or consult partner more before driving to slam.

But - I don't think 6N is better than 6S by enough to allow it with the UI.

" It's hard to see where you can get an extra trick in spades that you won't get in NT. "
Howabout by ruffing a club? While the club void is not known, it also is not needed. Play AK of spades leaving a spade out. In NT or in spades, the spade Q will be a trick, but in spades if they ruff a high clubs, say as in the altered hand I give, the trick comes back with a ruff, and then you take the ruff in dummy and lead the diamond Q. If you are playing in 6NT with the altered hand then you have to decide whether to (hopefully) establish spades by giving up a spade or to try to establish ten tricks outside of spades. If you given up a spade you now have four spade tricks and two hearts, you need six more. A 3-3 club split and a successful diamond finesse would do it. There is perhaps some remote chance of a squeeze. But surely 6S is more likely to come in.

When I produced the variant hand I did not carefully construct it to prove my point. I think most variants, unless there is a long suit in the dummy, will result in 6S being not great but better than 6NT. If you give N a 3=3=5=2 shape, with the same high cards, then 6S still makes as long as spades are 3-2 and the diamond K is onside. But how do you make 6NT now that clubs cannot come in? Assume a club lead. You could give up on establishing spades, and lead the diamond ace and another diamond. If the K pops up on your left you now have four diamond tricks .So you have, on top, 2+2+4+3=11 tricks. Perhaps a club spade squeeze will work. If a second club is led, cast the third, cash both hearts, run Ds. If rho holds the long club and the long spades, you succeed. Again, surely 6S is a better bet. With most simple variants of shape, keeping the same high cards, 6S depends on a 3-2 spade split and a successful D finesse. Unless you can run a long suit in dummy, I think 6NT will usually be more difficult. The S hand, although strong. is not going to produce 12 tricks easily so getting to any slam and making it will score well, so mps or not, you want to be in the slam that makes.

At any rate, I still find it odd that had N placed the 2D or 3D card down the penalty is, I believe, that S is barred from the auction while with the stop card the auction reverts to normal, with teh burden of proof on us that the 6NT bid can be reversed. At least on this hand, the degree of UI is essentially the same. S looks at her big hand, surely the skip bid was not to be 2C or 2NT. Perhaps they were playing Flannery. I doubt they were playing multi. So the stop card was in preparation for showing a long red suit, and if you change the Ds to Hs and the Hs to Ds, she doesn't care.


I play by the rules, whatever they are, but this seems strange.

[blackshoe]

Technically, there is no "burden of proof" in bridge. See Laws 84 and 85.

[kenberg]

What I have learned:

At
http://www.acbl.org/...id-out-of-turn/
we find

Quote

Utterances such as "one …" and "I am about to make a skip bid …" do not constitute bids, or even calls. Law 16, Unauthorized Information, is used to deal with this type of situation.

This agrees with what ahydra said earlier and with general comments of others. So at least in acbl land this is a settled matter.

I'll withdraw the "burden of proof" description. All I meant was that had the skip bid actually occurred, the rules stipulate exactly what happens: N can bid as she chooses, S must pass. But with the stop card withdrawn, there is a judgment call to make regarding whether the subsequent bidding should be disallowed because of the UI.

My preferences generally run toward the simple. Had we let N put out an actual call then, after being informed that her partner must pass, possibly N would have done what people often do, say a prayer to the bridge gods and put out a 3NT call. In this case that would have given her a near top. But that can happen, we all have a laugh, and maybe we curse the bridge gods, and we move on to the next board. Instead, after the withdrawn stop card, S explained her thinking, I explained why I thought 6NT should be disallowed, a phone call was made, a provisional ruling was made, later reconsidered. It would have been a great deal easier if we just let N put out her bid, win or lose.

[ArtK78]

gordontd, on 2017-March-31, 10:05, said:

The board was played to its conclusion, so clearly not unplayable.

In my opinion, once North put out the STOP card, a normal result became impossible, and thus the board became unplayable.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2017-April-02, 12:59, said:

In my opinion, once North put out the STOP card, a normal result became impossible, and thus the board became unplayable.

Why does this make the board unplayable, when other forms of UI would not?

[kenberg]

No, not unplayable. A problem, but not unplayable. There are many ways this could have gone that would have been fine. Myse;f, I would have bid 4C with the S hand over the 3S by N. But I would not have contested S's choice. I would not have contested signing off in 5S, even if 11 tricks was the limit, I would not have contested bidding 6S if it made, as here it does. 6S making would have been very good for them, I would not have contested it. It was specifically the 6NT call.
I have already explained why. I'll give one more example. Suppose N's high cards are the two red Kings. And not the spade Q. In 6S you need spades to be 3-2, that's it. In 6NT you will do what with the long club? You hope neither opponent has four clubs I guess. It's not just that 6S is a logical alternative, as is 5S, it is that 6NT is something of a Hail Mary. But much more attractive if you know there is a long suit in dummy.

There are many ways for the auction to have gone that would have produced not a murmur from me. But the 6NT? Nah.