[blackshoe]

Scoring: MP

Bidding:
W...N...E...S
.............1♣
P..1♥1NT!2♥
AP

---

2♥ went down 2 -200 for NS.

When 1NT was alerted, S asked for an explanation, and was told it showed the other 2 suits (♦ and ♠). After the auction, East said that the explanation was incorrect, and 1NT actually showed a strong NT opener. After the play, NS called the director and asked for a ruling. What's yours?

[TimG]

Did NS claim some damage or just ask for a ruling?

[TylerE]

What I'd like to know is W's reason for not bidding some number of spades.

[Vampyr]

TylerE, on May 1 2010, 04:04 AM, said:

What I'd like to know is W's reason for not bidding some number of spades.

But West only had 3 points! This failure to bid spades marks EW as very inexperienced players, which is why E would only get a warning from me about the timing of his corrected explanation.

As far as the ruling is concerned, I would need a poll before I decided whether to adjust. 2♥ would be a reasonable spot if not for the spade wastage and the mirror-image distribution, and I feel that it is tempting to bid it with the correct explanation. But I will not try to predict the result of my poll.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Apr 30 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

Bidding:
W...N...E...S
.............1♣
P..1♥1NT!2♥
AP

---

2♥ went down 2 -200 for NS.

When 1NT was alerted, S asked for an explanation, and was told it showed the other 2 suits (♦ and ♠). After the auction, East said that the explanation was incorrect, and 1NT actually showed a strong NT opener. After the play, NS called the director and asked for a ruling. What's yours?

There are two potential grounds for adjustment, if there was damage: MI by EW and potential use of UI in defending.

First, I would like to find evidence what EW actual agreement is, not just he said/she type. If I believe the agreement was "strong NT" or "no agreement" then MI, then routine what was the damage caused by the MI, and if damage, adjust. If I believe the agreement was the other suits, no adjustment, it was a misbid. The Sandwich NT may well be on its way to becoming Guess-them II...

Second, EW should be told to wait until hand is over to tell about their mixup. If it appears the UI was used, adjust. Well, unless some MI adjustment was already made. From the point of law, this isn't all that simple, or is it?

Third, somebody should have called TD when E explained the mixup. Or maybe this should have been ruled first. Grrrr....the joys of TD'ing at the club.

[blackshoe]

South said she would not have bid 2♥ with a correct explanation. But that was after the hand was played.

[aguahombre]

What on earth was south going to bid with the correct info? Partner responded to the opening bid, and south had 4-card support. Sorry, a pass by South doesn't work for me.

[blackshoe]

Are we critiquing their bidding skills, or making a ruling?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Apr 30 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

Are we critiquing their bidding skills, or making a ruling?

i don't know...is there such a thing as a LA poll for the non-offending side?

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Apr 30 2010, 11:24 PM, said:

First, I would like to find evidence what EW actual agreement is, not just he said/she type.

This specific auction was not on their card, but 1NT over an opening bid was listed as 15-18, natural. West agreed that she had got it wrong. She does that.

Quote

Second, EW should be told to wait until hand is over to tell about their mixup.

They were.

Quote

Third, somebody should have called TD when E explained the mixup.

They were told this too. In fact, East brought it up, berating NS for not calling the TD at the time, which is when East was informed that he'd explained at the wrong time himself.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Apr 30 2010, 10:54 PM, said:

Did NS claim some damage or just ask for a ruling?

There was no explicit claim of damage, though S was clearly unhappy that 2♥ was down 2.

There was no explicit request for a ruling, either.

[blackshoe]

In the end, I consulted with another TD. I did not take a poll, as there weren't enough uninvolved players to make it worthwhile.

I ruled that because NS failed to call the TD when the MI surfaced, they forfeited their right to redress (Law 11A*), so I declined to adjust the score. I issued no PPs in points, though I did, as mentioned, tell East that he should not have corrected the MI when he did. I did not address the UI question because by the time I got to the table, the hands had been restored to the board, and no one suggested there had been any irregularity in the play.

*Yes, I know there's an example in that law where the NOS gained through the OS's ignorance of the law, which was not the case here, but it's an example, not a requirement.

[jdonn]

I don't really believe south, although south might believe south (if that makes sense). In other words I think south is kidding himself. You also have a good point that in this case not calling the director sooner detracts a lot from south's claim as well. No adjustment.

[nige1]

TimG, on Apr 30 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

Did NS claim some damage or just ask for a ruling?

IMO, if you aren't a legal guru and the TD is competent, you should leave the damage-assessment to him. Even if you wrongly claim some specific damage but you suffered some other damage, the TD should discover it in the course of his investigation, and provide appropriate redress.

[greenender]

blackshoe, on May 1 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

I ruled that because NS failed to call the TD when the MI surfaced, they forfeited their right to redress (Law 11A*), so I declined to adjust the score. I issued no PPs in points, though I did, as mentioned, tell East that he should not have corrected the MI when he did. I did not address the UI question because by the time I got to the table, the hands had been restored to the board, and no one suggested there had been any irregularity in the play.

I don't like denying redress for a late TD call when the basis of possible adjustment is not affected by the timing of the call.

Blackshoe has determined that W's explanation was wrong, so there was MI. If the TD had been called as soon as E revealed the problem, then it was too late for S's 2♥ call to be changed.

I agree with declining to adjust a score when the timing of the TD call makes a difference to whether the call the NOS say they wouldn't have made with the correct info can be changed or not, but that isn't the case here.

On a separate issue, this is one sort of example on which I consider the ACBL's refusal to countanance weighted scores produces an unfortunate result. If the TD considers that S might have passed with the correct information, but is not convinced that she would have, then he can - elsewhere, at least - and routinely does - give N/S part of the benefit of defending 1NT instead of going for the dreaded -200 in 2♥.

In the ACBL you have to let E/W get away with it, or allow S the full benefit of an assertion that some find implausible (except of course if passing is not within the scope of "likely" but is within the scope of "at all probable", when both sides get the worst of it).

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on May 1 2010, 04:24 AM, said:

TylerE, on May 1 2010, 04:04 AM, said:

What I'd like to know is W's reason for not bidding some number of spades.

But West only had 3 points!

Damn! W***n! I was just about to post "but West only had 3 points" when I discovered someone had got in first!

aguahombre, on May 1 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 30 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

Are we critiquing their bidding skills, or making a ruling?

i don't know...is there such a thing as a LA poll for the non-offending side?

It is an excellent idea when adjusting. While rare, I am sure it can be the right thing to do.

blackshoe, on May 2 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

I ruled that because NS failed to call the TD when the MI surfaced, they forfeited their right to redress (Law 11A*), so I declined to adjust the score.

I do not understand this. Law 11A is used when players get an advantage, but it is always open to players to ask for a judgement ruling after the hand. It is singularly unfortunate if offending players gain through their opponents not knowing th TD's own views on the timing of TD calls, and no-one in England would deny redress for that reason - though I agree someone in Scotland did a year or so ago!

I do not believe Law 11A should ever be used to disallow players from asking for a judgement ruling after the hand.

[blackshoe]

I didn't disallow them from asking for a ruling. I just didn't give them a favorable one. How would you rule, David?

[bluejak]

I think it is possible that South will not raise on 9xxx if told that a natural no-trump overcall is sitting over partner's hearts even though he raised when he believed a distributional hand was.

So I adjust to 1NT making .......

How about 7 tricks for E/W and 8 for N/S?