BBO Discussion Forums: County match ruling - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

County match ruling EBU

#1 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2010-November-15, 08:14

2NT(A) = good raise of hearts

2NT was alerted and explained as showing a good heart raise. This was confirmed on the NS convention card; South had forgotten their agreement.

Result: 4X(W)-1, NS +200

The players called for a director at the end of the hand. It was from a match between the third teams in an inter-county teams-of-eight match. How would you rule?
0

#2 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,062
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2010-November-15, 08:27

Result stands is my expectation.

It seems that South is the only player to have received unauthorised information but the final double looks pretty clear on this auction. I would poll some other third team players if I could just in case pass or 5H is a logical alternative, but I'd be surprised.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
1

#3 User is offline   BunnyGo 

  • Lamentable Bunny
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,505
  • Joined: 2008-March-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, ME

Posted 2010-November-15, 09:24

View Postpaulg, on 2010-November-15, 08:27, said:

Result stands is my expectation.

It seems that South is the only player to have received unauthorised information but the final double looks pretty clear on this auction. I would poll some other third team players if I could just in case pass or 5H is a logical alternative, but I'd be surprised.


agree.
Bridge Personality: 44 44 43 34

Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
0

#4 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,979
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2010-November-15, 10:12

deleted, missed the bit about confirmed on CC to only UI matters not MI
0

#5 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2010-November-15, 11:24

View Postpaulg, on 2010-November-15, 08:27, said:

Result stands is my expectation.

It seems that South is the only player to have received unauthorised information but the final double looks pretty clear on this auction. I would poll some other third team players if I could just in case pass or 5H is a logical alternative, but I'd be surprised.

The key issue is whether 5H is a LA, and I think I'd be surprised if it was, but we should check as you say. I think it is likely pass is a LA. But that doesn't matter, because I don't think the UI particularly suggests pass over double or vice versa. If anything, double is the more ethical call, because pass makes sure that partner doesn't speak again.
0

#6 User is offline   VixTD 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Joined: 2009-September-09

Posted 2010-November-17, 07:48

Thanks for your comments. I tried to poll other third team members, but it took me so long to explain the auction to the first player I tried that I gave up and just discussed it with the team captains (both from the first teams). The player I managed to poll doubled, but considered passing.

We allowed the score to stand. I think it's debateable whether pass is a logical alternative, but if it is, surely double is suggested over pass by the UI, as the UI suggests to South that their heart fit is worse than it would be without the UI. I didn't consider Iviehoff's interesting point that double would keep the auction open.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users