[VixTD]

---

Swiss teams, IMPs -> VPs
The auction was identical at both tables (different matches).
3♥ was a weak jump overcall.
Double was for penalties in both cases, but not alerted.

Table 1:

The defence started with three rounds of spades. North ruffed and led a diamond, expecting East to have length in the minors. East took the ace and gave his partner a diamond ruff. North ended up four off, -800. (I'm not sure how he managed to go four off - he said he didn't lose a club trick.) North called me at the end of play to say that had he been alerted to the fact that it was a penalty double he might have taken two rounds of hearts first, preventing the ruff.

Table 2:

I believe North went two off. NS called me at the end of the round. North had asked the meaning of the double before the opening lead (according to NS) or either before the opening lead or before the final pass of the auction (EW couldn't remember which), and was told it was for penalties. South claims she would have bid 4♦ had she known this earlier.

Would you award an adjusted score in either case?

[bluejak]

As someone who makes dreadful weak jump overcalls first I would shoot both Norths for their bid. This one is beyond belief.

If South knows that North bids on this rubbish I suppose ... give her some percentage, not very high, based on bidding 4♦.

As for the play I cannot really see it makes a difference but I would again be happy to give a small percentage of a better score.

My sympathy for E/W is low. Despite the fact that the simple basic rules for alerting suit bids seem to be too complicated for some people, at least everyone knows that not playing Sputnik is alertable. I presume E/W are poor players otherwise a PP is justified.

[alphatango]

Table 1: I assume the line for four off was as follows: three rounds of spades (the third ruffed), diamond to the ace, diamond ruffed, spade ruffed (high) by East, third diamond ruffed with the HJ with two natural trump tricks still to come for East. That looks like 2S + 1D + five trump tricks for the defenders. Declarer's explanation of damage seems reasonable, so I would probably give him his -500.

(Might be talked into a weighted score -- two rounds of hearts could leave declarer open to an unfortunate tap if the DA is with the spades, but I haven't really analysed deeply. There's also the nice ploy by West of dropping the HJ on the first round of trumps...)

Table 2: Not sure I believe South would actually run, but this seems like a problem for the TD at the table, being highly dependent on the pair in question. (...Only two off?!)

(EDIT: It occurs to me that it may be a small but significant piece of evidence regarding partnership style that South chose not to open the South hand with 3D. I think that convinces me to not adjust, but, as I said, it's highly dependent upon the pair.)


Whatever one might think of 3H, bluejak...were you about to find the heart ace lead from the North cards against 4S?

[AlexJonson]

Not sure where we are going here, but I would lead AH v 4S.

[aguahombre]

No sympathy for N/S, here ---unless in that jurisdiction they run into a lot of passed hands opposite a 3rd chair opening and an intervening preempt that would like to play a minor at the 4-level.

3H gets what it deserves, and 4D by South deserves West to have his minors the other way.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-May-19, 09:17, said:

As someone who makes dreadful weak jump overcalls first I would shoot both Norths for their bid.

Have you been converted to the Burnian approach?

Quote

If South knows that North bids on this rubbish I suppose ... give her some percentage, not very high, based on bidding 4♦.

I agree.

Quote

As for the play I cannot really see it makes a difference but I would again be happy to give a small percentage of a better score.

I agree that it would not make a difference to the play, so I would give them 0% of a better score.

[bluejak]

alphatango, on 2011-May-19, 10:51, said:

Whatever one might think of 3H, bluejak...were you about to find the heart ace lead from the North cards against 4S?

No idea. Why?

[alphatango]

Just that the HA, H ruff line appears to be necessary to defeat 4S, while the 3H bid apparently managed to obtain -300 at one table and should possibly have obtained -500 at the other! (I agree with the viewpoint that it is terrible, though; perhaps not a shootable offence, but well on the way there...)

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2011-May-19, 15:40, said:

Quote
If South knows that North bids on this rubbish I suppose ... give her some percentage, not very high, based on bidding 4♦.

I agree.

Quote
As for the play I cannot really see it makes a difference but I would again be happy to give a small percentage of a better score.

I agree that it would not make a difference to the play, so I would give them 0% of a better score.

At the first table I couldn't really see why the explanation would make a difference to the play, but I decided to believe North and gave him 70% of -3 and 30% of the table score.

At the second table I decided to poll a few players to see how many would have removed 3♥ doubled to 4♦ with the South hand, and didn't get much support. I was going to give them perhaps 20% of that score, when it came to light that they had asked about the double either just before or just after the final pass, had known that an infraction had occurred and yet still waited until the end of the round before calling the TD. If they had known before the final pass South would have been given an opportunity to change her call there and then. This is not the case if North had already passed, but still why should they wait so long before calling the TD?

I decided to let the score stand, and fined EW 1/2 VP for failing to alert the double. I suspect this was a little harsh on NS, but these players should know when to call the TD.

[alphatango]

VixTD, on 2011-May-20, 07:44, said:

At the first table I couldn't really see why the explanation would make a difference to the play(...)

...and similar comments by others above. This was my thought process:

If West has five spades (for the opening 1S) and, say, four or more hearts (for the pass of the takeout double), and East has shown the minors, diamonds are certainly being ruffed by the defender with long trumps. It does not seem irrational to me, given that information, to set up diamonds now in order to pitch the potential club loser (before West comes in with a trump to play a club through Ax).

If West has five spades and East has merely shown a penalty double of 3H, it's significantly more likely (i.e. possible) that diamonds are about to be ruffed by defender with short trumps. That makes it plausible that North would have at least considered two rounds of trumps, denying defenders their fifth trump trick. (In fact, one round of trumps will work for -3, and might be a better play.) How likely we think that is would be reflected in the weighting, of course.

So I'm not sure why North's explanation of damage seems opaque, but would welcome someone pointing out the error in my analysis.

[bluejak]

alphatango, on 2011-May-20, 07:03, said:

Just that the HA, H ruff line appears to be necessary to defeat 4S, while the 3H bid apparently managed to obtain -300 at one table and should possibly have obtained -500 at the other! (I agree with the viewpoint that it is terrible, though; perhaps not a shootable offence, but well on the way there...)

Since our aim here is to discuss rulings and suchlike, I do not see the point of treating this hand as a bridge query on how you would defend a different contract. Why should I care?

I am now going to use the spellchekka . . . .

Seems ok.

[alphatango]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 15:57, said:

Since our aim here is to discuss rulings and suchlike, I do not see the point of treating this hand as a bridge query on how you would defend a different contract. Why should I care?

It was a tangential comment in response to your own comment about shooting the Norths for their bid -- I did not mean to imply that it was important to the ruling in any way.