[robdixon87]

Hi all,

So, I had a fun time directing and (attempting to) play at my local club tonight - I think I was called approximately 15 times in 24 boards (16 tables). I knew towards the end that I was potentially facing EIGHT judgement rulings to decide on over a large glass of wine and a hand copy... Luckily(!), I was only asked for five rulings. Some were easier than others, and I wanted to pose this one to this forum:

---

What action do you now take? At the table, North bid 4♥ (which made) because 'my partner had not understood my 2♠ bid'. I tried to explain how that was a gross abuse of UI from partner's non-alert of 2♠, but didn't really have time to do so with lots of other rulings impending.

The ruling I made was that the 4♥ bid is cancelled on the basis that pass is a LA to 4♥, and 4♥ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. So the adjusted score was 3♠-5 by North. East has a fistful of spades, and knows partner has at least 2, but double of 2♠ is takeout (as it is presumed natural due to no alert). If the 4♥ is cancelled, East said that double is now business, but they probably would not double as that gives N/S a chance to run.

What I am now pondering is whether even the 3♣ bid is suggested by the UI, knowing that partner may well pass out 2♠x. Even though N does have a 6th ♣, it does feel very much like bidding your hand twice and trying to wriggle out of partner's misunderstanding.

So, my question is whether I should include some percentage of 2♠x-4 in the adjusted score (or even make that the adjusted score)? In the event, 3♠-5 was worth 90% of the matchpoints for E/W, so they were quite content, but I'm wondering what others think?

I can fill in the other hands if it helps. I'm from England, so this is under EBU regulations.

[Bbradley62]

robdixon87, on 2012-August-08, 19:52, said:

At the table, North bid 4!h (which made) because 'my partner had not understood my 2!s bid'. I tried to explain how that was a gross abuse of UI from partner's non-alert of 2!s, but didn't really have time to do so with lots of other rulings impending.

I hope the nice big procedural penalty you assessed (in addition to adjusting the contract) got the point across.

[Bbradley62]

robdixon87, on 2012-August-08, 19:52, said:

EDIT: As you can probably tell, this is my first post on here - if someone can tell me how to type suit symbols I'd be grateful, as it seems to be different to on BBO!

There should be four-colored suit symbols above the typing box; these insert those symbols. If not, putting "cl", "di", "he" or "sp" (without quotes) in brackets should work.♣♦♥♠

[robdixon87]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-08, 20:05, said:

I hope the nice big procedural penalty you assessed (in addition to adjusting the contract) got the point across.

Do you mean a DP? I thought PPs were for violations of procedure e.g. a PP I gave on another board (which also had a contract adjustment attached to it) tonight was for 2NT-3♥ announced as 'transfer to ♠'?

[Siegmund]

4C seems much more normal than 4H does, partner having already failed twice to support the hearts.

I could be persuaded that passing 3S is not a LA opposite a partner who did not have an overcall of 1C.

If its not clear of course we rule for the non-offending side, and disallowing 4H is reasonable at the table, if North didn't have much to say for himself.

I can't imagine this being remotely close to PP/DP territory; the pass of 2S was AI.

[Bbradley62]

Siegmund, on 2012-August-08, 20:38, said:

I can't imagine this being remotely close to PP/DP territory; the pass of 2S was AI.

North said 'my partner had not understood my 2♠ bid'; this is due to South's failure to alert, not because of his pass. If South had alerted 2♠ then passed it, we would expect him to have something like seven small spades and a yarb; North should be playing as if this is what happened.

[semeai]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-08, 20:57, said:

North said 'my partner had not understood my 2♠ bid'; this is due to South's failure to alert, not because of his pass. If South had alerted 2♠ then passed it, we would expect him to have something like seven small spades and a yarb; North should be playing as if this is what happened.

The alert would have been UI too --- he had understood it!

If this had happened behind screens, what would North have thought of the situation?

Is it possible the auction itself (i.e. with or without an alert, and correspondingly with or without South understanding), when played without screens, forces North to take the incorrect action? Maybe guessing partner did understand it and guessing partner didn't understand it, on the given auction, are both LA's.

[blackshoe]

Bbradley62, on 2012-August-08, 20:05, said:

I hope the nice big procedural penalty you assessed (in addition to adjusting the contract) got the point across.

robdixon87, on 2012-August-08, 20:15, said:

Do you mean a DP? I thought PPs were for violations of procedure e.g. a PP I gave on another board (which also had a contract adjustment attached to it) tonight was for 2NT-3♥ announced as 'transfer to ♠'?

Taking advantage of UI is a violation of procedure. DPs are for the maintenance of order and discipline (see Law 91) and are IMO not appropriate here.

Siegmund, on 2012-August-08, 20:38, said:

4C seems much more normal than 4H does, partner having already failed twice to support the hearts.

I could be persuaded that passing 3S is not a LA opposite a partner who did not have an overcall of 1C.

If its not clear of course we rule for the non-offending side, and disallowing 4H is reasonable at the table, if North didn't have much to say for himself.

I can't imagine this being remotely close to PP/DP territory; the pass of 2S was AI.

The PP would be for blatantly taking advantage of UI. The question (for a PP in MPs, see below) is whether this is blatant enough. That depends on the player's experience level, IMO.

I did wonder if pass is an LA over 3♠, and it does seem to me that it's pretty darn close to "no LA" over 2♠X. I think I would rule "no LA" over 2♠X, but the "my partner had not understood my 2♠ bid" comment leads me to think pass may be an LA over 3♠. It would also be the basis for a PP, although a player who says this may just be clueless that he was taking advantage of UI in the first place, so in that case a PP(Warning) would be more appropriate than BBradley's "nice big PP". Certainly some form of PP is appropriate, since Law 73C uses the word "must" ("must carefully avoid taking advantage…").

[Siegmund]

I am a lot more willing than the rest of you to take into account the fact that partner passed over 1C too. It depends on this pair's style, yes, but there are more than a few pairs for whom passing a strong a strong club NV all but guarantees a balanced hand. Anything else might have made a weak 1-suited or 2-suited bid. Virtually all of the hands where passing 2S is a reasonable action -- weakish hands with long spades and short hearts, or, conceivably, some spade-minor two-suiters assuming partner has the wrong minor -- are hands where many people would have acted before. You know partner has at most 13HCP so he can't have one of the big hands that passes first and backs in later.

At least for some pairs, there is simply no such thing as a hand which passes 1C initially but has enough spades to want to play 2S opposite an unsuitable hand.

I don't know if this is such a pair. If it is, however, I am a LOT closer to ruling Table Result Stands than to PPing anybody. If South is a very timid stodgy type and NS have no defence over strong club, well, then yes, there is either a use of UI factor in play or -- more likely in many "life novice" partnerships -- previous experience that partner often forgets certain conventions, which is really an MI thing.

[iviehoff]

semeai, on 2012-August-08, 21:04, said:

If this had happened behind screens, what would North have thought of the situation?

This is not really a relevant question. Behind screens you don't have UI and can do what you like. Having the UI, you must strain to avoid using it.

A nice example was provided at the Vienna Cup before last where Auken and von Arnim were having a bad time on one set, and had two bidding misunderstandings in close proximity. On one of them, they actually acted out precisely the kind of thing that we put into UI rulings that people ought to do - they ended up in a high ridiculous contract and got a very bad score - thus providing considerable evidence that such high ridiculous contracts are an appropriate way of ruling on occasion. On the other, they managed by chance to fall into the right contract. But if it had been without screens, I don't think the result would have survived adjustment, because if you were straining to avoid using UI, if you had it, you wouldn't do that.

[iviehoff]

robdixon87, on 2012-August-08, 19:52, said:

So, my question is whether I should include some percentage of 2♠x-4 in the adjusted score (or even make that the adjusted score)? In the event, 3♠-5 was worth 90% of the matchpoints for E/W, so they were quite content, but I'm wondering what others think?

If you rule that 3C is illegal, and adjust on that basis, you shouldn't include any percentage of auctions in which 3C is bid. (This is the so-called Reveley Ruling issue, though there are small number of prominent directors - mainly outside England - who argue that Reveley Rulings aren't illegal.) So if you do rule that 3C is illegal (I would) then include a percentage of 2SX-4, but don't include any percentage for auctions that go via 3C.

But if a ruling on the basis of overlooking the first offence and adjusting for the second offence would give the non-offending side a better score, then you may do that. This can be argued on the basis that the first offence didn't do damage, because what comes later - the adjustment from the second offence - is better.

What you shouldn't do (pace those who think that Reveley Rulings are legal) is mix the two.

[campboy]

iviehoff, on 2012-August-09, 02:10, said:

This is not really a relevant question. Behind screens you don't have UI and can do what you like. Having the UI, you must strain to avoid using it.

Of course it's a relevant question. LAs are assessed in terms of what peers without UI might do. They are not assessed in terms of what peers with different UI (an alert) might do.

For me, misunderstanding is the only plausible explanation for this auction. If I saw an alert of 2♠ and used that information to pass 3♠, which I certainly would not do with screens, that would be illegal; if I saw a failure to alert and bid (4♣ rather than 4♥), just as I would have done with screens, that would be fine. Of course for (peers of) the player who was North in the OP things might be different, and the comment he made when asked why he bid 4♥ suggests that this is so.

edit: Actually I was just considering about the final pass/4♣/4♥ decision there. Thinking about it further, the earlier decision between pass and 3♣ is the difficult one IMO. I would certainly consider passing that with screens, therefore I have to pass if partner fails to alert. It is the 3♠ bid, not South's pass on the previous round, that makes it clear he has misunderstood.

[TimG]

I think that partner's pass of 2♠ is enough to wake me to the fact that partner has not understood my Michael's bid -- if he could not muster up any action over 1♣ then he should not have a string of spades and want to play 2♠. He might have a really bad hand and be willing to play 2♠ undoubled. But, that's now off the table. Once the auction has awoken me to that fact that partner is on a different wavelength, I don't think passing 3♠ is a LA either.

Perhaps I am giving this pair too much credit. But, if I was given this auction in the ACBL (where no alert of 2♠ is required), I would expect that South had misunderstood.

[blackshoe]

Keep in mind that it is unexpected alerts and failures to alert that may generate UI, not any alerts or failures to alert. So an expected alert is not "different UI".

[c_corgi]

If passing 2SX is not an LA (this is questionable), then I don't see how passing 3S can be. Either it is possible for partner to have a lot of spades for passing over 1C or it isn't. If it becomes possible after the 3S bid then it was possible at the 2SX stage, so pass would have been an LA.

What were South's hearts? It seems odd that he had good support for spades and didn't correct to 4S over 4H. Hearts was ostensibly North's third suit. Maybe the dreaded fielded misbid?

[Bbradley62]

Maybe North was a nonagenarian who muttered "it was Michaels dammit" before bidding 4♥

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-09, 07:07, said:

Keep in mind that it is unexpected alerts and failures to alert that may generate UI, not any alerts or failures to alert. So an expected alert is not "different UI".

I assume you are referring to law 16B1a. The list there is of possible sources of "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". The fact that expected alerts (and non-alerts) are omitted from the list means that they do not normally suggest calls or plays; it does not mean that they are authorised, and 16A makes it quite clear that they are not.

[blackshoe]

Alerts are not authorized? Perhaps we'd better do away with all these alert regulations, then.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-09, 18:37, said:

Alerts are not authorized? Perhaps we'd better do away with all these alert regulations, then.

When your partner explains your call in response to a question from an opponent then that explanation is not authorized to you. Do you suggest that we better get away with all these explanations as well?

[blackshoe]

No, I suggest that the assertion "alerts are not authorized" is incorrect because it overlooks the word "unexpected" in the law, and because it is not the alert, but the inference from the alert about what partner thinks you have that is unauthorized information. Put it another way: an alert cannot be unauthorized information because it is not information, it is an action.