[pran]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-September-16, 15:15, said:

ummm.... on this auction?
1any pass/double 4any are played much the same way by many pairs

And I have some impression that a player who would just (limit) raise his partner's opening bid in a suit "normally" (or often?) would raise an additional level for the preemptive effect after an initervening doouble?

(e.g. 1♦ - pass - 3♦ >>> 1♦ - Double - 4♦)

[helene_t]

If the 4♦ is consistent with EWs agreements then I would give a split score. Result stands for NS but some weighted score for EW. Maybe a PP to EW if I am an a bad mood.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-September-16, 10:06, said:

And congrats to West for guessing hearts right to only go down 1 (unless North led them and gave it away). Not that it matters when the opponents can make a grand and you're not even doubled.

Given that West is cold for 4♦ on any lead, congratulations for going only 1 down seem overly generous. Also North's failure to act in the pass-out seat was a SeWoG.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2013-September-17, 02:57, said:

North's failure to act in the pass-out seat was a SeWoG.

(I was told) North thought Pass was a logical alternative and that action was suggested by South's question.
If North was informed that 4♦ was what East had, then North said Pass would not be a logical alternative but Double was suggested over 4♠, so he would have bid 4♠.

This was interesting because Double might lead to 4♥ (S) which does not score as well as 4♠

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2013-September-17, 02:57, said:

North's failure to act in the pass-out seat was a SeWoG.

He might have felt ethically constrained after his partner's query.

[c_corgi]

RMB1, on 2013-September-17, 03:27, said:

(I was told) North thought Pass was a logical alternative and that action was suggested by South's question.
If North was informed that 4♦ was what East had, then North said Pass would not be a logical alternative but Double was suggested over 4♠, so he would have bid 4♠.

This was interesting because Double might lead to 4♥ (S) which does not score as well as 4♠

It sounds as though North is sufficiently well-versed to be expected to protect himself by further enquiry after West's description (which could obviously be interpreted as virtually anything). West's disclosure was clearly inadequate, but that is not an excuse for N/S to blame any bad result they incur on dummy not conforming to their expectation: it feels as though any dummy might have been deemed "unexpected" on this basis.

To me "a normal raise" sounds like "whatever it would be if a pickup partner bid this way". Dummy doesn't seem unexpected in that context. What did N/S expect and why?

[VixTD]

I agree that the explanation is inadequate, and that EW should be reprimanded for failing to disclose their agreements. I did come across one or two novices in the Seniors Pairs, but most of them have been playing tournament bridge for decades and I expect NS were experienced enough to ask further questions if they needed to know more.

My inclination would be to allow the score to stand, but the actual ruling was to adjust to a mixture of 4♠(N) making and some other scores. I couldn't see much justification for this, but it's possible the TD giving the ruling had more information than I am able to give.

1eyedjack, on 2013-September-16, 23:26, said:

I think that the construction of the description was calculated to deceive and E/W should be spanked for it. Adjust, and maybe they will learn.

If you think EW need a lesson you should fine them. Score adjustments should be given where an infraction has caused damage, and I don't think it has here.

[blackshoe]

If North's failure to act was a SE unrelated to the infraction, and assuming there was damage, then I agree with a split score. Also agree with Vix regarding PP vs. score adjustment.

[ggwhiz]

VixTD, on 2013-September-17, 07:29, said:

I agree that the explanation is inadequate, and that EW should be reprimanded for failing to disclose their agreements. I did come across one or two novices in the Seniors Pairs, but most of them have been playing tournament bridge for decades and I expect NS were experienced enough to ask further questions if they needed to know more.

My inclination would be to allow the score to stand, but the actual ruling was to adjust to a mixture of 4♠(N) making and some other scores. I couldn't see much justification for this, but it's possible the TD giving the ruling had more information than I am able to give.


If you think EW need a lesson you should fine them. Score adjustments should be given where an infraction has caused damage, and I don't think it has here.

100% and I'm as perplexed by souths inaction (after inquiring) as norths

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-September-17, 02:57, said:

Given that West is cold for 4♦ on any lead, congratulations for going only 1 down seem overly generous. Also North's failure to act in the pass-out seat was a SeWoG.

I must have been thinking of 5♦.