[VixTD]

---

1♦ was natural, playing 15-17 NT and 5cM.
4♣ was alerted and explained on request as a splinter.

Result: 5♣(E)=, lead J, NS-400

I was called at the end of play. East said the explanation was correct, he had misbid. When asked why he had bid 5♣ he said he had a seven-card suit and was always going to bid to 5♣.

How would you rule?

[wank]

5dx making however many you like - weighted if in doubt.

east should be raising diamonds with 2 honours.

[blackshoe]

"I have diamonds." 'I have clubs." "I have more diamonds."

I think over 4♠ the LAs are 5♦, 5♣, and maybe pass. The UI is that west thinks east has diamonds and a club shortage. So could this information suggest "don't sell out to 4♠"? It certainly could suggest "bid clubs again". Or perhaps not. East should probably expect West to take 5♣ as showing a club void and probably a spade control. And yet West passed 5♣. Did West have UI? Was there some reaction from East to the alert?

"I was always going to bid 5♣" does not help East here – he has UI, and he has LAs to 5♣.

[Cyberyeti]

Isn't 5♣ now a void following the splinter, this should be heading for at least 5♦. Also how on earth did 5♣ make ?

I think it's very likely W picked up a flinch here.

[mycroft]

"Unauthorized Panic"(*) strikes again. Unfortunately, without knowledge of partnership experience or other UI, it's hard to prove it, even given West's pass. We all *know* that 5♣, bid that way, means not "I have a void club and a slam try" but "I misbid, I have clubs"; but it's almost impossible to prove. I'd still be asking why West passed - and I bet I get "well, I guess he misbid the first time." Yeah, there's partnership experience there, but you can't prove it.

Luckily, you *can* prove that there were LAs to East - I think 5♦ with KQ is clearly an alternative to someone who heard partner cheerfully explain 4♣ as "lots of clubs", like the rest of you. Also pass.

Now, East might get away with "5♣ is a slam try in diamonds, showing the ♣A and a great (for my preempt) hand for diamonds. I was as surprised as everyone else when partner passed." But I bet she won't come up with that one...

(*) "When partner tells you they've misunderstood your bid, make sure to bid the suit again at the first possible opportunity."

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-April-21, 16:32, said:

Also how on earth did 5♣ make ?

Defence try cashing two spades, presumably, which isn't going to happen in 5♦.

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2015-April-21, 17:03, said:

Defence try cashing two spades, presumably, which isn't going to happen in 5♦.

Exactly which looks like serious error, cash one spade, and whichever top heart gives you a count signal.

[blackshoe]

Error, maybe, but serious error? And if it is, is it unrelated to the infraction?

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-21, 19:22, said:

Error, maybe, but serious error? And if it is, is it unrelated to the infraction?

Completely unrelated to the infraction other than the fluster factor, and yes it does look like a serious error.

[Lanor Fow]

Mycroft, in the EBU, where this ruling was, you don't need to prove previous partnership experience for a CPU if the auction is suggestive enough. We use the traffic light system for fielded misbids and if deemed red, we rule 60/40.

Of course, in this case as well as the potentially fielded misbid there is the UI question

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-April-22, 02:02, said:

Completely unrelated to the infraction other than the fluster factor, and yes it does look like a serious error.

The White Book has very detailed guidance on what constitutes a serious error, and by those standards I don't think this gets close to one.

Quote

8.12.5.3 ‘Serious Error’
It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).
  
• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.
  
• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’:

• Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.
  
• Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.
  
• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.
  
• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2015-April-22, 03:10, said:

The White Book has very detailed guidance on what constitutes a serious error, and by those standards I don't think this gets close to one.

Unless the player was a complete beginner, I would consider not cashing a heart blatantly ridiculous.

[VixTD]

I thought the logical alternatives to 5♣ were 5♦, pass and double, but when I polled some players I was surprised that none of them gave any serious consideration to 5♦, even after prompting. (I wasn't so surprised about double.) I adjusted the score to 4♠(N)=, but I think maybe I should have included at least a little of 5♦X(W)-2 and 5♠(N)-1.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2015-April-22, 07:49, said:

..., but when I polled some players I was surprised that none of them gave any serious consideration to 5♦, ...

Did they assume that the "natural" 4♣ had shown some diamond tolerance?

[ggwhiz]

VixTD, on 2015-April-22, 07:49, said:

I was surprised that none of them gave any serious consideration to 5♦,

Me too. Absent the explanation I expect to face long diamonds and short clubs making that club suit a likely 2 loser one.

5♦ on a trump lead doesn't look so good either if I didn't hear the explanation and 4♠ making is the best result for the non-offenders so that's my choice.

[lamford]

5Dx can be beaten three in various ways, but simplest appears to be to give 4S= for North, as VixTD did. Given that Pass is an LA for East, and nobody bid 5D (although that does look automatic) that seems to be the LA that does worst for EW.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-April-22, 13:30, said:

5Dx can be beaten three in various ways, but simplest appears to be to give 4S= for North, as VixTD did. Given that Pass is an LA for East, and nobody bid 5D (although that does look automatic) that seems to be the LA that does worst for EW.

But it's not the LA which does worst for East which we should be assigning. It's the one which isn't suggested. Here, without the UI partner will have lots of diamonds but with the UI he could just have 4. I would therefore think pass is suggested over 5♦, so if 5♦ is an LA then it is the only legal call and we should assign a score based on that.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-April-23, 03:14, said:

But it's not the LA which does worst for East which we should be assigning. It's the one which isn't suggested. Here, without the UI partner will have lots of diamonds but with the UI he could just have 4. I would therefore think pass is suggested over 5♦, so if 5♦ is an LA then it is the only legal call and we should assign a score based on that.

I would agree if 5D was an LA, but VixTD's poll suggested that it was not because nobody selected it in the poll of peers, although it looks normal to do so. Don't we therefore choose between Pass and 5C, and 5C is suggested over Pass by the UI?