how do you rule?
#1
Posted 2017-January-05, 21:12
#2
Posted 2017-January-05, 22:50
- Would a correct explanation have been likely to change RHO's choice of 3H?
- Was partner's pass of the double influenced by the explanation?
#3
Posted 2017-January-06, 05:46
sfi, on 2017-January-05, 22:50, said:
- Would a correct explanation have been likely to change RHO's choice of 3H?
- Was partner's pass of the double influenced by the explanation?
Declarer (N) vul. Defenders non-vul. Match point scoring. All experienced players. Properly played, 3H is down 1 against any defense. (Against best defense, E-W can make 2 spades or 3 clubs.)
#4
Posted 2017-January-06, 08:02
Questions:
Was the hand that bid 3♥ less likely to do so over a spade bid than a club bid ?
Was the play just abysmal, or was it due to the MI causing declarer to assume the layout was rather different ?
My inclination would be that the answers would be no and the latter and an adjustment to 3♥x-1 but I'd need to see the hand and ask some questions
#5
Posted 2017-January-06, 08:21
mjswinona, on 2017-January-05, 21:12, said:
In this case, should partner have offered a correction before opening lead?
-gwnn
#10
Posted 2017-January-06, 10:07
Some questions:
1. What is the jurisdiction? Probably ACBL, but we need to know.
3. Was 2♠ in an uncontested auction actually a transfer, or was it a relay?
4. What would 2NT by
5 and 6. sfi's two questions, which don't seem to have been answered yet.
8. What were all four hands?
Comments:
20F5{b}{i} is the correct law on when S should correct N's explanation, i.e. after the play.
Apparently there was no damage (3♥X, down 4, Vul, is +1100 for EW who, says OP, can only make a part score) so there would be no score adjustment.
This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2017-January-06, 10:20
Reason for edit: I screwed up the auction.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#12
Posted 2017-January-06, 10:15
TylerE, on 2017-January-06, 10:10, said:
It's
You're right. I'll fix it. I suppose it changes things. I'll fix that too, if I can.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#13
Posted 2017-January-06, 10:50
There are those who have the agreement that "1NT systems are on" after (1NT)-X-(p), the way they do after 1NT-(X) or (1♠)-1NT-(p). I think this ranks right up there with "4♣ always Gerber" in value, but they would say the same about my "Gerber is baby food" agreement.
Unfortunately, there are those who think this is standard and bid like that with everybody, including those who agree with me about that validity of said agreement.
Also unfortunately, at least where I direct, there's no place to clearly state this abomination on the card, so there is rarely if ever any evidence one way or the other.
Therefore I rule as we normally do - I investigate, and try to determine their real agreement, which may be "we have no agreement, one thought one thing, one thought another"; it could be "he says we discussed this, but I don't remember"; it could be "we did discuss that and I told him that he was out of his mind and I would never play such a stupid thing"; it could be "yeah, I play that with another partner and forgot how this partnership runs from partner's double", it could be "I only play this with this partner, and just forgot", it could be...
Then we look at the 2♠ bidder to see if he would do something different after 3♥x if partner had explained it as a confident "natural, what else could it be?" I doubt it, but since there's always a UI case in a MI/misbid case, we look at it.
Then, assuming the opponents were in fact misinformed (and 2♠ wasn't a misbid, for instance), we look to see if 3♥ was influenced by which black suit the 2♠ bidder "has". That requires the hands, the form of scoring, the players' level, ... There are those who will open 5M332s 1NT, and will always bid their 5-card major or 6-card minor again, even at the 3 level, even after 1NT-X-p. If we determine that the misinformation did not influence the 3♥ call, or that the 3♥ call was so bad anyway, then the score will stand (perhaps only for the 3♥ bidders). Perhaps the score will be rolled back to 3♣=. Perhaps the play to 3♥X was so bad that it cuts the connection to the infraction, and opener gets to keep her -1100.
UI/MI rulings are complicated, and require a lot of information, and players who ask me about these things at the bar almost never have enough information for me to give my opinion, never mind a ruling (especially because they're biased to their side. That's okay, everybody is, even your friendly TD).
#14
Posted 2017-January-06, 13:15
#15
Posted 2017-January-06, 14:53
I don't, in fact, see that the misinformation led to anything; so I don't think that E-W are going to get a different score (if I were to do that, it would be +110 for 3♣. West, even with the UI, wouldn't pull "no, I have the points, and I have the club suit" with Qxxx.)
I will leave it to others to do the play evaluation (especially as we don't have a record of the extant play for -4).
But, you know, I wasn't there, I'm only getting one side of the story, I'm not going to overrule the TD at the table, YMMV, I don't speak for the ACBL,...
#16
Posted 2017-January-06, 15:23
#17
Posted 2017-January-06, 16:37
I, personally, happen to dislike A+/A- when a result has been obtained, because of my reading of the Law and the training I have received. There are cases where it is legal, and I am not going to second-guess that this is one of them (I'm a director. I'm not *your* director. I wasn't there, I only know one side of the story, I'm biased, you're biased, yadda yadda).
#18
Posted 2017-January-06, 17:25
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#19
Posted 2017-January-06, 18:15
mycroft, on 2017-January-06, 16:37, said:
I, personally, happen to dislike A+/A- when a result has been obtained, because of my reading of the Law and the training I have received. There are cases where it is legal, and I am not going to second-guess that this is one of them (I'm a director. I'm not *your* director. I wasn't there, I only know one side of the story, I'm biased, you're biased, yadda yadda).
You have the full story. I think the consensus is that TD should look at the hands before making a ruling. No one in this forum would offer a ruling without information regarding the actual hands.
#20
Posted 2017-January-07, 02:11
mjswinona, on 2017-January-06, 18:15, said:
And no one at the forums would rule Ave+/Ave-.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg