[VixTD]

This is a hand from the EBU Summer Meeting Seniors Pairs, 2017:

---

Result: 4♠X(E)-2, NS +300. Lead ♥A

NS asked for a ruling because of the 4♠ bid after the agreed slow pass. They believed they were due +420 from 4♥(N)=. East said he bid 4♠ because he has no defence to hearts.

South led ♥A and continued the suit, allowing East to discard their diamond loser.

There are two aspects of the ruling for the TD: whether to adjust the score at all because of the UI from the hesitation, and if so, whether the defence constitutes an "extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction".

Please comment on both.

[nige1]

IMO

• If the director establishes that West's BIT suggests 4♠ over pass, then he should adjust. That West's hesitation bears little relationship to his hand isn't relevant.
• The ruff/sluff is an error but not serious and definitely not extremely serious (The ESE law should be dropped -- it adds no value - but engenders inconsistency and controversy).

[StevenG]

South's initial double looks like a serious error unrelated to the infraction.

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2018-January-11, 12:49, said:

South's initial double looks like a serious error unrelated to the infraction.

You have no idea what it showed. It could have been a game force with 4+ hearts. Having crappy methods can never be a serious error.

And continuing hearts only costs if East is 6-1-1-5 so is hardly a serious error. Basically none of the proposed serious errors on here get remotely close to the definition in the White Book.

[steve2005]

lamford, on 2018-January-11, 13:25, said:

And continuing hearts only costs if East is 6-1-1-5 so is hardly a serious error. Basically none of the proposed serious errors on here get remotely close to the definition in the White Book.

North rebid ♥ so unless their methods are very unusual South knows North has 6♥ and continuing ♥ will give a ruff sluff.
That sounds serious to me. That it only costs on 6-1-1-5 is irrelevant.

[StevenG]

lamford, on 2018-January-11, 13:25, said:

You have no idea what it showed. It could have been a game force with 4+ hearts. Having crappy methods can never be a serious error.

I assumed that VixTD would have mentioned that it was alerted had it not been a normal takeout double.

[helene_t]

StevenG, on 2018-January-11, 14:10, said:

I assumed that VixTD would have mentioned that it was alerted had it not been a normal takeout double.

Really? I thought that in EBU, the nonalertable meaning is t/o whatever that means. If the pair plays NFB or for some other reason would double with strong hands with five hearts, I don't believe it is alertable. The Blue Book is not explicit about this specific situation, but after a 1♥ overcall, both 4 spades and 3- spades are not alertable.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2018-January-11, 14:19, said:

Really? I thought that in EBU, the nonalertable meaning is t/o whatever that means. If the pair plays NFB or for some other reason would double with strong hands with five hearts, I don't believe it is alertable. The Blue Book is not explicit about this specific situation, but after a 1♥ overcall, both 4 spades and 3- spades are not alertable.

I am pretty sure that a NFB double is alertable.

[gordontd]

helene_t, on 2018-January-11, 14:19, said:

Really? I thought that in EBU, the nonalertable meaning is t/o whatever that means. If the pair plays NFB or for some other reason would double with strong hands with five hearts, I don't believe it is alertable. The Blue Book is not explicit about this specific situation, but after a 1♥ overcall, both 4 spades and 3- spades are not alertable.

Unexpected meanings of takeout doubles are still alertable. The question of takeout doubles when playing negative free bids is due to be discussed at the L&E meeting next week.

[barmar]

What does NFB have to do with this situation? South has a good raise of partner, wouldn't a cue bid show that?

But how is South's double even relevant? It happened before the infraction, and the ESE clause refers to actions "subsequent to the irregularity" that damage themselves.

South does have numerous clues that this could be a dangerous ruff-sluff. North rebid hearts freely, so presumably has 6 of them, so East surely had a singleton. East bid 4♠, so he presumably has 6+ of them. And he also bid 4♣ with little strength, so probably has extreme distribution.

But as we've been discussing in other threads, ESE doesn't include mistakes in judgement. That's what failing to take this inference is.

[cherdano]

Say you convince yourself that East must be 6106 or 7105 in order to have a reasonable 4♠ bid. If East is 6106 without the ♣A, a second heart gives him a chance to go wrong (ruff in dummy, take the spade finesse, and he gets forced out of his club tricks). If he is 7105, a heart doesn't cost.

Claiming that a second heart is a serious error is one of the worst overbids I have seen on BBF. I mean, even if RHO turns out not to have his 4♠ bid and is 6115, what are you planning to do at trick 3 after the ♦A cashes at trick two?

[weejonnie]

To address the 1st point.

NS have obviously bid game to make (after South's jump) so West's pause demonstrably suggests bidding over passing

(a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by
unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

Whether 4♠ or 5♦ si a logical alternative is of course irrelevant. Thus the contract will be rolled back (for EW only at the moment) to 4 ♥ by NS

East's claim that he has no defence to 4♥ is palpably incorrect - partner could hold a singleton spade and the Ace of Diamonds (AK ruff + Ad + ruff). Partner's pause suggests that he can see no defence to 4♥ - and that is UI. (It also possibly suggests spade support, even though in this case he did not have it, which would reduce even further East's defensive prospects)

To address the second point.

I don't think that the action would even fall in the previous definition "SeWoG", let alone "EseoG"

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2018-January-12, 07:07, said:

To address the second point.

I don't think that the action would even fall in the previous definition "SeWoG", let alone "EseoG"

Unless you are alluding to the "wild" aspect of the earlier version, these definitions are the same.

I ruled that 4♠ was not suggested over pass or other alternatives by the hesitation. If anything, it was the other way round, so I ruled that the score stand.

NS appealed, and I made a note on the form that we had considered whether the defence constituted an extremely serious error unrelated to the infraction, but had decided that it didn't.

The appeals committee were all firmly of the opinion that it was an extremely serious error, but agreed with me about what was suggested, so upheld the director's ruling.

It was this difference of opinion about the seriousness of the error that I found interesting, and why I posted the problem.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2018-January-12, 06:40, said:

Claiming that a second heart is a serious error is one of the worst overbids I have seen on BBF.

Even posting it as a possible serious error is a gross overbid. A club switch or cashing the ace of diamonds, the only lines that beat the contract 3, will fail on other layouts. I am not even sure that a second heart is not percentage and it would be rather amusing if VixTD decided that the best defence was SEWoG.

[nige1]

Assuming that East-West make no complaint, should the director do anything about South's double of 1♠ with 5-card support for partner's ♥s? Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is an alertable convention, which East-West North-South have agreed but failed to alert.

IMO, the director should pro-actively investigate this infraction, checking for potential damage to East-West -- even if East-West are unaware of any damage -- and the director should adjust if necessary.

(Typo corrected)

This post has been edited by nige1: 2018-January-14, 08:03

[lamford]

nige1, on 2018-January-12, 19:23, said:

Assuming that East-West make no complaint, should the director do anything about South's double of 1♠ with 5-card support for partner's ♥s? Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is an alertable convention, which East-West have agreed but failed to alert.

It was a takeout double, so not alerted. My notion that it showed a raise to game by agreement was very much tongue in cheek. South decided to double and then bid 4H as she (correctly) thought she was too strong for 4H immediately. She did not think of bidding 2S, or maybe she thought her partner would misinterpret it. One can make any call one likes unless it is based on a CPU.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-January-12, 14:49, said:

Even posting it as a possible serious error is a gross overbid. A club switch or cashing the ace of diamonds, the only lines that beat the contract 3, will fail on other layouts. I am not even sure that a second heart is not percentage and it would be rather amusing if VixTD decided that the best defence was SEWoG.

Well ESEoG - no W now.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2018-January-12, 19:23, said:

... Assume, for the sake of argument, that this is an alertable convention, which North-South have agreed but failed to alert...

lamford, on 2018-January-14, 06:04, said:

It was a takeout double, so not alerted. My notion that it showed a raise to game by agreement was very much tongue in cheek. South decided to double and then bid 4H as she (correctly) thought she was too strong for 4H immediately. She did not think of bidding 2S, or maybe she thought her partner would misinterpret it. One can make any call one likes unless it is based on a CPU.

Did the director have the same notion as Lamford? If so I think that is wrong. I argue that the director should investigate and adjust if turns out that North-South effectively have an undisclosed agreement, which is alertable and damaged East-West. The director should do this even if East-West don't complain and are unaware of potential damage. I think this procedure is already implicit in the laws but it should be made more explicit.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2018-January-14, 08:02, said:

Did the director have the same notion as Lamford? If so I think that is wrong. I argue that the director should investigate and adjust if turns out that North-South effectively have an undisclosed agreement, which is alertable and damaged East-West. The director should do this even if East-West don't complain and are unaware of potential damage. I think this procedure is already implicit in the laws but it should be made more explicit.

It's explicit in Law 81C3

Quote

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2018-January-15, 00:07, said:

It's explicit in Law 81C3

TFLB L81C3 said:

to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the periods established in accordance with Laws 79C and 92B.

In this (typical) case, the director must first ask pertinent questions to establish whether there is an irregularity -- of which nobody is yet aware.