|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
djn Reply |
Country: USA
Hi all, North: Kxx KQJx Ax Kxxx South: Jxxx x xxx AQxxx West: ATxx xx KQJT9x J East: Qx AT9xxx xx xxx North opens 1N 15-17, East passes, South responds 2C stayman, West (30 mp) bids 2D. East (300 mp) alerts it as capp for the majors. North shrugs and bids 2H. East passes. South bids 2S (intended as forcing, when asked later). North passes. N-S go down 2 for -200 and a bad score. I the mis-director am called after the hands are known. E-W's convention card is marked just normally as Capp, and even though E-W are a relatively new partnership, I think it isn't even rub of the green where nobody knows anything. So there is MI I said. But the score adjustement. I think N-S kind of did themselves in a bit by even starting the stayman ball rolling (how would South safely stop?). So I was inclined to let N-S keep their result and E-W get some other score. But since I couldn't figure out what should have happened, I ended up going for ye olde Av+/Av-. Your thoughts? Dan |
bluejak  426 posts Forum Host Reply |
First of all, "ye olde Av+/Av-" is illegal, and has been for years. Either there is an infraction and damage, in which case you work out an assigned score, or there isn't, in which case the score stands.
Second, was there misinformation? The Law book instructs you to assume there was without compelling reason to suppose otherwise - and there is no such reason otherwise. They clearly have no agreement to play capp here. Third, "did themselves in a bit" is not sufficient reason to deny redress. N/S are in a situation caused by an infraction by opponents. Even in North America, where people are least sympathetic to the non-offenders, you only deny redress where there has been a complete failure to play bridge, an egregious error. Fourth, before ruling, you find out all the facts. You say "how would South safely stop?" - that's easy, you ask him! You should find out what he was going to call next if opponents had passed. Fifth, there was misinformation. Now, was there damage caused by it? This is the problem - it is not immediately obvious that there was. What would have happened without the 2  bid? Personally, I am inclined to think the auction might have been the same. So, what would have happened if N/S had been told 2 was natural? Perhaps North would have bid 2NT. OK, that's good enough.Sixth, what would happen in 2NT? East might lead a heart or a club - he is not allowed to "know" 2 is natural - and eight tricks now make. So I would rule 2NT making.
|
|
djn Reply |
Country: USA
Hi all, Thank you very much for the correction. Would the AI for East that North holds 4 hearts and he has 6 hearts allow him to reason a diamond lead? Thanks, Dan |
|
bluejak 426 posts Forum Host Reply |
Not from a ruling point of view: when you adjust you give the benefit of any doubt to the non-offenders. Sure, he might not lead a heart, but that is no particular reason to lead a diamond.
If there was no infraction then a diamond lead might be a reasonable guess, certainly.
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
I have some misgivings about David's adjustment to 2NT=. North bid 2H after being told that West held both majors. David's ruling seems to be based on the assumption that North would be LESS likely to make that bid if told that 2D were natural. Even if North is very experienced and let himself get rattled by the explanation, I don't buy this argument. Another aspect of this case which I don't understand is why East did not bid 4H, knowing they have a 10 or 11-card fit. If this doesn't make it will surely be a good sacrifice. It seems a little suspicious to me that East can explain a bid in a situation fraught with doubt and then fail to act as if this explanation were correct. East can say that North's 2H bid put him off bidding, an argument which has some validity, but doesn't East have a duty to assume that partner's rather than the opponents' bidding is pure as the driven snow in case of doubt? It looks rather like a fielded psyche or misbid (except that there was no psyche, or misbid). I would love to adjust to 4HX-2 by East, but I don't think the laws allow it. Given the correct explanation, North would still bid 2H, East can hardly be misled by the infraction (his own explanation), so unless I felt moved to issue a PP to East for offering dubious explanations, I think I would have to let the table result stand and give East a warning. James |
|
bluejak 426 posts Forum Host Reply |
My ruling was based on North rebidding 2NT over 2
 , not on him not bidding 2 . sorry if I did not make this clear.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
5 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 4 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:25:38 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status