bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

rlel

128 posts
bridgetalk member

Misinformation ( 07:11:53 TueJun 25 2002 )

Last night -

(1NT) 2D* (X) P
(2NT) P (3D) All pass

1NT was 12-14
2D alerted - showed S and another
The X was explained as takeout of D
Pd passed the initial X just in case I had D. He was expecting opener to bid again over 3D as the X was meant to be a takeout X.

Opener held
KQxx
xxx
KQxx
Qx

Responder held
Jxxx
KQxx
AJxxx

My hand
Axxx
x
xx
ATxxxx

We are cold for 5C. 3D made on a misdefence. Director ruled the contract should be changed to 3C making 5 our way.
I found this a curious ruling. Any comments?

Cheers
Ron Lel
[Edited By Ed at 23:24:52 Tue Jun 25 2002]

JimO

175 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Misinformation ( 15:31:59 TueJun 25 2002 )

It is a curious ruling.
Law 12C2 states "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actualy obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for the non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity occurred..."
So he must conclude that you would get to clubs, but not to game. Sounds like a real cop-out "compromise ruling".

Back to the irregularity, what is their actual agreement as to the meaning of double after 1NT-2D? If their actual agreement is that it is T/O of Diamonds, and Responder misbid, then there is no MI. But there is a real UI issue.
Responder is not allowed to "hear" Opener's explanation.
It is likely that he would pass 2NT or raise to 3NT, and be held to 5 tricks - 2NT-3 or 3NT-4 would be a likely result.
But curiouser and curiouser - Opener did not bid as if Responder had what Opener explained that Responder had.
What is he doing passing 3D if X was a T/O of Diamonds.

If their actual agreement was that double was something else besides T/O of diamonds - e.g., showing values and diamonds, or general willingness to defend, then there is a MI issue.
I don't know what you play after double (Astro? Systems on -
2H would ask for cheapest 5-card suit - Overcaller would bid 3C - Partner would raise? to 5?) In any case 5C= does seem likely.

-Jim O'Neil
[Edited By Ed at 23:25:34 Tue Jun 25 2002]

rlel

128 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Misinformation ( 22:48:10 TueJun 25 2002 )

Quote: JimO at 15:31:59 Tue Jun 25 2002

Back to the irregularity, what is their actual agreement as to the meaning of double after 1NT-2D?
-Jim O'Neil

Their actual agreement is that X is penalties.
We play "system on" after a X.

I thought it was a curious ruling. Thanks Jim

Ron
[Edited By Ed at 23:26:09 Tue Jun 25 2002]

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Misinformation ( 23:36:32 TueJun 25 2002 )

I changed the thread subject, since there wasn't one. :tongue:

Curious indeed. Why would opener pass 3D? Perhaps some mannerism or comment of partner's clued him that the X wasn't meant as takeout. IAC, I agree that it appears this TD was trying to make everybody as happy as possible. I think I would have ruled differently. :biggrin:

bluejak

428 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Misinformation ( 12:38:25 WedJun 26 2002 )

Like Jim and Ed I doubt that the ruling was right. :embarrassed:

However, I do not think you should be so surprised over the pass of 3D. My guess is that opener was not completely certain about the meaning of the double, and re-considered after the 3D bid. Sure, he should have called the Director then himself, but players usually don't. :frown:

Still, there was both misinformation and unauthorised information: it seems likely that the non-offenders would have reached 5C some of the time, so should probably have been given that; or if in a Law 12C3 jurisdiction [such as England] given a weighted score including a part of 5C.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

rlel

128 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Misinformation ( 01:05:13 ThuJun 27 2002 )

About 1/4 of the field bid to 5C-I am pretty sure we would have. You are right about not being surprised at the pass of 3D. This is a husband-wife pair who have done some dubious things in the past as well. I just thought changing -110 to +150 was a "neither fish nor fowl" ruling, particularly when the opps insisted that they would have definitely bid 5D had we gone on. +800 anyone?

Cheers & thanks for the comments.
PS I showed the director your comments last night in the nicest possible way and he admitted that maybe he was a bit lenient, but said that we were expected to thrash this team anyway????

Ron Lel

bluejak

Re: Misinformation ( 09:47:51 ThuJun 27 2002 )

That's easy, Ron: remind the Director about South Korea and Spain in the World Cup. Spain was expected to win, and there were two very dubious decisions by the officials! South Korea duly won. :frown:

6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union