[jdeegan]

The starter of the thread was kind enough to send me a description of doubler's hand. To wit: 3-4-4-2 distribution, 12 HCP and AQ10x in ♥.

This is not a hand that a cheater would hesitate with. He/she was, evidently, a little concerned that the ♥ suit might be behind him/her. People who play artifical bids like 2♥ put something of a burden on the opponents and should be ready to accept the consequences of the opponents' asking about them.

It appears to me that every card has to be right for 4♥ to make. I doubt if 4♥ is a great spot under most circumstances. It could have been -500 or -800 doubled with a different lie of the cards. E-W just got fixed on this one.

To me, the fact that they complained and wanted an adjusted score is disgusting. The game has taken a serious anal turn with all this stupid lawyering.

[campboy]

jdeegan, on Jun 6 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

To me, the fact that they complained and wanted an adjusted score is disgusting. The game has taken a serious anal turn with all this stupid lawyering.

It is completely inappropriate to condemn a pair for calling the director when it appears that an opponent may have acted illegally.

Incidentally, I do not think that the hand you give is surprising at all. It is a takeout double which has much better hearts than it might have -- which is exactly what the question suggested.

[jallerton]

I don't think South's actual hand is particularly important for the purposes of the ruling* and I approve of the original poster not showing all four hands when presenting the original problem; at the table North only knew of his own hand and of the table action and auction to date.

What is important is knowing what inferences, if any, North drew from South's questions. It does not matter if South's hand happened to be inconsistent with what the UI might suggest. North is legally obliged to "carefully avoid taking any advantage " of the UI/must not choose from amongst logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by it.

* though for the record, I believe it was close to ♠xxx ♥AQ10x ♦AJ ♣J10xx rather than the shape you suggest.

[RMB1]

I suspect that North did not think anything was suggested by South's question and I suspect that he was not aware that the EBU would treat such questions as passing UI.

North was also reluctant to ask questions about opponents' alerted calls: later in the event he doubled an alerted 2♥ response to 1NT without enquiring about the alert.

[jeremy69]

Quote

though for the record, I believe it was close to ♠xxx ♥AQ10x ♦AJ ♣J10xx rather than the shape you suggest.

Jeffrey is quite right about the exact hand. My fault.

[jdeegan]

Now we have a bridge hand where North needed to ask about the 2♥ bid right then, and then probably should have bid 4♣, but didn't. 4♥ looks to be about 50%. 5♣ doubled is down one, and 4♠ does appear to make since the heart is onside (and/or a stiff heart).

One could, conceivably, adjust the score to 3♠ making 4, but it seems unwise to intervene in this comedy. North's "illegal" bid gave E-W the option to bid a makable game. Hands like this are difficult for even the best players to judge, and I won't criticize E-W as bridge players (esp. since I don't even know what their hands were). However, letting the opponents play 4♥ undoubled at IMPs in this vul is really taking an extreme position. Bidding 4♠ is cheap insurance. We have all come out on the wrong end of hands like this, but imo. they are a big part of the fun.

[jeremy69]

Quote

However, letting the opponents play 4♥ undoubled at IMPs in this vul is really taking an extreme position

It might be but this was a pairs event. 3♠ would have made nine tricks.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on Jun 6 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

I suspect that North did not think anything was suggested by South's question and I suspect that he was not aware that the EBU would treat such questions as passing UI.

North was also reluctant to ask questions about opponents' alerted calls

This is a surprising combination of behaviours: usually those who are reluctant to ask about opponents' alerted calls are those who think that asking might be treated as passing UI.

[bluejak]

Perhaps I might add a few things since I was the TD.

First, I think this comment misleading:

Quote

All players at the table are of a good standard.

North and South are excellent players. West is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, East, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three.

Second, I do not think this is accurate:

Quote

The director rules that North is in receipt of UI but the question does not indicate anything about either values or hearts.

The TD ruled that it did not suggest bidding 4♥ over passing, and may easily have said that it did not indicate values. But I did not say nor believe that it does not suggest hearts: I just thought then and think now that this is irrelevant.

Third, I am surprised by this:

Quote

He confides to EW that the people he consulted were not unanimous about this.

Sure, I might easily have said this, though I do not remember doing so. If there is any reason for doubt in a ruling I see no reason to hide it. However, I would tell both sides, not confide it to one side.

Quote

It's hard to see how the question could do other than indicate an interest in hearts.

Rightly or wrongly, neither I nor the people I consulted with thought that was what the question indicated, and we are surprised Gordon thinks this is the only reason. We believed that East was merely curious.

When the AC made their decision they asked me to explain to East the dangers of asking. I did: she misunderstood me: when she got a bad board the next day in a position where it was necessary to ask I got blamed.

Quote

oh  well then doesn't this law apply here? I guess it's next to impossible to prove that, what would you do as Director if South told you "me? for partner's benefit? I wouldn't lift even 1 finger for that idiot, lol" ?

I think it fairly safe to assume that clients do not ask questions to protect their pro partners.

Quote

It's hard to say not seeing North's hand, but imo E-W are probably the lowest of the low, lawyering to try to get a good score rather than playing bridge. It's just a game, folks.

Games are played to a set of rules, and because of the nature of bridge, with its strange communication between partners, UI is a problem. To ask for a ruling when UI has been passed [or apparently has been passed] between partners is very reasonable.

Quote

Did the TD ask North why he bid 4♥? If so, what was the reply? If not, the AC should ask this question.

Yes, he did, also why he bid 3♣. He said he bid 3♣ to get the correct lead against 4♠ which seemed a likely contract. Once they stopped in 3♠ he considered 4♥ obvious since they were limited. He understood that if partner was minimum she would have hearts.

Quote

Finally, you cannot say that someone who fails to bend over backwards to avoid a specific indicated call is innocent.

I can, if the player concerned considers there is no real alternative.

Quote

I might also ask South why he asked about the 2♥ bid, to try to establish whether this particular South is in the "always ask about alerted calls" category or the "only ask when thinking of bidding" category.

I think she just wanted to know.

[jeremy69]

Quote

West is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, East, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three.

Ok. Let me express it as East is experienced and has won a number of national titles including the Gold Cup and Crockford's. West may not have been known to you but was to others at the table and has played in, for example, the TGR league on occasion this season. In any event alleged quality is less important in this circumstance than prior experience of these positions which all players had in abundance.

Quote

Sure, I might easily have said this, though I do not remember doing so. If there is any reason for doubt in a ruling I see no reason to hide it. However, I would tell both sides, not confide it to one side.

You may well have said it to both sides but not at the same time and your manner was as if you hadn't or weren't going to but it was just an aside and mentioned only to indicate that there was some doubt about the ruling.

Quote

I think it fairly safe to assume that clients do not ask questions to protect their pro partners.

That would not be my experience and indeed during the weekend I had been the recipient of a professional telling me that he had to ask on occasion to do precisely this because some opponents were poor at explanation and whilst he understood what was going on his punter did not.

Quote

I think she just wanted to know.

Possibly but she is experienced enough to know of the potential problems that might result from this and also experienced enough to know that 2H good raise is hardly the rarest of methods amongst the players we all will have known.

Quote

We believed that East was merely curious.

Your naivete does you credit.

[bluejak]

To continue!

Quote

As North, I would know that South has no idea what is going on, and would find it impossible to ascribe any meaning to the question other than "South doesn't know what's going on".

Roughly what we thought.

The player who bid 4♥ was West. Several of the replies assume he was North!

Quote

blackshoe, on Jun 4 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

Even when you have AI that tells you the same thing as the UI tells you, you're still constrained by the UI.

I see the theoretical possibility, but do you have a practical case for this view?

Just apply the UI Laws. The AI affects what is an LA. Perhaps a silly example will make it clear.

You are wondering whether to bid 4♠ or 3NT. However, the auction suggests 3NT but it is a close decision. Partner whispers to his kibitzer "Obviously this is a no-trump hand" but unfortunately it is audible to the table. Since 4♠ is an LA you must choose it, even though the AI suggests 3NT.

Alternatively, you are wondering whether to bid 4♠ or 3NT. However, you realise that the auction means 3NT must be much better. Partner whispers to his kibitzer "Obviously this is a no-trump hand" but unfortunately it is audible to the table. Since 4♠ is not an LA because of the AI you may choose 3NT.

Quote

If I were North, I expect partner would like to hold 4c♥ suit almost all the time. In practice, double is the best call on many hands with 3 hearts, so I would only expect partner to hold 4+ hearts say 70% of the time.

But is it not true that it is greater than 70% when it is a minimum double?

Quote

RMB1, on Jun 6 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

I suspect that North did not think anything was suggested by South's question and I suspect that he was not aware that the EBU would treat such questions as passing UI.

North was also reluctant to ask questions about opponents' alerted calls

This is a surprising combination of behaviours: usually those who are reluctant to ask about opponents' alerted calls are those who think that asking might be treated as passing UI.

Maybe. But you are ascribing behaviour to someone not known to us who normally plays in another jurisdiction. As a person he was ... Let us say a little different from most English players. So far we have had this thread reasonably without naming the players so I shall not do so, but when we get there it would be interesting to hear jvage's or pran's opinion of the player [assuming he is Norwegian, as I was told].

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

Quote

West is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, East, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three.

Ok. Let me express it as East is experienced and has won a number of national titles including the Gold Cup and Crockford's. West may not have been known to you but was to others at the table and has played in, for example, the TGR league on occasion this season. In any event alleged quality is less important in this circumstance than prior experience of these positions which all players had in abundance.

That is your opinion. It may not be other people's, and I think it better to state the facts correctly even if you think a particular fact is irrelevant.

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

Quote

Sure, I might easily have said this, though I do not remember doing so. If there is any reason for doubt in a ruling I see no reason to hide it. However, I would tell both sides, not confide it to one side.

You may well have said it to both sides but not at the same time and your manner was as if you hadn't or weren't going to but it was just an aside and mentioned only to indicate that there was some doubt about the ruling.

This is confusing. If one side was told and not the other, how did this become known? When was my manner such that I was telling one side not the other?

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

Quote

I think it fairly safe to assume that clients do not ask questions to protect their pro partners.

That would not be my experience and indeed during the weekend I had been the recipient of a professional telling me that he had to ask on occasion to do precisely this because some opponents were poor at explanation and whilst he understood what was going on his punter did not.

I am surprised that you think clients protect their pro partners in this way, but certainly giving an example of the reverse, ie a pro protecting his client partner, is hardly convincing. Of course pros try to protect their clients.

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

Quote

We believed that East was merely curious.

Your naivete does you credit.

Either that or perhaps I am just correct.

[shyams]

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North. The posts and responses so far have assumed North has the shown hand and South asked the UI-generating question. Though it is possible that the hand was rotated for convenience (or any other reason) by jeremy while posting the original here, some of bluejak's comments suggest that he has mixed up directions.

So what was it? Is this correct:

bluejak, on Jun 7 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

North and South are excellent players. West is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, East, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three.

Or should it read "East and West are excellent players. North/South is not known to us, but is a Norwegian professional playing with a client. We can safely assume he is first class. However, South/North, the client, is certainly a notably poorer player than the other three"

bluejak, on Jun 7 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

Quote

As North, I would know that South has no idea what is going on, and would find it impossible to ascribe any meaning to the question other than "South doesn't know what's going on".

Roughly what we thought.

The player who bid 4♥ was West. Several of the replies assume he was North!

This also suggests the confusion of who is seated where. To reiterate, I think the OP shows that North bid 4♥

[campboy]

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 02:23 PM, said:

Ok. Let me express it as East is experienced and has won a number of national titles including the Gold Cup and Crockford's. West may not have been known to you but was to others at the table and has played in, for example, the TGR league on occasion this season. In any event alleged quality is less important in this circumstance than prior experience of these positions which all players had in abundance.

Ok, now I have enough information to work out who both players are

bluejak said:

The player who bid 4♥ was West. Several of the replies assume he was North!

We didn't assume; the first post said he was North.

[jeremy69]

Quote

That is your opinion. It may not be other people's, and I think it better to state the facts correctly even if you think a particular fact is irrelevant.

It is indeed my opinion and the point of sites like this is that people can express their opinion(subject, of course, to your approval!). In the context of the event all four players were very much above average and yes it maybe the case that one was not so much above as othe others(perhaps) but it was my opinion that this was not only irrelevant but confusing.

Quote

This is confusing. If one side was told and not the other, how did this become known?

In the blindingly obvious way. You remarked on this to me when one side was not present. I repeated it here. It maybe you also said this to the other side. I was not there if and when you did this but again I don't think it to be of any importance.

Quote

Either that or perhaps I am just correct.

I suppose it is possible.

Quote

I am surprised that you think clients protect their pro partners in this way, but certainly giving an example of the reverse, ie a pro protecting his client partner, is hardly convincing. Of course pros try to protect their clients.

Pros protect clients in the way I have described. (Some) Clients believe this is the right thing to do. Some do it so partner will better understand their problem. all reprehensible, of course but the way of thr real world.

Quote

So far we have had this thread reasonably without naming the players so I shall not do so, but when we get there it would be interesting to hear jvage's or pran's opinion of the player [assuming he is Norwegian, as I was told].

Anyone who must know can probably work it out from the list of names on the EBU results site(not many Norwegian names there!) however this problem is about the right thing to do not the opportunity to slag off one or more players. After all if we named names then JDeegan would know he was making his comment "imo E-W are probably the lowest of the low, lawyering to try to get a good score rather than playing bridge." about me. Hopefully my shoulders are broad enough to take it and htere is the consolation that I can go no lower.

Quote

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North.

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

[campboy]

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Quote

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North.

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

It may be that the original auction diagram was inadvertent, but it quite clearly says that West dealt, there were two passes and then East opened 1♠.

[jeremy69]

I shall need to get lessons on putting in an auction!

[bluejak]

campboy, on Jun 7 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Quote

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North.

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

It may be that the original auction diagram was inadvertent, but it quite clearly says that West dealt, there were two passes and then East opened 1♠.

... also the hand diagram shows the relevant hand as West. This is what confused me.

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Quote

That is your opinion. It may not be other people's, and I think it better to state the facts correctly even if you think a particular fact is irrelevant.

It is indeed my opinion and the point of sites like this is that people can express their opinion(subject, of course, to your approval!). In the context of the event all four players were very much above average and yes it maybe the case that one was not so much above as othe others(perhaps) but it was my opinion that this was not only irrelevant but confusing.

Of course you may give an opinion, but mis-stating facts because you think them irrelevant is hardly the same as giving an opinion.

jeremy69, on Jun 7 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Quote

I am surprised that you think clients protect their pro partners in this way, but certainly giving an example of the reverse, ie a pro protecting his client partner, is hardly convincing. Of course pros try to protect their clients.

Pros protect clients in the way I have described. (Some) Clients believe this is the right thing to do. Some do it so partner will better understand their problem. all reprehensible, of course but the way of thr real world.

No-one is arguing that pros protect their clients. But I said clients do not protect their pros in the same way and you disagreed, saying pros protect their clients. I then repeated that clients do not protect their pros in this way, and again you disagreed, saying pros protect their clients. Please read it.

[PeterAlan]

Quote

(From jeremy69 @ Jun 7 2010, 04:45 PM)

Quote

The OP shows this as a decision to be made by North. 

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3

Can we clear this one up? Actually, Jeremy, the text of the OP also explicitly says it was N who bid 3C and N who bid 4H, which agrees with the auction set out. Since I can identify the hand, and the hand records show the hand in the OP as held by N, let's work on the basis that your OP was correct, and that bluejack's and your subsequent references to E-W as the pair in question arose from a later erroneous transposition.

PeterAlan

[shyams]

Can you please clarify the directions again?

The 1st post reads: N/S Vul, Dealer West, Auction
West North East South
No No 1S x
2H(A) 3C 3S No
No 4H All pass
And goes on to add: "North bids 3C without asking about the alert. South asks about the alert of 2H at her next turn and is told that it shows a sound raise to 2S, typically 7-9 with a 3 card raise. North now bids 4H. This makes 10 tricks (It's either 10 or 11 depending on how you defend). 3S would make 9 tricks."

I don't care about spacings etc. But from this, it is 100% clear that the VUL side bid 4♥. And this side can only be N/S.

It does not matter if the actual appeal form had E/W Vul, Dealer South (i.e. the OS was actually sitting E/W). The OP has everything turned 90 degrees and that changes nothing. It's really confusing when suddenly the two law experts swing all directions in their minds and all subsequent replies...