[Free]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-19, 11:01, said:

OK, it is of course an impossible bid given that East holds AK of diamonds... that makes this more difficult.

Actually this makes it easy, because opener didn't make use of UI if there was any. 4♦ is an impossible bid, so he must have forgotten the transfer agreement and found a way out.

[paulg]

Free, on 2010-November-22, 07:47, said:

Actually this makes it easy, because opener didn't make use of UI if there was any. 4♦ is an impossible bid, so he must have forgotten the transfer agreement and found a way out.

All those who believe that 4♦ is an impossible bid must play in clubs with much higher standards than any that I've played in throughout the UK.

[VixTD]

I think West has probably bid 2♦ in the full knowledge that it's a transfer, but not knowing what else to do with this hand (can't pass, can't bid higher number of diamonds because the hand is weak). I've seen this sort of thing happen before. I think it should be ruled as a fielded misbid and adjusted to +/- 3IMPs.

Had I been the director I would have acceeded to North's request for a ruling and adjusted the score. I think the director was wrong not to do so, North's original comments notwithstanding.

Quote

[Bluejak]For an appeal you only really need three reasonable players, one who will follow instructions as to checking the Law with the TD. But if this proves impossible phone an EBU Referee - or me!

Quote

I asked this because I was interested to know how other clubs handle this sort of thing. I'll bet not one club in ten is lucky enough to have three players who are confident enough and willing to do this on a normal club night. (Anyone who was suitable was probably consulted when the original ruling was given.) Our club does have appeals procedures which would normally involve contacting an EBU referee (not you, of course, Bluejak - directors give rulings, referees review them - or did I misunderstand you, were you offering to find me a referee?)

In my experience club players tend to lose interest as soon as you start reaching for forms to send off to third parties and delaying the posting of the scores, even if it's for a serious club competition. Maybe that shows they're not really bothered, or maybe they just like to grumble about injustice. I think this North was experienced enough to know he could have appealed the ruling, but I do regret not prompting him to appeal.

[bluejak]

In clubs I have played in there are always a few reasonable players willing to sit on an appeal if you assure them they do not need to know the Laws.

The long time rule from the EBU L&EC is that EBU TDs are not permitted to sit on ACs with certain exceptions. Currently I am the only exception because of my appeals experience for the WBF and in Wales, Sweden, Eire, Scotland, Iceland, South Africa and the ACBL. I am a WBU Referee, was Chairman of appeals in Iceland and am on the ACBL NABC Appeals Committee. I expect to be sitting on ACBL appeals next week.

So I think you can always use me if necessary.

[Free]

paulg, on 2010-November-22, 08:22, said:

All those who believe that 4♦ is an impossible bid must play in clubs with much higher standards than any that I've played in throughout the UK.

Responder already showed a GF hand with 5+♥ and 4+♦. Opener showed a ♥ fit (unless you have some fancy meaning for 3♠) so you can start cuebidding. 4♦ would show a control. But because opener holds ♦AK this is an impossible bid. Is it really that advanced to start cuebids once you set a Major suit fit at 3-level?

Making it more advanced: it could be LTTC since ♥ is trumps. But what hand has slam ambition without a single control in any side suit missing the ♥Q? Seems also impossible.

The only possibility is 5-5, but that's the first time I'd hear someone wasting an entire level of cuebids to show 1 extra card when a fit is already set. Sorry, but I don't buy this argument.

[FrancesHinden]

All this discussion about what 4D "ought" to mean is irrelevant, because obviously EW have never discussed the delicate inferences from this sort of auction.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-20, 12:47, said:

If West had no business bidding 3♦, how do they get to 3♥?

By West bidding 3♦. There are two separate infractions; if I am adjusting the score because of one of them then law 12 says I adjust based on what might have happened without that infraction, not what might have happened without either infraction. So I could legally adjust because of the first infraction or because of the second infraction; since the second is better for NOS I do that.

[blackshoe]

I'm not at all sure that's legal. You have an infraction (the 3♦ bid). Law 81C3 requires you to deal with it. I don't see how you can base an adjustment on allowing a bid which was based on UI.

[campboy]

The rectification for the 3♦ bid is adjusting the score based on what would have happened had East passed at that point. The rectification for the 4♦ bid is adjusting the score based on what would have happened had East passed at that point. You can't do both.

It would, of course, be ridiculous if what I suggest was illegal (although that doesn't by itself mean it isn't!). Consider what could have happened. West* illegally bids 3♦, hoping East will pass. Sadly, it doesn't work; East bids 3♥. "Now I'm in a worse place than I was before," thinks West. "Aha! If I bid 4♦ now, partner is bound to get the message, and if the TD tries to adjust the score I'll tell him he has to roll it all the way back to 2♥."

*A hypothetical West, of course. I do not in any way intend to suggest that the player at the table was deliberately unethical.

[bluejak]

If there is no damage we do not adjust.

If the adjustment for 4♦ gets the non-offenders a better score than an adjustment for 3♦ then there is no reason to adjust for 3♦ since there is no damage.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Why? Partnership experience is not UI.

Isn't partner's propensity to forget agreements information which you should not take into account when making your decisions?

[RMB1]

jeremy69, on 2010-November-24, 02:44, said:

Isn't partner's propensity to forget agreements information which you should not take into account when making your decisions?

It is information available to you before you start the hand so it is authorised (Law 16A1(d)).

Law 40A1 says partnership understanding may be reached implicitly by mutual experience or awareness. Partner forgetting an explicit agreement is mutual experience which creates an implicit agreement. Such implicit agreements should be disclosed.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2010-November-24, 04:14, said:

Law 40A1 says partnership understanding may be reached implicitly by mutual experience or awareness. Partner forgetting an explicit agreement is mutual experience which creates an implicit agreement. Such implicit agreements should be disclosed.

Suppose for a moment that the "either/or" nature of the hand created by such an implicit agreement is not a permitted agreement. Does that mean that every time you make such a bid that partner is liable to forget you are using an illegal agreement and the score should be adjusted accordingly?

[cloa513]

South should have bid with that hand before the 2D or after the transfer whether or not it was hearts or diamonds. South's failure to bid is simply poor judgement- The MI is irrelevant.