[Gerben42]

IMPs, German 3rd league.
EDIT Screens were in use.

---

Table result: 5♥X-3

E/W call TD because East got the incorrect explanation. With the correct explanation, the 5♦ cuebid would not be available and East would
Pass. The TD tosses it out because he rules 5♦ as irrational, wild or gambling.

E/W appeal, and it's yours...

[RMB1]

Gerben42, on 2011-February-17, 13:06, said:

E/W appeal, and it's yours...

[pompous]
As a member of the appeals committee, I ask the TD where (the german translation of) "irrational, wild or gambling" occurs in the Laws. Then I would point out that a similar phrase appears in Law 12c1b, but that law does not stop the score for the offending side from being adjusted.
[/pompous]

Then we need to sort out what the EW agreement is: I do not accept the statement "East got the incorrect explanation" without further investigation. If 4NT can be any two suits, how does advancer act, and how does 4NT bidder then show his suits? Have they ever bid (4♥)-4NT with spades and a minor?

We might find that East was given the correct explanation and would still bid 5♦, but West has been misinformed. With the correct explanation, West might bid 5♠ (North still doubles) and if this scores any better than 5♥X then an adjustment (for both sides) would be in order.

We might find that East was not given the correct explanation and would not have bid 5♦ with the correct explanation. I agree with the TD that 5♦ was wild or gambling and adjust the score to the result in 5♣, for NS only. EW keep their table score (since their damage was due entirely to the SEWoG action).

We might find that the correct explanation is no agreement "usually the minors but we have not discussed whether it might be a stronger two-suiter with spades and a minor" or "no agreement: general bridge knowledge tells us that advancer will usually bid a minor, to play". With such an explanation, East might still bid 5♦ expecting West to be able to work it out. We might then adjust to a proportion of the result in 5♣ and a proportion of the result of East bidding 5♦, again for NS only. EW would again keep their table score.

[Gerben42]

On the other hand if West got "both minors" as explanation he certainly would have doubled.

Bidding 5♦ with the explanation "both minors but could be with ♠ also, I doubt that many would dare to bid 5♦ thinking "partner will be able to work it out".

[aguahombre]

RMB1+1, except his post is much more objective and even-handed than mine would have been.

"Have they ever bid (4♥)-4NT with spades and a minor?" Indeed. I would be annoyed with South for throwing doubt upon his own bid. The likelihood that "any two suits" is their actual agreement (possibly spades and a minor over 4H) is somewhere between nil and "huh?" This fact alone would taint my objectivity.

[bluejak]

You do not go into every case. With my regular partner I have an agreement that in situations where 2NT or 4NT is competitive it shows two unnamed suits. In practice when it is over hearts the two suits are normally the minors [on one occasion she bid 4NT with spades and clubs]. So our actual agreement over 4♥ based on discussion and experience is that 4NT shows any two suits which are nearly always the minors.

Incidentally, I worked out my response to the OP and was a little annoyed to find that Robin's "pompous" reply said exactly what I was going to!

This is an appeal. First we ask the DIC to tell us the legal basis for the actual ruling: that will perhaps get the point across that it is time the TD took his Law book out of its nice warm nest and opened it.

Then we consider what would have happened with a correct explanation: to do that we have to find out what the correct explanation was. If N > E was correct then result stands since South's bidding was not affected by the UI. If S > W was correct, East might have bid 5♦ anyway, presuming it was really the minors: he might have doubled: he might have passed because he could not find a safe bid/double. Of course his 5♦ bid was certainly wild, and certainly gambling, so it is SEWoG.

How about [if S > W was correct]:

For N/S:
. 20% of 5♥x -3, NS +500
+ 40% of 5♣ -1, NS -100
+ 40% of 5♣x -1, NS -200

For E/W:
Table result stands

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-February-18, 07:39, said:

If N > E was correct then result stands since South's bidding was not affected by the UI.

I presume you mean East's bidding, and MI, but even so I disagree. I think that the correct explanation would be "usually minors over 4H, but any two-suiter over 4S". But unless North-South have asked someone like jallerton to complete their convention card immaculately in 9 point, I expect they will struggle to provide evidence that either explanation was correct, and the director will assume MI, particularly from South to West. With the correct explanation, West will double, and will double the run to 5C. East will not save with two aces and the final contract will be 5Cx which I think is only one off. I do not think there is any real need for a weighted score, but would consult before concluding that.

[bluejak]

Funnily enough, Paul, when I say South's bidding I mean South's bidding. We do not adjust the offenders' bidding for MI unless we also adjust the non-offenders.

As to you knowing I was wrong when I said "assuming N > E was correct" I did not know you were one of the players at the table. Otherwise how do you know my assumption is incorrect?

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-February-18, 07:39, said:

Then we consider what would have happened with a correct explanation: to do that we have to find out what the correct explanation was. If N > E was correct then result stands since South's bidding was not affected by the UI. If S > W was correct, East might have bid 5♦ anyway, presuming it was really the minors: he might have doubled: he might have passed because he could not find a safe bid/double. Of course his 5♦ bid was certainly wild, and certainly gambling, so it is SEWoG.

How about [if S > W was correct]:

For N/S:
. 20% of 5♥x -3, NS +500
+ 40% of 5♣ -1, NS -100
+ 40% of 5♣x -1, NS -200

For E/W:
Table result stands

I'm a bit confused about this. I was under the impression that in such cases the offending side were assigned "the normal consequence of their infraction". If the normal consequence of their infraction involves East bidding 5♦ (or 5♥) 20% of the time, is it consistent to judge the 5♦ bid as "certainly wild, and certainly gambling"?

[whereagles]

Please, East already took his flight of fancy by opening 4♥. His 5♦ is pushing luck way too far, regardless of whatever explanations he got. Result stands.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 09:05, said:

Funnily enough, Paul, when I say South's bidding I mean South's bidding. We do not adjust the offenders' bidding for MI unless we also adjust the non-offenders.

As to you knowing I was wrong when I said "assuming N > E was correct" I did not know you were one of the players at the table. Otherwise how do you know my assumption is incorrect?

OK then I am afraid I do not understand your post at all (perhaps you should team up with jallerton on a book), so I will start afresh. According to the OP, when I hover over 4NT, I am told that South told West that 4NT was any two suits. North told East that it was both minors. I think that the correct explanation would be "usually minors over 4H, but any two-suiter over 4S". But unless North-South have asked someone like jallerton to complete their convention card immaculately in 9 point, I expect they will struggle to provide evidence that either explanation was correct, and the director will assume MI, particularly from South to West. With the correct explanation, West will double, and will double the run to 5C. East will not save with two aces and the final contract will be 5Cx which I think is only one off. I do not think there is any real need for a weighted score, but would consult before concluding that.

And I realise we still have to consider punishing E/W for the 5D bid as it was subsequent to the infraction. Actually, it is not so clear. Assuming both sides have been told that 4NT is minors, partner has not doubled 4NT, and yet is seems likely that he has length in the minors. North does not have an opening bid, so at these colours I would assess 5D as short of SEWOG. But I would poll some peers of East to find out. The 5D bid would have to be markedly worse than bad bridge, and I would describe it as "creative". If Zia made the bid, we would not be classifying it as SEWOG.

[bluejak]

That is a perfectly good post, giving a completely different point from mine. So why criticise my post in the way you did? I said if AAA then BBB and you said that does not follow because you know AAA to be untrue.

It does follow, and you do not know AAA to be untrue.

I have no idea what the crack about me and Jeffrey is about, and if you are going to write replies without reading what you are replying to, why does that make my posts suitable for teaming up with Jeffrey?

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 14:16, said:

That is a perfectly good post, giving a completely different point from mine. So why criticise my post in the way you did? I said if AAA then BBB and you said that does not follow because you know AAA to be untrue.

It does follow, and you do not know AAA to be untrue.

I have no idea what the crack about me and Jeffrey is about, and if you are going to write replies without reading what you are replying to, why does that make my posts suitable for teaming up with Jeffrey?

The sentence which made no sense at all to me was "If N > E was correct then result stands since South's bidding was not affected by the UI." Firstly I am not aware of any UI on the hand. The only claim by the opponents was of MI. Secondly the conclusion that South's bidding is not affected by the UI seems like a non-sequitur. I thought the auction might have been rotated in some way and then corrected. It is E/W who are claiming MI, so your post is nonsense. DBurn suggested that one of jallerton's claims was nonsense. I jokingly therefore suggested you team up ... I apologise if I offended you.

[bluejak]

It did not offend me: it just seemed a waste of time. Yes, I did write UI when I meant MI.

I still do not understand why you assume that what North said to East is wrong. Lots of people play that: I certainly do with most of my partners. Yet you say we must not assume it to be correct because you seem to know it is not.

Assume for a moment that this pair do play it that way, which I actually believe to be the most common way to play it: how can we adjust the score?

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-February-19, 13:02, said:

I'm a bit confused about this. I was under the impression that in such cases the offending side were assigned "the normal consequence of their infraction". If the normal consequence of their infraction involves East bidding 5♦ (or 5♥) 20% of the time, is it consistent to judge the 5♦ bid as "certainly wild, and certainly gambling"?

If East makes a wild or gambling bid, or, as here, wild and gambling, he loses the consequence of his bid. The percentage likelihood of his making the bid is irrelevant for Law 12C1B.

For the offending side we look at what happens without the MI. But that does not mean without the wild or gambling bid if we think they might make such a bid anyway some of the time.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 15:14, said:

It did not offend me: it just seemed a waste of time. Yes, I did write UI when I meant MI.

I still do not understand why you assume that what North said to East is wrong. Lots of people play that: I certainly do with most of my partners. Yet you say we must not assume it to be correct because you seem to know it is not.

Assume for a moment that this pair do play it that way, which I actually believe to be the most common way to play it: how can we adjust the score?

I did not assume for a moment that what North said to East was wrong; in fact I think it is the more likely method that they were playing. And I did not write that. I wrote: "I presume you mean East's bidding, and MI, but even so I disagree." Well, we have agreed that I guessed you meant MI, but you were adamant that you meant South's bidding. That means you wrote: "If N > E was correct then result stands since South's bidding was not affected by the MI." (after correcting UI to MI). In other words, "if North's explanation of South's 4NT as being both minors was correct, then you would not adjust because South's bidding was not affected by the MI." If that is not gobbledygook, what is?

I suggest you follow your own advice, and "[don't] write replies without reading what you are replying to".

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 13:15, said:

And I realise we still have to consider punishing E/W for the 5D bid as it was subsequent to the infraction.

Yeah. 50 lashes with a wet noodle.

Look, NS committed an infraction. Later, EW did something that may have been a serious error, or wild, or gambling (SEWoG). Ordinarily, we would rectify the infraction without worrying about what EW did. But if they shot themselves in the foot through a SEWoG, then they don't get redress for the damage they did to themselves. That's not punishment, that's justice.

You might as well claim that if you drive your car over a cliff, you're entitled to compensation from the manufacturer because the damn thing didn't fly.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-19, 16:26, said:

But if they shot themselves in the foot through a SEWoG, then they don't get redress for the damage they did to themselves. That's not punishment, that's justice.

I fully agree. I am arguing that it is not a SEWOG. Give partner something like KQxx Kx xxxx xxx and 6S will probably make.

[blackshoe]

It was the idea that the lack of redress for a SEWoG is "punishment" to which I objected - but I suppose you could argue that it is punishment, if there was no SEWoG. But that seems an unlikely circumstance.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-19, 16:47, said:

It was the idea that the lack of redress for a SEWoG is "punishment" to which I objected - but I suppose you could argue that it is punishment, if there was no SEWoG. But that seems an unlikely circumstance.

I wrote: "And I realise we still have to consider punishing E/W for the 5D bid as it was subsequent to the infraction". "Denying redress to E/W for any part of the gain/loss caused by the SEWOG" would have been a better wording, but what I wrote seems clear enough. It was E/W who committed the possible SEWOG, not N/S. Am I reading the hand diagram wrongly, as both your and bluejak's recent comments don't seem to add up?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 16:58, said:

I wrote: "And I realise we still have to consider punishing E/W for the 5D bid as it was subsequent to the infraction". "Denying redress to E/W for any part of the gain/loss caused by the SEWOG" would have been a better wording, but what I wrote seems clear enough. It was E/W who committed the possible SEWOG, not N/S. Am I reading the hand diagram wrongly, as both your and bluejak's recent comments don't seem to add up?

What you wrote seemed to me to pretty clearly indicate that you believe that denying a pair redress for a SEWoG action is "punishment". If you do not believe that, you should not have used the verb "to punish". That is all I was addressing. I probably got the NS and EW in the particular case mixed up, and if so I apologize. But the point was, again, that denying redress to someone because they committed a serious error, or took a wild or gambling action, is not "punishment" whoever that someone is.