[Adobe BC]

The table result was making 5. The double dummy analysis has ♦ making 4, and North making 3♠. The 3♥ bid was alerted, and explained as a splinter, which was the agreement. EW contend that UI was used, and request an adjusted score. South states, when asked by the Director (after the hand was over), that he had intended to bid 2 rather than 3 ♥. Fsst Arrival applies to North's ♠ rebid. What is your ruling?

---

[blackshoe]

1. What jurisdiction?
2. Why did South not attempt to change 3♥ to 2♥, if the latter was the intended bid?
3. What were the meanings of 4NT and 5♦?

[ahydra]

Pass of 5D looks terribly fishy. 4NT (I'm guessing it's some sort of RKCB with 5D = 0 or 3) surely agrees spades.

If this was a high-level tournament, poor/gambling defence to 5D could be ruled SEWoG (eg underleading CA, not taking the SK - and probably cashing the CA out of nowhere AND failing to set up the heart trick counts too). 5D seems to be off on any sensible defence.

On the other hand, if it was a high-level tournament chances are South would know he can correct his misbid, unless he was very much asleep (missing the alert) in which case he deserves the 5S-2 (I don't think W has a double). Also interesting that your Deep Finesse shows the results for NS in spades - the hand records for tournaments I go to only seem to analyse 6-card or better fits.

ahydra

[iviehoff]

ahydra, on 2011-April-07, 17:36, said:

if it was a high-level tournament chances are South would know he can correct his misbid,

Er, I hope he would know he can't. He can correct a mispull, not a misbid. If he was aware he was bidding 3H at the time he bid 3H, then he may not correct it. The phrase "I didn't intend to bid 3H" covers both possibilities, either a miscalculation woken up to, or a mispull. (edit for clarity) We cannot conclude, simply because the word "intend" looks correct in colloquial meaning, that the bid was "unintended" in the legal sense.

But even if it was a mispull, he may not have realised it in time to correct it, or simply thought to long about it on spotting it.

But we do actually need to know whether it was a misbid or an uncorrected mispull to rule here. If a player has UI that he has misbid, he is assumed to have learned it from that UI, even if in fact he woke up to it himself. With the alert presumably arriving rather quickly, he probably learned it first from the UI anyway. In this case, he must carry on thinking he has shown hearts, not agreed spades. But if it was an uncorrected mispull, then he is allowed to know he accidentally agreed spades, and do what he can in the auction to land in the right place.

I doubt letting 5D through is legally SEWOG, even at high level, unless we can be shown a truly horrendous decision the defender made, one that looked like deliberately allowing the contract make when cashing tricks to take it down were in plain sight.

[gnasher]

The South hand doesn't look like a game-force - it looks like a reverse with an extra jack. If South says he pulled out the wrong bidding card, I believe him. (But I believe in believing people.)

Suppose that we accept that South made a mechanical error that he couldn't or didn't correct, and that he is fully aware that 3♥ shows shortage. If he was first made aware of the error by his partner's alert, is he allowed to try to recover from the error, or is he prevented from doing so by Law 73?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2011-April-08, 02:50, said:

The South hand doesn't look like a game-force - it looks like a reverse with an extra jack. If South says he pulled out the wrong bidding card, I believe him. (But I believe in believing people.)

Suppose that we accept that South made a mechanical error that he couldn't or didn't correct, and that he is fully aware that 3♥ shows shortage. If he was first made aware of the error by his partner's alert, is he allowed to try to recover from the error, or is he prevented from doing so by Law 73?

Frankly, this should be one of the easier "problems" for a director.

On looking at South's hand (after end of play!) it should be obviouos that whatever South did, his intention was to show a strong hand with 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts. So the 3♥ bid (technically a Splinter) was definitely unintended as such, and the UI from the (unexpected) alert just told South that he had misbid, not that he had misunderstood or forgotten agreements.

It may be argued that reaching a 5♦ contract through a Blackwood sequence rather than by attempting to bid 5♦ directly over 4♠ was a consequence of receiving the UI ("how would North now understand the 5♦ bid?), and this argument cannot be ignored. But unless the director rules that bidding 4NT itself was a violation of Law 16B he has no reason for any adjustment of the final table result.

Incidentally: what are North/South's agreements on answers to 4NT (assuming that 4NT is some kind of Blackwood - what else)?

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-April-08, 02:50, said:

Suppose that we accept that South made a mechanical error that he couldn't or didn't correct, and that he is fully aware that 3♥ shows shortage. If he was first made aware of the error by his partner's alert, is he allowed to try to recover from the error, or is he prevented from doing so by Law 73?

There was a lengthy thread about this topic a few months ago.

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-April-08, 03:10, said:

On looking at South's hand (after end of play!) it should be obviouos that whatever South did, his intention was to show a strong hand with 5+ diamonds and 4 hearts. So the 3♥ bid (technically a Splinter) was definitely unintended as such, and the UI from the (unexpected) alert just told South that he had misbid, not that he had misunderstood or forgotten agreements.

No it isn't easy, because it isn't clear whether it is a mispull or a misbid, they are different in law and consequence.

Since there is no claim of psyche, he clearly "intended" to show his hand. But your use here of "unintended" is colloquial, not legal. Assuming no mispull, if he bid 3H because he temporarily thought that was the bid with this hand, then 3H was not "unintended" within the meaning of the law. And it does mean precisely that he had temporarily misunderstood his agreement, because the temporary state of his brain produced a calculation that 3H rather than 2H was the correct bid. That is exactly a temporary misunderstanding. Finding his bid is surprisingly alerted, if this is not an uncorrected mispull, he is constrained to continue thinking that he has actually shown his hand until something else makes that an untenable thought.

[VixTD]

I agree with Iviehoff that South could have been thinking he was showing this kind of hand when he bid 3♥, so he cannot use the information that North thinks he has spade support.

I do wonder if it's right to adjust to 5♠-2, though. Why did South bid 4NT? If he really thinks his hand is worth a slam try opposite a shut-out 4♠ bid (perhaps being over-ethical), why did he pass 5♦? Did he change his mind? Did he bid it because he guessed North's reply might be 5♦, which he could risk passing? If so, could the combination of Blackwood-then-pass-the-response be considered as a single action used to get him out of trouble, which is suggested over pass by the UI. In that case, should we be adjusting to 4♠-1?

[hotShot]

Let us assume that South can not see his earlier bids and that he did not hear his partners explanation.

He has to act thinking his partner understood that he is 5-5 in the red suits.
What kind of hand would North 1♠ and 4♠ (with a jump!) bids show?

A weak or intermediate hand with a 7+ card ♠ suit? (Without that ♠ seems to be the wrong contract)?
A slam try in ♥ e.g. ♥ support with ♠ and ♣ controls?
...

If it's the slam try , 4NT seems automatic and if 5♦ would not show enough controls (2 of 5 missing and trump Q) South should be allowed to end the auction.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-April-08, 04:00, said:

No it isn't easy, because it isn't clear whether it is a mispull or a misbid, they are different in law and consequence.

Since there is no claim of psyche, he clearly "intended" to show his hand. But your use here of "unintended" is colloquial, not legal. Assuming no mispull, if he bid 3H because he temporarily thought that was the bid with this hand, then 3H was not "unintended" within the meaning of the law. And it does mean precisely that he had temporarily misunderstood his agreement, because the temporary state of his brain produced a calculation that 3H rather than 2H was the correct bid. That is exactly a temporary misunderstanding. Finding his bid is surprisingly alerted, if this is not an uncorrected mispull, he is constrained to continue thinking that he has actually shown his hand until something else makes that an untenable thought.

The fact that South has shown spade support and few hearts is unauthorized information to South. He is obliged to continue his auction based on his actual hand and not on what partner believes he has.

So the only (logical) alternatives for South after the 4♠ bid are in my opinion:
1: PASS if he believes partner has a long, shaggy spade suit and little else (since he bid 4♠ and did not invite to slam),
2: 5♦ if he believes that a contract below slam in diamonds or hearts is the best prospect,
3: 4NT if he wants to explore the slam possibilities, and finally
4: 4NT if he realizes that a wheel has come off the cart, as a fair attempt to prevent the auction from continuing too far, hoping for an answer in 5♦ or 5♥ to which he can pass.

I cannot see how any of the alternatives 1 - 3 could be suggested over another from the unexpected alert and explanation (which at this time is the only existing UI). However, alternative 4 could be suggested by this UI. If we rule Law 16B on this basis we must adjust the contract back to 4S with whatever number of tricks that will give. In that case PASS is the only logical alternative available to South when we deny him the 4NT attempt.

[campboy]

hotShot, on 2011-April-08, 07:35, said:

Let us assume that South can not see his earlier bids and that he did not hear his partners explanation.

Why? He can see his earlier bids, and they are authorised. So if, when he bid 3♥, he thought he was pulling the 2♥ card then he is entitled to use the information that he pulled the wrong card. On the other hand, if he bid 3♥ believing that it showed hearts then he is not entitled to use the information that it doesn't.

In other words, I agree with Iviehoff

[ahydra]

iviehoff - sorry, mispull is what I meant when I said "misbid". Well, I meant whichever one means pulling the wrong card out of the box and, in this case, not realising it.

[barmar]

Isn't it a total gamble whether partner's response to Blackwood will land them in a better spot? He could be going from the frying pan of a 5-1 fit at the 4 level to the fire of a 5-1 fit at the 5 level. In this case, the gamble paid off when his partner's RKC response landed them in their best fit, and then the opponents misdefended; he was lucky they were playing 1430 rather than 3014.

Does the UI really demonstrably suggest that this gamble has a decent chance of success? The UI suggests that partner has wasted values in hearts,

[campboy]

barmar, on 2011-April-09, 01:55, said:

Isn't it a total gamble whether partner's response to Blackwood will land them in a better spot? He could be going from the frying pan of a 5-1 fit at the 4 level to the fire of a 5-1 fit at the 5 level. In this case, the gamble paid off when his partner's RKC response landed them in their best fit, and then the opponents misdefended; he was lucky they were playing 1430 rather than 3014.

Does the UI really demonstrably suggest that this gamble has a decent chance of success? The UI suggests that partner has wasted values in hearts,

Even if you think that 4NT is legal, once you get a 5♦ response the UI suggests pass over 5♠.

[hotShot]

campboy, on 2011-April-09, 06:41, said:

Even if you think that 4NT is legal, once you get a 5♦ response the UI suggests pass over 5♠.

Are you sure?
Would not 5♠ promise 2 keycards with or without the trump Q depending on agreement?
And 2 keycards should be enough to bid the ♥ slam or are you thinking about a ♠ contract?

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that I've had this happen: I've made an unintended call, LHO has called, partner, while placing his call on the table (using bidding boxes) says belatedly "oh, I should alert that", and I look down and realize — too late, because partner's call is already out there — that I've made an unintended call. I wonder if that may have happened here. Probably not, since it wasn't in the OP. OTOH, neither were the answers to the three questions I asked upthread, and I still don't have those.

[campboy]

hotShot, on 2011-April-09, 08:00, said:

Are you sure?
Would not 5♠ promise 2 keycards with or without the trump Q depending on agreement?
And 2 keycards should be enough to bid the ♥ slam or are you thinking about a ♠ contract?

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. South bid Blackwood and got a 5♦ response. Spades have been agreed as trumps. Bidding 5♠ now is a normal action and will end the auction. South has UI suggesting they may not actually have a spade fit, thus suggesting 5♦ might be a better contract than 5♠.

[blackshoe]

No, South has UI suggesting that North thinks they have a spade fit. South can see his own hand perfectly well, so he knows that he has only 1 spade.

I suppose it's remotely possible that North has seven spades, so that South's singleton is no big deal, but I think that's pretty unlikely.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-09, 09:54, said:

I suppose it's remotely possible that North has seven spades, so that South's singleton is no big deal, but I think that's pretty unlikely.

I would have thought seven is the most likely number of spades for this auction, if 3♥ had been natural.