[jmcw]

---

Before making his final pass, North asked about the 3♣ bid. East explained that he had failed to alert!. 3♣ showed both Majors a type of "Michaels". The director was called to the table before the final pass.

Play proceeded and 4♠ made. North recalled the director and claimed the failure to alert had damaged his side. adding that N/S would likely bid to 5♦ had they been aware of the meaning of 3♣ when it was made.

The director ruled "no damaged had been done to the non offending side" result stands, but an ave- would be assigned to E/W.

The ruling was appealed, a committed agreed with the director's ruling and no adjustment was made. The committee ruled N could have reasonably recovered by biddding 5♦ at his last turn, a notion N strongly disagreed with. South pointed out he was unaware of the huge ♦ fit. The failure had essentially robbed his partner from expressing the true nature of the fit.

Reviewing the results of the hand many N/S played a ♦ partial or 5♦, a contract N/S felt they would have bid under "normal" circumstances.

[campboy]

Well, the ruling is just illegal. There is no basis in law for giving one side an average-minus and the other the table result.

There was misinformation. Was there damage? Almost certainly: North will not bid 3NT if correctly informed, but will support diamonds. It is quite likely that N/S will reach 5♦. 3NT may be a poor bid in any case, but that is not the point; it is inconceivable if told 3♣ shows the majors.

However, why did West bid 4♥? Why did East bid 4♠? West can't use the information from partner's failure to alert, so might he have passed had he not known partner had forgotten the system? It probably doesn't matter for the purposes of our ruling, since West is likely to make 8 tricks in clubs and so 5♦= is better for N/S than 4♣x-2. While North is entitled to wake up and bid 4♠ he should tell opponents that 3♣ was alertable as soon as he realised, which was presumably before he bid 4♠. As TD, I would certainly remind him of his responsibilities.

[ggwhiz]

Wow, what a ruling!

I can easily make a case for 4♣ doubled -500 on a diamond lead and heart switch to pump the long trumps.

Whatever, East-West should be the ones appealing some ruling unfavorable to them and it should cost them the deposit.

East didn't "fail to alert" but obviously forgot and woke up due to blatant use of UI.

[bluejak]

Certainly a very poor ruling, since it ignores the UI and has no basis in Law. That is two entirely different criticisms. Of course the AC were also totally at fault, but they get some sympathy: ACs generally rely on TDs for the actual Law so it is understandable that they did not realise the ruling was illegal.

Let us consider the details.

First, as campboy and ggwhizz point out, the 4♥ was illegal, and is to be disallowed for an adjustment. Incredible that the TD and AC thought it acceptable to bid like this. There is no doubt that N/S were damaged by the 4♥ bid.

But why did the TD give E/W Ave-? What Law allows him to rule no damage then adjust?

I think I would send the TD back to Basic Director school.

[jmcw]

campboy, on 2011-April-21, 08:51, said:

Well, the ruling is just illegal. There is no basis in law for giving one side an average-minus and the other the table result.

There was misinformation. Was there damage? Almost certainly: North will not bid 3NT if correctly informed, but will support diamonds. It is quite likely that N/S will reach 5♦. 3NT may be a poor bid in any case, but that is not the point; it is inconceivable if told 3♣ shows the majors.

However, why did West bid 4♥? Why did East bid 4♠? West can't use the information from partner's failure to alert, so might he have passed had he not known partner had forgotten the system? It probably doesn't matter for the purposes of our ruling, since West is likely to make 8 tricks in clubs and so 5♦= is better for N/S than 4♣x-2. While North is entitled to wake up and bid 4♠ he should tell opponents that 3♣ was alertable as soon as he realised, which was presumably before he bid 4♠. As TD, I would certainly remind him of his responsibilities.

I was North and can add something here. 3NT was a "stab" that I thought had chances ( It was a matchpoint regional). If 3♣ had been alerted I would have a more difficult choice of bids. I explained to the director I may have called 3♥, or 3♠ (cueing to show ♦ support), but more likely would bid a straight forward 4♦, in either case my partner would know I had strong ♦ support, limited by my failure to open in 1st seat. Knowing this I think it quite likely he would compete to 5♦ regardless of what the opponents would do from here on in. This essentially, was the main reason I think damage was clear.

Your last point about the opps waking up was never addressed by the director, a clear omission in my view. Does not West have a responsibility to inform on the failure to alert?, and when East "woke up" should he not admit to his lapse of memory before calling 4♠? All of therse points were lost to the director and to the committee of "peers".

[AlexJonson]

I'd like to ask if it is the same situation:

1. When 4C comes back undoubled

2. When 4C comes back doubled

[Cascade]

In addition to any adverse ruling west should be penalized for deliberately taking advantage of the unauthorized information.

West has shown both majors and partner introduced clubs. Jx in excellent support for clubs in this context. Running to a ten-high suit can only be influenced by the unauthorized information and trying to take advantage of it.

[mycroft]

I too think that 4H was clear use of UI, especially with "good" support (given he's shown 10 major suit cards) for partner's clubs.
And who knows, partner might have woken up and bid spades (which he may not get to do now).

jmcw, on 2011-April-21, 10:16, said:

Your last point about the opps waking up was never addressed by the director, a clear omission in my view. Does not West have a responsibility to inform on the failure to alert?, and when East "woke up" should he not admit to his lapse of memory before calling 4♠? All of these points were lost to the director and to the committee of "peers".

West does indeed have a responsibility to inform the failure to Alert - before the opening lead, if his side declares, or after the hand, if his side defends. We haven't got there yet, so West did everything right from that standpoint.

When East "wakes up", he must call the TD and explain he misexplained. There is a good chance that East forgot until you asked; if so, he did everything right. If not, he didn't - but "nobody" knows that law, so it's not something that is obviously culpable. Evidence in the ruling? Of course.

I can literally not see anyone bidding 3NT with two open suits as opposed to one "stopped" suit.

It does seem odd, however, that this auction was allowed to die in 4S undoubled; partner hit 4C after all - 4S undoubled can't be either your best score or a good score. In that I agree with the TD. But it's not "just as easy" to get there after 4S than after 3C, and that's damage. Having said that, even if we believe that failure to reach 5D after this auction is a Serious Error, as everybody says, 4H seems trivially disallowable, and whatever score is available to 4Cx should at least be considered.

[nige1]

The good news is that most posters disagree with the director and committee and deem an EW appeal meritless.
The bad news is that, again, the director, the appellants and the committee don't understand the laws.
Unless, of course, EW altruistically appealed what they knew to be an unfair and illegal ruling.

[jmcw]

mycroft, on 2011-April-21, 14:08, said:

I can literally not see anyone bidding 3NT with two open suits as opposed to one "stopped" suit.

South has opened the bidding and seemingly has most of his points in the Majors (if 3♣ had been natural)

It does seem odd, however, that this auction was allowed to die in 4S undoubled; partner hit 4C after all - 4S undoubled can't be either your best score or a good score. In that I agree with the TD. But it's not "just as easy" to get there after 4S than after 3C, and that's damage. Having said that, even if we believe that failure to reach 5D after this auction is a Serious Error, as everybody says, 4H seems trivially disallowable, and whatever score is available to 4Cx should at least be considered.

Are you seriously suggesting N shud call 5♦?. on this auction. Remember both N and S are under the impression that E/W had ♣. N/S have been deprived of bidding their hands in a natural manner due to the failure to alert!. If it seems odd to you perhaps that might be proof enough that the "failure" has caused a serious damage to N/S methods.

P P 1♦ 3♣
4♦ 4♠ 5♦ AP

With proper information I think this a possible auction. Others, no doubt may occur to you.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2011-April-21, 13:35, said:

In addition to any adverse ruling west should be penalized for deliberately taking advantage of the unauthorized information.

West has shown both majors and partner introduced clubs. Jx in excellent support for clubs in this context. Running to a ten-high suit can only be influenced by the unauthorized information and trying to take advantage of it.

How could could partner's clubs be if he didn't open 1♣ or 3♣?

Is this a case where you have to ignore the likely AI, because the UI confirms it?

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-April-23, 05:33, said:

How could could partner's clubs be if he didn't open 1♣ or 3♣?

Oh, I don't know. How about:

---

I have run into lots of players who seem to think it a mortal sin to pre-empt with a side four-card major.

barmar, on 2011-April-23, 05:33, said:

Is this a case where you have to ignore the likely AI, because the UI confirms it?

No, because that is not the approach of either ethical players or of TDs. The UI Laws refer to not taking certain choices in the presence of UI from partner, the AI affects what those choices are.

[campboy]

bluejak, on 2011-April-23, 08:45, said:

Oh, I don't know. How about:

---

I have run into lots of players who seem to think it a mortal sin to pre-empt with a side four-card major.

Partner may well pass initially with that hand, but won't he just bid spades when we show 5-5 in the majors?

[bluejak]

True. Ok, switch the spades and diamonds: some people think any four-card suit is enough.

The main point is that my experience of many opponents and many years is that the idea a player cannot have something because of a failure to open is just wrong.

[mycroft]

Quote

Are you seriously suggesting N should call 5♦? on this auction.

No, but I can see how you could read it that way (I phrased myself badly there). I tried to avoid answering that question, myself; but said that *if* we consider failure to get to 5♦ on this auction was a Serious Error (which would remove that part of the damage from the recompense), then they should at least get the score in 4♣x - and if that's -500 into the cold -600, well, that's what one is ruling when one says that even with the infraction, not bidding 5♦ is a Serious Error.

If one doesn't believe that failing to get to 5♦ anyway was a Serious Error, then we look at the MI and whether the correct information would make it likely to get there. If 4♣x would have gone long-distance or toll-free, then we ignore the MI (because there was no damage from it), and simply rule that the 4♥ pull was influenced by the UI over the Logical pass, and give the score in 4♣x. The point is, that we look at all parts of the case.

Still not going to attempt to answer the TD's question of whether failing to get to 5♦ in the auction at the table was a Serious Error removing relief to the non-offending side.