[Cascade]

mrdct, on 2011-June-07, 06:35, said:

It's interesting that his ruling was "no damage" rather than "no infraction". I would've asked the TD to elaborate on his ruling to confirm what "facts" he has managed to establish.

If the facts are as Wayne outlined, I think north is the culprit not south. Nobody has managed as yet to come up with a hand for north which is consistent with anything other than a weak two in ♠. The top-heavy 6-6 in the reds is closer to a game-force than a weak two.

I don't think it is necessary to come up with a hand. Players make bad bids often. Some of those are in auctions where it is impossible to come up with a hand consistent with the bidding that would make the given call.

Mistake earlier inconsistent call now.

The problem is if you don't think there is a weak two in hearts consistent with 4♠ now whether you think the mistake is that partner has told you the wrong major on their second call or whether the mistake was at their first call or their last call.

Its easy to say afterwards that this is an obvious correction but is there really no reason why the mistake couldn't be opening a hand unsuitable for a weak two or having a rush of blood to the head and making a move after partner has signed off?

[mgoetze]

Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 06:50, said:

The south player actually took a long time to pass 4♠ and said she was deciding whether her partner had made a mistake or was trying to show an exceptional weak two. From that it appears for this player there were logical alternatives to pass.

First of all, deciding this prerequisite question does not yet mean that any specific alternatives to pass were being considered. Secondly, even if they were considered, that is not enough to make them an LA. See Law 16B1(b).

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 06:50, said:

Multiquote works for me. I am running IE8.

So it did for me. But it is IE9 that is **** **** ****

[gordontd]

Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 05:26, said:

That seems harsh.

Who did he say that to?

He said it to his opponents

Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 05:26, said:

While the question might be misguided it seems a natural sort of question to ask.

It doesn't seem to me a natural sort of question to ask. My opponents had a different impression of what happened than I did. Why would I think they are accusing me of lying? And how could I think I could ask such a question in that kind of way without causing offence?

[blackshoe]

Tone is important. "Are you calling me a liar?" is usually asked in a tone indicating a desire to start a fight. Such a question should almost always incur a disciplinary penalty.

[RMB1]

I assume this was a UI ruling?
I may have missed it up-thread, but what was the UI?

[nige1]

1eyedjack, on 2011-June-06, 08:16, said:

5N "Pick a slam" (and hopefully not GSF!). With a bit of luck we will go one or two off in our trump fit instead of about 6 off opposite a void. And on a good day it might actually make.

This seems to cater for all possibilities.

[nige1]

Cascade, on 2011-June-06, 13:09, said:

Some more information. Written bidding was used. The pair are a long time partnership who have many times represented the region at the National Interprovincial Championships. South claims she has never seen north cue-bid in this auction. North's 4♠ bid was made with special emphasis - with haste move forward write the bid and move back. I was sitting east and it was obvious to me that north was correcting an error.

Whatever the director rules about South's action, North's behaviour deserves a penalty, even if opponents weren't damaged.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

I am not sure who you are making judgement about - north or south.

I meant North. If North makes a face or comments concerning his 4♠bid and Soiuth acts on the UI then there maybe an adjusted score and possibly South will pick up a penalty if it is a gross use of the UI but to give UI by making a face or noise espeically when there has been a misunderstanding is a hanging offence in my view.

[piratepete]

mrdct, on 2011-June-07, 06:35, said:

Nobody has managed as yet to come up with a hand for north which is consistent with anything other than a weak two in ♠.

OK, I'll bite.

This is obviously impossible if 2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦/♥/♠ are different types of asking bid with cheap responses, as in my methods, but if you don't have any system over 3♣ to work out what opener's actually got...

I would probably open this 2♦ in most positions:
♠Kx
♥QJTxxx
♦Kxxx
♣x

Now partner has shown at least a game-try opposite either major. Three key-cards including ♥A give you a chance, and four usually have play. Not wise, but possible.

I probably wouldn't open 2♦ on:
♠x
♥QJTxxx
♦x
♣KQxxx

But some people might, and now a slam try's looking nearly plausible.

[Cascade]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-June-07, 17:12, said:

I meant North. If North makes a face or comments concerning his 4♠bid and Soiuth acts on the UI then there maybe an adjusted score and possibly South will pick up a penalty if it is a gross use of the UI but to give UI by making a face or noise espeically when there has been a misunderstanding is a hanging offence in my view.

I am interested in this.

Are there jurisdictions where penalties are given regularly when a player gives UI?

[gordontd]

piratepete, on 2011-June-08, 11:48, said:

OK, I'll bite.

This is obviously impossible if 2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦/♥/♠ are different types of asking bid with cheap responses, as in my methods, but if you don't have any system over 3♣ to work out what opener's actually got...

I would probably open this 2♦ in most positions:
♠Kx
♥QJTxxx
♦Kxxx
♣x

Now partner has shown at least a game-try opposite either major. Three key-cards including ♥A give you a chance, and four usually have play. Not wise, but possible.

I probably wouldn't open 2♦ on:
♠x
♥QJTxxx
♦x
♣KQxxx

But some people might, and now a slam try's looking nearly plausible.

If partner wanted my opinion, he might have asked for it

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2011-June-07, 08:07, said:

I assume this was a UI ruling?
I may have missed it up-thread, but what was the UI?

Cascade, on 2011-June-06, 13:09, said:

Some more information.

Written bidding was used.

The pair are a long time partnership who have many times represented the region at the National Interprovincial Championships.

South claims she has never seen north cue-bid in this auction.

North's 4♠ bid was made with special emphasis - with haste move forward write the bid and move back.

I was sitting east and it was obvious to me that north was correcting an error.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2011-June-06, 15:31, said:

If I had a partner who thinks it's sensible to bid 4S on this in that auction, I might as well bid 7NT because I wouldn't have much interest in continuing the partnership.

In these circumstances, I think 7♦ would be a more appropriate bid to make than 7NT. Surely you want partner to declare the silly final contract!

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2011-June-08, 14:01, said:

If partner wanted my opinion, he might have asked for it

Depends, when I played a multi, we played 2♦-2N-3♣-3♦ as a re-ask, so partner has shown a hand that is happy to bid game opposite a "bad good weak 2" ie he has shown extras, but not good enough to try for slam opposite a "good good" one. If I have an exceptionally good weak 2, that might be enough to think that the 5 level is safe and slam is quite likely. Some pairs will downgrade say K765432 of hearts and not open 3 at this vul, but this is now a cracking holding when partner bids 4♥, if I had opened 2♦ with xx, K765432, KQx, x i'd certainly have another go.

[mrdct]

Cascade, on 2011-June-08, 13:54, said:

I am interested in this.

Are there jurisdictions where penalties are given regularly when a player gives UI?

Planet Earth would be one of them.

In this case, however, the basis for the procedural penalty is better referenced to Laws 73A2 and 73B1 (Appropriate Communication between Partners and Inappropriate Communication between Partners)

[mrdct]

Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 06:50, said:

The south player actually took a long time to pass 4♠ and said she was deciding whether her partner had made a mistake or was trying to show an exceptional weak two. From that it appears for this player there were logical alternatives to pass.

This is information that further exonerates South.

She is allegedly in position of UI in the form of North's mannerisms and haste, but she also has a substantial amount of AI in the form of the 4♠ bid itself. She clearly thought it through thoroughly and reached the sensible conclusion that her partner must have made a mistake and actually holds a ♠ suit. It seems that if there was some stray UI floating around, South bent over backwards to avoid using it. She should probably be nominated for an ethics award.

[Trinidad]

mrdct, on 2011-June-07, 06:35, said:

Cascade, on 2011-June-07, 05:23, said:

When the floor director came back to me he said that there was no adjustment because there was no damage and that was the sum total of his ruling.

It's interesting that his ruling was "no damage" rather than "no infraction". I would've asked the TD to elaborate on his ruling to confirm what "facts" he has managed to establish.

I don't think that the TD ruled that there had been "no infraction". I think the TD ruled that the question whether there was an infraction wasn't relevant anymore, since there was no damage and thus no reason to adjust. In addition the TD ruled (whether consciously or not) that there was "no infraction that was so flagrant that it needed a penalty". (see also Bad Wolf's post below)

Rik

Bad_Wolf, on 2011-June-06, 23:41, said:

As it happens I was directing in another room and was consulted on this ruling. Certainly I considered possible logical alternatives to pass and what might happen afterwards. It was my judgement that west will likely insist on spades at every turn, and it is possible that we would have considered 5s-1 had there been only 10 tricks available, but there was always 12.

[1eyedjack]

nige1, on 2011-June-07, 10:30, said:

1eyedjack, on 2011-June-06, 08:16, said:

5N "Pick a slam" (and hopefully not GSF!). With a bit of luck we will go one or two off in our trump fit instead of about 6 off opposite a void. And on a good day it might actually make.

This seems to cater for all possibilities.

The result (6S making) would exceed my expectations. But would the result be allowed to stand, given that apparently there is no LA to Pass (of 4S)?