[fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com]

Hi,

Interesting ruling from Karnataka state (like sectionals/regionals in US)
selection trials where I was director:

Bidding

NS Vul, Bidding proceeds:

N E S W
1N P 2♣ P
2♦ P 3♣*? P
3♦ P 3N All Pass

The event was played with screens. When the tray came to N-E side after South's 3C bid, East asked meaning
of 3♣ bid. North initially said it showed ♣. Subsequently he said it might also show both majors and asking
him to choose. North also told East that they were playing 4 suit transfers, hence he wasn't very sure of meaning
of 3♣ bid. East called director before lead and indicated he wanted to protect his rights since explanation was ambiguous.
North told director that he is not very sure whether South's 3♣ showed clubs or artificial showing both majors?

Play

East held ♠96, ♥J8, ♦7542, ♣QJT54 and chose to
lead ♠9. Dummy came down with ♠JT753, ♥AT76, ♦KT, ♣76.
Declarer played ♠T from dummy, covered by West with ♠Q and won with ♠A.
Declarer now played ♠2 and played ♠J from dummy won by West with ♠K.
West now played ♣8 which won trick and continued with ♣9. East overtook ♣9
with ♣T and continued with ♣Q. Declarer played ♦3 to ♦K and continued
with ♠7 losing to ♠8 with West. When West continued with ♥K, declarer claimed 9 tricks.
Declarer held ♠A2, ♥543, ♦AQJ63, ♣A32. West held ♠KQ84, ♥KQ92,
♦98, ♣K98.

Director's enquiry

Director checked with N-S pair. N-S pair is not regular pair and they had rudimentary convention card w/o detailed notes.
South had explained to West that 3C is artificial (repeat stayman) asking East to explain his hand further (detailed
written notes not available).

As I director, I felt following questions were relevant to this case for right ruling:

a) As a defender was East right to call the director immediately (before opening lead) or should he have informed North of protecting
his rights and call director at the end of deal?
b) Before East's lead, it was fairly clear at the table that North wasn't sure of meaning of South's bid. Does rules
allow director to check with South immediately and inform East of right explanation of South's bid so that non-offending
side is not damaged at all.
c) North's expln was not consistent with South's expln. Since N-S pair didn't have CC, is this clearly case of mistaken explanation
and not mistaken bid?
d) Even with ambiguity of North's explanation, was East's lead of ♠9 from ♠96, ♥J8, ♦7542, ♣QJT54
very speculative or is there is some justification?
e) After winning SK at trick 2, West played ♣8 followed by ♣9 both ducked by declarer. Now ♥ shift will defeat the
contract by setting up atleast 1 trick in the suit before declarer can set-up spades. How much does this mis-defense affect
E-W's chances of getting any redress on the deal?

I felt based on answers to (a) to (e), I had 3 ruling options

a) Let table result stand (if it is clear E-W contributed solely for their poor result) and give Procedural penalty to N-S
for nebulous explanation/lack of detailed CC?
b) Give weighted ruling (say 60-40 in favor of NS) for both sides (if it is felt East's lead was not wild or gambling
given the ambiguous explanation, it is clear that with right explanation East is odds on to lead CQ which would
have given no chance for declarer and at the same time penalize E-W appropriately for their mis-defense)
c) Give split ruling (say 3n making for E-W and 3n 1 down for N-S) for both sides (if it is felt E-W deserved their
bad score for their lead and subsequent mis-defense and at the same time N-S don't deserve their good score
for their ambiguous explanation and not keeping CC upto-date)

In my view, on introspection I gave wrong ruling at the table. Please revert with your views on above questions and
final ruling on case. Additionally could the director have anything better in his investigation?


Rgds,
RV (BBO ID: RV)

[mrdct]

---

I'm inclined to view West's ♣9 as a SEWoG, but I don't really want to let North off the hook for what is quite clearly a misexplanation. I think let the table result stand as it's largely self-inflicted by East-West but slap a procedural penalty on North-South for the mis-explanation.

[nige1]

IMO, on the given facts, there seems to have been misinformation. Given the correct explanation, without prevarication, the defence would be less likely to err. The defensive error was not serious enough for the director to classify it as SEWOG. IMO, There was damage that the director should rectify

[WellSpyder]

fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com, on 2011-June-09, 03:31, said:

b) Before East's lead, it was fairly clear at the table that North wasn't sure of meaning of South's bid. Does rules
allow director to check with South immediately and inform East of right explanation of South's bid so that non-offending
side is not damaged at all.

This strikes me as an important question. I would expect a TD in this position at least to check whether South thinks (or thought!) NS have an agreement as to the meaning of his bid. If so, the TD can ask S to provide the correct explanation.

This is easier without screens since South will have a duty to correct an incorrect explanation before the opening lead, but even with screens I would expect the TD to give South a chance to sort this out once the TD becomes aware of the pontential MI.

[mrdct]

WellSpyder, on 2011-June-09, 08:48, said:

I would expect a TD in this position at least to check whether South thinks (or thought!) NS have an agreement as to the meaning of his bid. If so, the TD can ask S to provide the correct explanation.

It would be subject to local regulation of course, but under WBF rules and any other screen regulations I've every seen it is expressly prohibited for there to be communication accross the screen regarding the auction and explanations until the completion of play of the hand:

Quote

At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made.

Having slept on this hand, I think SEWoG is a bit harsh and I'm now thinking that East was 99.99% sure to lead the ♣Q if he hadn't been misinformed and the defence can't really go wrong after that. So I'm going to rule 3NTN-1.

[bluejak]

Yes, I am with mrdct - both comments.

One question: Karnataka? Which country?

[fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com]

Hi,

Karnataka is state in India (southern part of India) similar to
Queensland or NSW in Oz and, Texas, Florida or California in US. You
could compare this event to sectionals/regionals in the US.
The winning team from this event will represent Karnataka in
Indian inter-state nationals later this year.

A few questions based on responses so far:

a) Though director was called to the table before opening lead,
is it correct that as per laws he could not check with South and inform
East of the right explanation to prevent any infraction? If yes,
should it be a recommendation for future laws change?

b) Before the lead, East was aware that North is not sure of explanation
since he corrected his original explanation of South showing ♣
to fairly nebulous statement of "it could show ♣ or both majors
asking him to pick one". In this context, does it weaken East's case
for unfortunate lead? Would East's case be a lot stronger if North
had plainly informed "South 3♣ shows ♣s" in which case it
would be clear that East has been clearly misinformed?

c) Even with the right explanation, "is it absolutely clear
that this particular East would lead ♣Q with no entry to his hand
especially after North has denied 4M"? Does the panel here feel
that irrespective of unfortunate lead and subsequent mis-defense,
E-W are still entitled to nearly full redress?

d) Finally would your ruling be any different if N-S really didn't
have any agreement on this as per CC and South has either forgotten
or assumed partner will work out meaning of 3♣? In this context,
would it be a case of mistaken bid by South and not mistaken expln?

Rgds,
RV

[mrdct]

fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com, on 2011-June-09, 20:14, said:

a) Though director was called to the table before opening lead, is it correct that as per laws he could not check with South and inform East of the right explanation to prevent any infraction? If yes, should it be a recommendation for future laws change?

Correct. The director should not inform East of the differing explanations until after the completion of the play. Moreover, the director should probably remind West to be careful about inferring anything from East's director call and anything he might have heard from the other side of the screen. The rules for screens are governed by regulation not laws, so the tournament organisers are free to adopt whatever regulations they like, but I wouldn't advocate doing anything different to the quite sensible WBF Screen Regulations. The rights of the non-offenders are fully protected and the benefit of any doubts as to facts and what may or may not have occured without the infraction will generally be resolved in favour of the non-offenders. If there was a requirement to have differing explanations cross-checked on every hand, it would slow things tremendously where screens already take a little bit of extra time.

fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com, on 2011-June-09, 20:14, said:

b) Before the lead, East was aware that North is not sure of explanation since he corrected his original explanation of South showing ♣ to fairly nebulous statement of "it could show ♣ or both majors asking him to pick one". In this context, does it weaken East's case for unfortunate lead? Would East's case be a lot stronger if North had plainly informed "South 3♣ shows ♣s" in which case it would be clear that East has been clearly misinformed?

Law 84D requires directors to rule on doubtful points in favour of the non-offenders. The explanation given at the table certainly appears to have influenced East's lead selection, but his case would be stronger if the explanation was limited to just ♣s.

fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com, on 2011-June-09, 20:14, said:

c) Even with the right explanation, "is it absolutely clear that this particular East would lead ♣Q with no entry to his hand especially after North has denied 4M"? Does the panel here feel that irrespective of unfortunate lead and subsequent mis-defense, E-W are still entitled to nearly full redress?

It's hard to say as I don't know the player concerned, but I think with an explanation of 3♣ is both Majors, a ♣ lead is obvious. I think that in the absence of the misexplanation, East-West would not have been in a position to misdefend and the misdefence whilst being a fairly poor effort isn't so bad as to be considered a SEWoG.

fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com, on 2011-June-09, 20:14, said:

d) Finally would your ruling be any different if N-S really didn't have any agreement on this as per CC and South has either forgotten or assumed partner will work out meaning of 3♣? In this context, would it be a case of mistaken bid by South and not mistaken expln?

Under Law 21B1(b) where there is a question about whether something is a misbid or misexplanation, the presumption is misexplanation unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise. So in this scenario, the presumption would be mis-explanation. As an aside, had North described 3♣ as "undiscussed" or "no agreement" he would be in much better shape. The message is that when asked about a bid don't speculate - just tell it like it is or as best you can recall.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-June-09, 18:39, said:

One question: Karnataka? Which country?

Wikipedia says South West India

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2011-June-10, 04:22, said:

Wikipedia says South West India

Yes - between Goa & Kerala. A bit less touristy than either. I spent New Year there 18 months ago.

[bluejak]

I should like to visit India - to play bridge, of course. But where? Perhaps I must wait for an invitation. <very subtle hint>

I also agree with mrdct's next post - all comments. Saves writing my own!

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-June-10, 07:03, said:

I should like to visit India - to play bridge, of course.

I'm sure you would find the railway interesting too.

[bluejak]

Oooh yes!

My idea for Seattle in the Fall is to fly to Seattle, and back from Chicago. Guess how I intend to go from Seattle to Chicago!

[blackshoe]

Via India?

[fake_user+rv@forums.bridgebase.com]

Hi,

Recently Ton Kooijman was here in Chennai, India
on the occasion of BFAME (CTD and director's seminar
as part of Zone 4 champs). Hence, David may need to wait
a little longer to be officially invited:)

A few final thoughts on this deal from my side:

a) Incidentally on further analyses of deal, if defense starts with
3 rounds of clubs, declarer can actually get home. After cashing 5 ♦
tricks, in a 5 card ending where dummy holds ♠JTX, ♥AT and declarer
holds ♠ AX, ♥XXX, West is strip squeezed (even if
he unblocks a heart honor) and declarer can always get a second ♥
or ♠ trick if he reads ending correctly. Defense needs to switch to ♥ after
2 rounds of ♣ to legitimately defeat this contract. Since
defense did not find this switch even after 2 rounds of spades
and 2 rounds of clubs (consequently after getting more information
about declarer's hand), can we safely assume they wouldn't find
the ♥ switch at trick 3. Does this fact affect ruling anyway?

b) There has been some debate in the Indian bridge community that
director should be allowed to ask North to step-aside if required,
check with South and inform East about right meaning of 3♣ bid if it is part
of their detailed notes/discussion (say North has forgotten sys).
This forum clearly is of the opinion that this is not accepted practice
as per WBF screen guidelines. Is it ever possible in any other
situation for a player to be asked to leave table and for director to
get right information from his partner across screen or is it only possible
without screens? Does it make sense to allow this even with screens
(rule change?) with slight delay in play to ensure actual result is
based on actions at table. Additionally this could potentially avoid
plenty of further delays in director ruling and AC deliberations.

c) A suggestion from Indian bridge community, As a director, I was
asked to document exact reason stated by East at the table for
redress so that in case deal goes to AC, E-W won't
come up with perfect/better defense after consulting others or
having more time to analyse hand. I believe this is a practice followed
by directors in western world so that non-offending side don't get
undeserving redress.

d) Would N-S get full redress if 3♣ is actually natural as per
their CC and North has actually misbid his hand?

This will be last post on this deal from my side. A big thanks to
Dave, David and others for responding with their erudite views.

Rgds,
RV

[helene_t]

bluejak, on 2011-June-10, 07:03, said:

I should like to visit India - to play bridge, of course. But where? Perhaps I must wait for an invitation. <very subtle hint>

I also agree with mrdct's next post - all comments. Saves writing my own!

Shogi and I went to Mumbai for the Tolani grand prix and it is an excellent tournament with a strong field and incredible value for money. The catering is by far the best I have ever experienced at a bridge event. The price/fee ratio is attractive, too.

But the Indian nationals should be very good, too.

[bluejak]

Please can I go back to have a fully working forum <wail>.

If the explanation was correct and 3♣ was a misbid then there is no reason to adjust.

Some TDs think it reasonable to ask the players what they would do at the time. Notably, ACBL TDs used to [and probably still do] in MI situations and one TD argues to do so here.

However, the general view seems to be that it disrupts play unnecessarily. Certainly asking for a ruling has already disrupted play but the TD should not extend it to ask such questions. Afterwards a player might have more ideas but rulings are not based on what would have happened without an infraction but what might and it is unfair to hold a player to single view expressed at a time when he has other things on his mind anyway.

[blackshoe]

I've split off the discussion of browser problems and moved it here.